|
Red Arrow
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2009, 09:09:14 pm » |
|
Artist,
Taking things to the extreme:
Neighborhoods pay for their own road maintenance, have their own water supply, have their own electric company, their own police and fire,.... Then the neighborhood could incorporate into a town, borough, berg, village or whatever the State laws allowed. Then maybe a few really small "towns" could join into a small city. I think you can follow the progression. I don't think liberal/conservative enters yet. (Side note: Actually, in times gone by with Fire companies, if you didn't have your local company's plaque visibly displayed on your house, they wouldn't put our your fire. Maybe not in this part of the country but certainly in colonial times through the early 1900s in some areas "back east".) Regarding streets in particular, I believe that public access/private property should be the dividing line. Anyone can drive on the street in front of my house. They cannot drive in my driveway. The city (Bixby in my case) maintains the street in front of the house. I maintain my driveway. Shopping centers appear to be public because the mall wants customers. They are saying welcome to my driveway. Come in and spend money. I believe they have the right to kick you off of their property. I guess following my logic above, gated communities are responsible for their own streets. I don't know if they are. That's out of my wallet range. More shops, houses, etc would create more traffic and create the need for more frequent maintenance as well as a more substantial street. I have lived where I do since 1971. I think the street in front of our house has been "resurfaced" once. It's fine for the traffic involved. US 169 south of 21st Street is new since we moved here. Most of it is crap in spite of a recent repair. The Creek Turnpike had to have tie bars installed between the concrete segments. More traffic - more maintenance. I don't know where the balance is. We all pay taxes to the city we live in (except maybe a few in unincorporated areas) to provide services and to maintain common areas. Kind of a bigger version of your street group.
There may be a few extreme conservatives that would buy into your scenario. To call them mainstream conservatives would be similar to saying that mainstream Liberals advocate turning all of your paycheck over to the government and letting the "state" take care of your needs. Neither works (see USSR 1917 through late 20th century). The question will always be where to draw the line. To some extent, the "conservative" approach to roads work. Otherwise, the turnpikes around this country (Yes, states other than OK have turnpikes and toll roads.) would go out of business. Mostly they are through routes providing a convenience factor that drivers are willing to pay to use. The taxes on gas/diesel fuel are supposed to pay for roads. Only the most naive believe that is really true. I think some of those taxes get hijacked for other purposes. The tax does give the impression that drivers are paying their way. One "Liberal" benefit of "free" roads is lower cost transportation for all the goods transported by truck which results in lower cost goods for all of us.
The government is in the transportation business. It helped build the rail system in the 1800s. It helped build roads in the 20th century. The gray line is how much. New local passenger rail should be an easier sell than it has been, even to conservatives. Keep a reasonable percentage of cars off the streets and you won't have to widen them, provide parking at downtown destinations.... I wonder how many miles of light rail we could build for the cost of the improvements to I-44? Would commuter rail to BA ultimately cost less than improvements to the BA Expy in a few years? I think so. Freight may be a little more difficult since the RR companies own and maintain the rail, much as I maintain my driveway. When privately owned (real) trolleys ran on the city streets, they were usually required to maintain not only their rails but the city street immediately around the rails. When buses came along, they used the streets for free that were maintained by the trolley companies and cities. Hardly fair.
"Otherwise, its sick to be basically saying,,, Well what I really mean is,,, The government can do what I want and reinforce the way of life I want, but not "be in the business" of doing what you want." I believe even the bluest left extreme Liberals in the US will draw the line at where they want the government to run their lives. How many liberals would willing give 90% of their top dollar just to the Feds. See the incremental tax rates in the mid 1900s.
Healthcare: I would rather talk about transportation issues.
However, the government is typically inefficient in whatever it handles. I prefer a private solution to healthcare. Increasing the pool of insured and not allowing individual companies to cherry pick health groups may be a step in the right direction. Ultimately, the government needs to do what CANNOT be done in the private sector. My biggest fear with government run healthcare is that the result of government "guidance" usually results in the lowest common denominator. Healthcare for the bottom (except perhaps the indigent) will not increase to the level of the affluent. I would expect care to equalize at some substandard level. Just as government interference (free road access for buses) eliminated most of the trolley companies in the US, I expect trying to compete with government healthcare will eliminate private healthcare to all except perhaps the most wealthy who can probably pay for their own care anyway. Remember the difference between truck and auto tags in OK? The big move to "equalize" tags was thought to lower auto tags. Instead, truck tags fees were increased to auto levels. Eventually all the tags were reduced to a lower level but for a while we all got hit in the wallet.
The far right and far left will always yell unfair. The fenceline (the one most folks straddle) will move about as suits the times.
|
