Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Problem: You live in a Libertarian state and desperately need a new highway between cities. How do you obtain the right of way?
Problem #2: You have a Libertarian school system. Strictly pay as you go. Of course this system is very efficient and we will say it is no more expensive than our local Catholic school. They use many unpaid nuns as teachers and administrators.
This school still costs about $3500 per year per student in grades 2 - 8
How could a family with three kids, making 40 grand a year, afford this?
Libertarians have this vast, though relatively simple, platform. They explain their philosophy with ease and precision but there is a reason this (non) governing scheme has never been used.............anywhere, anytime.
Let's take a simple problem and apply a Libertarian solution.
Problem: You live in a Libertarian state and desperately need a new highway between cities. How do you obtain the right of way?
Only Libertarians need answer.
Libertarians are the ultimate elitists. They rarely if ever have more than single-digit support, but they brush that off with the attitude that that is only because most people aren't as enlightened as they are.
The Obama administration has really enhanced the numbers and promoted an interest in the Libertarian Party, through the Tea Party movement. Anxious to see how today goes in four states....
Wrong again. Since Obama was nominated, the RW media has hammered away on everything he and the Democratic controlled Congress have offered, and the deposed Republican Party has chosen to not participate in goverance, using tactics focused first and only on their return to power.
Using emotion and the tools of the populist - divide the people, instill fear in the people and use hate filled rhetoric ("Marxist!", etc.) - the RW Fringe has made a mockery of our democratic institutions.
None may call it treason, but I do.
...hmmmm...let me guess, you steal the land from the owners and build the stinking highway so more government employees can commute with ease from the 'burbs into their air-conditioned, paper-pushing makework 'job'..
...oh sorry, that would be how you don't-even-know-what-a-dollar-is-republicrat-parrots do things!..
...the rest of you, have a good day!..
That is probably the first of many stupid answers.
Actually, it was used in America for more than 150 years.Libertarians have this vast, though relatively simple, platform. They explain their philosophy with ease and precision but there is a reason this (non) governing scheme has never been used.............anywhere, anytime.
Myth #1: Busted.
You obtain right-of-way by declaring it and paying the landowners just compensation (the 5th Amendment mentions something about this)....We're libertarians, not anarchists.Problem: You live in a Libertarian state and desperately need a new highway between cities. How do you obtain the right of way?
Only Libertarians need answer.
Myth #2: Busted.
Actually, it was used in America for more than 150 years.Libertarians have this vast, though relatively simple, platform. They explain their philosophy with ease and precision but there is a reason this (non) governing scheme has never been used.............anywhere, anytime.
Myth #1: Busted.
You obtain right-of-way by declaring it and paying the landowners just compensation (the 5th Amendment mentions something about this)....We're libertarians, not anarchists.Problem: You live in a Libertarian state and desperately need a new highway between cities. How do you obtain the right of way?
Only Libertarians need answer.
Myth #2: Busted.
Except there's that pesky little consideration of what to do if the landowner just says no. Right now in Vermont, the public utility responsible for power transmission, and the lines and towers that support it, can't get certain property owners in outlying areas to sell a right-of-way regardless of the amount offered. But of course they're also the same ones (residents of bedroom communities) who scream the loudest when there's a power failure, often due to aging and crumbling poles and towers.
Problem #2: You have a Libertarian school system. Strictly pay as you go. Of course this system is very efficient and we will say it is no more expensive than our local Catholic school. They use many unpaid nuns as teachers and administrators.
This school still costs about $3500 per year per student in grades 2 - 8
How could a family with three kids, making 40 grand a year, afford this?
This is the conversation that people who believe in personal responsibility have:
"You know, wife, I want to have kids but i only want the best education possible for them."
"I agree, husband. Let's have 3 adorable little rug rats and make sure they have the best education money can buy"
"But Wife, We only make 40K a year so that would be impossible"
"Well then, Husband, maybe we should only have as many kids as we can afford to send to the best schools"
"I agree, Wife. How many is that?"
"Well Husband, I think we could afford to send one rug rat to a really good school so let's just have one kid"
Imagine that.
Actually, it was used in America for more than 150 years.
Myth #1: Busted.
You obtain right-of-way by declaring it and paying the landowners just compensation (the 5th Amendment mentions something about this)....We're libertarians, not anarchists.
Myth #2: Busted.
Except there's that pesky little consideration of what to do if the landowner just says no. Right now in Vermont, the public utility responsible for power transmission, and the lines and towers that support it, can't get certain property owners in outlying areas to sell a right-of-way regardless of the amount offered. But of course they're also the same ones (residents of bedroom communities) who scream the loudest when there's a power failure, often due to aging and crumbling poles and towers.
The landowner has the right to refuse to sell their property. If they say no then you come up with another idea, offer more money, or give up.
Except there's that pesky little consideration of what to do if the landowner just says no. Right now in Vermont, the public utility responsible for power transmission, and the lines and towers that support it, can't get certain property owners in outlying areas to sell a right-of-way regardless of the amount offered. But of course they're also the same ones (residents of bedroom communities) who scream the loudest when there's a power failure, often due to aging and crumbling poles and towers.
The landowner has the right to refuse to sell their property. If they say no then you come up with another idea, offer more money, or give up.
In the specific situation, the matter has been tied up in litigation for over three years, costing both the state and the landowners big bucks. And for what? Just so some rich hobby farmer can get his name in the paper and espouse his "libertarian" principles?
The power company NEEDS to expand the line because of all the new developments that have sprouted up in the last 30 years. Those homes and businesses need their lights on. What is the option?
Another similar situation occurred several years ago in Grand Isle County near the northern shores of Lake Champlain where the power company needed to expand the infrastructure to bring in power from Hydro Quebec. But the shoreline property owners complained so loudly that it finally wound up that the EXISTING lines were made to come down and all the lines buried, which cost a fortune. And guess who ultimately paid the price so that those property owners didn't have their lake views obstructed? The rest of us.
Except there's that pesky little consideration of what to do if the landowner just says no. Right now in Vermont, the public utility responsible for power transmission, and the lines and towers that support it, can't get certain property owners in outlying areas to sell a right-of-way regardless of the amount offered. But of course they're also the same ones (residents of bedroom communities) who scream the loudest when there's a power failure, often due to aging and crumbling poles and towers.
The landowner has the right to refuse to sell their property. If they say no then you come up with another idea, offer more money, or give up.
In the specific situation, the matter has been tied up in litigation for over three years, costing both the state and the landowners big bucks. And for what? Just so some rich hobby farmer can get his name in the paper and espouse his "libertarian" principles?
The power company NEEDS to expand the line because of all the new developments that have sprouted up in the last 30 years. Those homes and businesses need their lights on. What is the option?
Another similar situation occurred several years ago in Grand Isle County near the northern shores of Lake Champlain where the power company needed to expand the infrastructure to bring in power from Hydro Quebec. But the shoreline property owners complained so loudly that it finally wound up that the EXISTING lines were made to come down and all the lines buried, which cost a fortune. And guess who ultimately paid the price so that those property owners didn't have their lake views obstructed? The rest of us.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Get the government out of the energy business and the taxpayers won't have to pay for it.
Another similar situation occurred several years ago in Grand Isle County near the northern shores of Lake Champlain where the power company needed to expand the infrastructure to bring in power from Hydro Quebec. But the shoreline property owners complained so loudly that it finally wound up that the EXISTING lines were made to come down and all the lines buried, which cost a fortune. And guess who ultimately paid the price so that those property owners didn't have their lake views obstructed? The rest of us.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Get the government out of the energy business and the taxpayers won't have to pay for it.
Of course you make zero sense. It has nothing to do with whether or not "the government" is involved. Both of these situations are a standoff between the utility and the landowners. If the IT'S-ALL-MINE attitude of the landowner represents a libertarian point of view, then I want no part of that party.
The landowner has the right to refuse to sell their property. If they say no then you come up with another idea, offer more money, or give up.
In the specific situation, the matter has been tied up in litigation for over three years, costing both the state and the landowners big bucks. And for what? Just so some rich hobby farmer can get his name in the paper and espouse his "libertarian" principles?
The power company NEEDS to expand the line because of all the new developments that have sprouted up in the last 30 years. Those homes and businesses need their lights on. What is the option?
That isn't about libertarian principles, it is about NIMBY. They don't want the power lines there because they look bad, or they are afraid the they will get cancer, or because they are idiots. Without looking at the case I would be willing to bet that the reason it is tied up in court is because of environmental impact statements. Courts allow governments to take property and give it to private parties for development all the time, the only time courts have a problem is if it hurts some weird insect or fish, not if the property owners don't like it.
I know farmers who have negotiated right of ways for power companies, and most of them are happy with it. They get a lot of money to let people go onto their property and build towers, and still get to use most of it for farming. The utilities like it because they don't have to go out and mow the grass under those towers and power lines. That makes it a win win situation. Of course, that only works in the libertarian south, not with liberals.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Get the government out of the energy business and the taxpayers won't have to pay for it.
Of course you make zero sense. It has nothing to do with whether or not "the government" is involved. Both of these situations are a standoff between the utility and the landowners. If the IT'S-ALL-MINE attitude of the landowner represents a libertarian point of view, then I want no part of that party.
As opposed to the "We can steal from whoever we want" attitude of those who represent the statist point of view?
Of course you make zero sense. It has nothing to do with whether or not "the government" is involved. Both of these situations are a standoff between the utility and the landowners. If the IT'S-ALL-MINE attitude of the landowner represents a libertarian point of view, then I want no part of that party.
As opposed to the "We can steal from whoever we want" attitude of those who represent the statist point of view?
How is asking for a right of way for utility lines "stealing"??????? See Dude's remark that it's easy. Well it ain't easy.
This leads to the selfishness of the "new" conservatives AND the so-called "libertarians." You would deny neighboring residents comfort in knowing they will have power during winter storms if the lines were upgraded just to satisfy some fucking ideology?
In the specific situation, the matter has been tied up in litigation for over three years, costing both the state and the landowners big bucks. And for what? Just so some rich hobby farmer can get his name in the paper and espouse his "libertarian" principles?
The power company NEEDS to expand the line because of all the new developments that have sprouted up in the last 30 years. Those homes and businesses need their lights on. What is the option?
That isn't about libertarian principles, it is about NIMBY. They don't want the power lines there because they look bad, or they are afraid the they will get cancer, or because they are idiots. Without looking at the case I would be willing to bet that the reason it is tied up in court is because of environmental impact statements. Courts allow governments to take property and give it to private parties for development all the time, the only time courts have a problem is if it hurts some weird insect or fish, not if the property owners don't like it.
I know farmers who have negotiated right of ways for power companies, and most of them are happy with it. They get a lot of money to let people go onto their property and build towers, and still get to use most of it for farming. The utilities like it because they don't have to go out and mow the grass under those towers and power lines. That makes it a win win situation. Of course, that only works in the libertarian south, not with liberals.
In the two cases I cited, it has nothing to do with environmental impact studies. Stubborn landowners is all, period.
