Dear Kathryn, Why take the time to state your views? I presume the same reason that I have taken the time to state mine.
First it is strange how the "Austrian School", as currently defined in Alabama on the site you mention, fits in here? ----but you make a point that things happen when money is involved. Certainly, also, it is money which guides resource planning and land use planning as you advocate such. But with government involved and a type of "committee representation" of the true interests at work, how can you conclude that the result is somehow socially justified. Obviously that is your "leap of faith" made by socially hopeful advocates of STATE monopoly planning over what you refer to as "unrestrained capitalism." <"Currently, it seems to me that they tend to be made on the philosophy of unrestrained capitalism."> And this is the difference between "true liberalism" or what is now called libertarianism, and STATE directed allocations of scarce resources. And the STATE follows the dictates of the FEW influential rather than the multitudes who "vote with their wallets.." But when we speak of laws and restrictions and policing powers and the ignoring of old rights such as land rights, where does this process end? I would expect you would like to hold other "property rights" inviolable? --I mean intellectual property rights? But, if the multitudes are to be advantaged--why not make all those rights "public" as well? Why not make all the U of Wisconsin patents public? Consistency--consistency, what a taskmaster. It is truly possible that the libertarians are now "the silent majority" with the rise of Ron Paul. Eric Westhagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Some of my thoughts. > > Part 1. > > Transportation planning is part of land use planning. > > Transportation planning is planning for highways, roads, multi-use paths, and > other such routes for motor vehicles, human-powered vehicles, boats (forgive > any overlap with the previous two categories), pedestrians, trains, airplanes > and transport animals. > > The majority of transportation planning here in the U.S. focuses on > transportation routes for motor vehicles. > > The government (federal, state, local) plays the major role in transportation > planning in the U.S. (Perhaps that is not how it should be, but that's how it > is.) > > The government does not make its decisions free of philosophy. No one does. > Therefore, it is perfectly right (in my opinion) to openly identify the > philosophy on which one is basing one's decisions. Transportation decisions > can be made based on a variety of philosophies: libertariansm, Marxism, > neoliberalism, neoconservativism, Buddhism, Smart Growth. Currently, it seems > to me that they tend to be made on the philosophy of unrestrained capitalism. > I would prefer Smart Growth to that. (There. Now you know that I am not an > adherent of the Austrian School of economics. http://www.mises.org/) > > Is Smart Growth a Soviet-style concept? I would not be inclined to think so, > given that its principles were not applied in the Soviet Union. Is it > anti-democratic? That depends how you define democracy. According to how I > understand democracy (which includes treating the needs -- as opposed to > greeds -- of everyone equally), I don't think so. But others may have another > understanding of democracy. > > Part 2. > > Lobbyists influence decisions made by the government. The automobile > industry, the oil industry, the road construction lobby (including WTBA, more > below) and AAA are powerful transportation lobbies with lots of money to > spend on this activity. More money than the bike fed has. > > WTBA stands for "Wisconsin Transportation Business Assocation." Scroll down > to the bottom of the page on www.wtba.org and you will see the name in full. > For a general description of its lobbying activities, see > http://www.wtba.org/wimadasn/doc.nsf/doc/about_index.cm > > It is unclear whether BFW would qualify to join WTBA. It would hinge on > whether WTBA deemed BFW a "transportation consultant." (See > http://www.wtba.org/wimadasn/doc.nsf/doc/join_index.cm) If you are a member > of BFW, perhaps you could request that the board explore this option. > > Part 3. > > Since most Americans are not libertarians (I am not saying this is good or > bad, just that it is so), I think you're going to have a hard time convincing > them that there is something inherently wrong about a non-profit accepting > contracts from the government for consulting work that helps the government > carry out its duties/responsibilities/mandates in a cost-efficient manner. > The public has largely accepted transportation planning as a government > responsibility. (Again, I am not saying this is good or bad.) Therefore, the > BFW acting as a contractor to provide expertise in a certain branch of > transport is not likely to rile many people up. Especially since there are > for-profit entities who get a lot more money in government contracting fees > and have a lot more influence on policy. > > Part 4. > > Why did I spend all this time writing this? > > Kathryn > > ---- Eric Westhagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Group and Matt Logan, > > > > Certainly Matt Logan does have points. But his direction might not be > > effective. When he says: > > > > "Making Wisconsin > > A Better Place to Bicycle. > > * We believe that through bicycling we can create a better world for our > > > > children and ourselves. " > > > > ---Good, so far. . . . > > > > But then he gets into soviet-styled land use planning. ("Smart Growth") > > And then he suggests that the transportation lobby is active in regional > > planning also. > > > > I went to his link and couldn't even figure out what the letters WTBA > > stood for. One would assume that if they represent transportation > > infrastructure construction and have been around since the 1930s, that > > they are well entrenched as a political reality and tilt toward where > > the money is. > > > > But also, is they have all the clout, the BFW would seem to be no match > > for them and their political influence. So, isn't it logical for bike > > people to join them? From the inside, the BFW can throw around what > > they do have--votes. > > > > But if the BFW aims to be effective for the goal of Making Wisconsin A > > BETTER PLACE TO BICYCLE, it should be understood that their strength > > comes from their votes, not getting "money consulting contracts" or > > other self aggrandizement. And if they are to attract the state's > > complete bicycle community and not just a group bent on "social change, > > climate change, and STATE mandated land use planning", they should > > stick to Matt Logan's first mentioned goal and approach the primary > > "transportation money" lobby as becoming an influential "partner." > > > > Eric Westhagen > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bikies mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
