by wisconsin_cur » Sat 12 Jan 2008, 10:13:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')e just stopped a company that planned on removing a hill just north of here for the sand) or wants to put in a landfill
Ok, I can maybe recognize the landfill complaint. But you used the heavy hand of government to usurp the rights of someone else to sell his own land piece by piece (sand in this instance). You really expect us to believe they cannot mine sand without poisoning the water-table? On the way to my friends house I drive past two mines that have been there for many decades and we are still using well water with no problems beyond the occasional pesticide (still live on a farm, you know).
I try to pretend you don't bother me, but that is really wrong what you did. You are really willing to do whatever it takes to preserve your little region against any change. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y god, you honestly complained that you could not shoot people dead in the street.
You rail about how the denizens of Chicago have used the Illinois state government to screw up your plans, but then you turn right around and use the county to fuck up the plans of others. You are no better than they are! You are just upset they beat you to it!
1. Thank you for recognizing the landfill complaint
2. The sand is the same in that it is outside interests purchasing resources (I would guess the outside interest bought that wooded hill for ~1000 and acre) and then shipping them away. While I was not part of the "block the sand mine" organization, they accomplished it by using our zoning laws. In other posts you have said that we should use local laws to preserve what we would like to preserve. You have blamed the majority of pollution on poor oversight of local government. If, in this one instance, local government reflected the will of local people in zoning laws, is that a bad thing?
It was led by those who would have to look at the mine (and ultimitely the blank hole). It would not be the type of thing to motivate me but I do celebrate the precedent that has been set. If in the future there is something that I feel needs resisiting I can say, "remember how they stopped that mine." I celebrate whatever puts the brakes on my own sense of powerlessness.
3. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y god, you honestly complained that you could not shoot people dead in the street.
it was hyperbole. I am sorry, it was wrong.
by wisconsin_cur » Sat 12 Jan 2008, 13:06:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hile I was not part of the "block the sand mine" organization, they accomplished it by using our zoning laws. In other posts you have said that we should use local laws to preserve what we would like to preserve. You have blamed the majority of pollution on poor oversight of local government. If, in this one instance, local government reflected the will of local people in zoning laws, is that a bad thing?
Yes, yes it is a bad thing. I said local governments failed to stop miners from damaging the property of others, a failure to protect the property rights of neighbors. The failure was not in allowing mines to be built but in allowing them to be built in a polluting way. In this instance there would have been no damage, so under what right was it prevented? So you would not have to see a mine? This is why local zoning laws require a hill covered with fauna be built around the mine so people cannot see the mine from the highway, they don't outlaw the existance. This is the worst form of NIMBY and it sets a horrible precedent for property rights.
but a wonderful precedent for local democracy
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
by wisconsin_cur » Mon 14 Jan 2008, 03:08:44
1. you have a very difficult time letting any one else have the last word. How are your relationships working out? I might be able to recomend a good therapist.
2. You cannot have it both ways. You have decried in past posts that the main culprit for pollution is poor local governance. Local governance works to protect us from each other and, yes, this means a limit to property rights. Zoning laws are a good thing, they give me a voice in my community and the type of community it will become.
Without democracy than only the moneyed interests have a say.
3. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o you are comfortable living under a democracy where the majority can do whatever it wants, from summary executions to theft?
Now you are just getting desperate and disingenious. How the courts work has nothing to do with giving a people a voice and placing limits on the type of damage one neighbor can inflict upon the chosen life of another.
4. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd I do not believe I should need to win a popularity contest in order to feed my family.
If you are contemplating building a mine or creating a factory hog operation or building a dump than you are not so capital starved that your children are in danger of starving. I doubt if you could even afford the lawyers fees to contemplate such an action if you children are starving. Come on starky, you are beginning to stoop to my level of rhetorical shrill here.
5. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') guess you have never found yourself in the minority; I hope your luck holds out. I suspect it wont judging by your comments relating to the influx of Chicago yuppies gaining voting rights in your local government. I sure hope you have not doing anything to annoy them, lest they use the untemperred hand of 'local democracy' to smash you.
Of course I am in the minority a lot. I believe in minority rights but, as I think you would agree, neither does the minority (esp one large land owner or corporation) has the right in inflict its will on the majority either.
The good thing about living someplace where most people grew up there and their mother lives down the street and about 50% of their first cousins still live in the county is that we do not have to worry about becoming a minority. The yuppies will always be a minority because they do not breed in adequate numbers besides that they are generally too nice to win any kind of truly contentious argument.
by Tyler_JC » Mon 14 Jan 2008, 03:11:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'S')o you are comfortable living under a democracy where the majority can do whatever it wants, from summary executions to theft? It will not stop there; they have taken control over the mine owners property, yours is next.
I am with the founding fathers, democracy can be every bit the tyranny of a king or emperor, all that changes is the rhetoric. And I do not believe I should need to win a popularity contest in order to feed my family.
I guess you have never found yourself in the minority; I hope your luck holds out. I suspect it wont judging by your comments relating to the influx of Chicago yuppies gaining voting rights in your local government. I sure hope you have not doing anything to annoy them, lest they use the untemperred hand of 'local democracy' to smash you.
LoneSnark,
You know exactly what he wants. It isn't democracy, he wants dictatorship.
The Enlightened Dictatorship of wisconsin_cur.
I hear you man, don't get me wrong. I want the same thing. (or more accurately, the Enlightened Dictatorship of Tyler_JC)
But sometimes you have to cave into the establishment.
I suggest bringing this up at the next town meeting rather than posting about it on an internet forum...
And we are not talking about regional pricing of natural gas anymore.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
-
Tyler_JC
- Expert

-
- Posts: 5438
- Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Boston, MA
-
by LoneSnark » Mon 14 Jan 2008, 11:24:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '2'). You cannot have it both ways. You have decried in past posts that the main culprit for pollution is poor local governance. Local governance works to protect us from each other and, yes, this means a limit to property rights. Zoning laws are a good thing, they give me a voice in my community and the type of community it will become.
Without democracy than only the moneyed interests have a say.
No, I was not trying to have it both ways, just attacking the use of the word democracy by itself. To make me happy all I want is the inclusion of the word 'constitutional' in there. I think even local governments should bind themselves against some action future actions. But this really is an old discussion, the founding fathers did it to death, so there really is no reason to dredge it up.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')f course I am in the minority a lot. I believe in minority rights but, as I think you would agree, neither does the minority (esp one large land owner or corporation) has the right in inflict its will on the majority either.
You are waffling here. Either you believe in minority rights, which means sometimes the minority CAN inflict its will on the majority. The question is when is 'sometimes', and that is why we draw up state, county, and city constitutions and the like.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hile we have strayed it does still relate. When it is no longer in the interests of corporations (i.e. the profit margin gets too small or goes negative), those in rural areas will be cut off from the resources that we now take for granted (ng, electric whatever).
I responded harshly to the idea that people will just be cut off because doing so is more profitable than keeping them because their unprofitable service is a product of government regulation. The fact is, it costs more to provide services to rural customers for everything, both electric and ng. So, why do we pay the same? Well, depending on where you live, you probably don't. Regional pricing is nothing new here in America. And it is not the end of the world: if it costs more to deliver electricity out here then charge more for it, problem solved. I as a customer am now just as profitable to the company as any urban customer. And cutting me off makes no more sense than cutting off an urban consumer.
Now, if the government considers regional pricing immoral and thus illegal, as you suggested it was immoral, then yes, if they are allowed to do so utilities will cut off their unprofitable rural customers. This is nothing new and it is why many rural areas needed to set up their own power cooperatives, thus enabling them to charge themselves at the higher rates needed to profitably provide service to a rural community.
This is why governments must take cost of delivery into account when setting rates, or they must subsidize high-cost customers.
Or, the last alternative would be to mandate by law the utility serve everyone at the same price without subsidy, which is a bad solution because it charges urban customers more than they cost while charging rural customers less than they cost. Thus, the incentives are perverse: urban customers are rediculously profitable and thus every utility interruption costs the company dearly; meanwhile, rural customers operate purely at a loss and thus every utility interruption profits the company. Therefore, we are incentivising the utility to provide the poorest service it can get away with to rural customers which would probably be happy to pay more for better service, while at the same time providing exceptional service to urban customers with backups to prevent even the smallest interrupt of service, while they only wanted to pay for good service.
So, economically, if we want to avoid your nightmare of having companies cut off their rural customers then I think you should support regional pricing.
by wisconsin_cur » Tue 15 Jan 2008, 03:04:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '
')
Regarding ng, you are probably right. At least I know of no reason why you would be wrong.
Ok, after my second cup of coffee I remembered, though, I'm afraid, it is an argument you will not find convincing.
To the extent that rural areas are at the end of pipelines (and to this extent I am biased by being in the upper midwest ie generally the end of the pipelines) then usage of ng would would be restricted by the amount available minus what was used everywhere else.
If we are assuming that it will be succusfully limited by price, that still does not help since, as we all know, wealth travels to the cities. So even if it is available, a lot of poor people (rural and urban alike) will be priced out of the market. It won't matter how much they need it if they cannot afford it. I would really like a completely restored 1967 f-100,

but since I cannot afford it, it does not matter how much I might want or need it.
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
-

wisconsin_cur
- Light Sweet Crude

-
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.
-
by wisconsin_cur » Tue 15 Jan 2008, 03:05:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'P')erhaps. But as with stealing horses in Texas, I suspect the locals will find a way of dealing with power line thieves, which have the unfortunate problem of instantly notifying the people they are robbing long before they can escape with their stolen steel/aluminum lines and transformers (I can imagine people running outside with their shotguns whenever the lights go out).
Then, if I were a thief, I would steal them at night.
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
-

wisconsin_cur
- Light Sweet Crude

-
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.
-