Dear Torrey, Yes, I agree that is silly. I oppose the oil tax and such divvy for the scraps as might be battled as an "economist", though. I feel that is my field and I oppose "excess profits taxation" which I presume this hypothetical would be? ANY bicycle money MIGHT corrupt government and build empires. And if such funding IS a reality, I also am thankful if their ARE WATCHDOGS.
Eric Westhagen Torrey wrote: > Eric, > > It is just silly to suggest a tax on oil companies will result in over > regulation, when other tax sources have not. There is no logical reason for > your fear. Actually, it is the bike activists/advocates that keep government > sane. > > Torrey > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Eric Westhagen > > Subject: Re: [Bikies] Money for Cycling > > Sent: 17 Feb '07 03:33 > > > > Dear Matt, > > > [snip] > > > > If, say 1% became the standard mandate, would the money enhance cycling or > > regulate it. Would then only certain less traveled roads be "DECLARED BY > > LAW' as the preferred bicycle routes and posted as bicycle friendly at the > > exclusion of all other roads? Probably any infrastructure would benefit > > some bicycle segment--such as the development of old rail right-a-ways. > > But > > soon there would be speed controls to benefit children on bike paths as > > well as certain country roads relegated to bicycles. Regulation always > > begins with good intentions and grows from that point into an Orwellian > > nightmare. Why should this innocuous 1% also follow the same fate? > [snip] _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
