Sunday, November 28, 2010

Coming Soon: Forced into Cities

Here are some predictions of what the next ten years will bring. The root prediction is that environmental excuses will be used to attempt to force rural populations to change their way of life, and even abandon it.

I predict that taxes on gasoline will go up, while rural road maintenance will go down. Some of the money from the increased fuel taxes will likely be used to subsidize some form of mass transit that could not stand on its own economic feet without taxpayer subsidies. The most likely form this will take will be a light rail system.

Unfortunately the idea of letting local people run their own lives has fallen into disfavor. Giant capital cities now make decisions for the small town heartland. They look around their big cities and see that light rail works for them and that they don’t need cars (except for a few at the top) and so they decide that the rest of us don’t either. I see government policy increasingly aimed at forcing Americans out of their automobiles and onto public transit. They will do this by raising the costs of driving your own vehicle in order to subsidize mass transit. That won’t be its only form though. They will push bicycle paths, supposedly for “recreation” but they will build them right through to commerce areas. They are planning for a future where much of the population does not have a personal automobile.

I also see coming efforts to make rural life more difficult. This will be done through what appear to be local entities like Beaver Lake Water District, but the marching orders will come from far away. They will relentlessly seek to increase their power to regulate land owners so that while you may still own your property, you must seek permission from them in order to use it for anything.

The Beaver Lake Water District could already fix the only legitimate water-quality issue we face- sediments during lake turnover. Other water districts apply safe and inexpensive chemicals to deal with the problem. Ours could too, but it would lose a lever to get people to accept more control over their land.

The so-called “Food Safety and Modernization Act” may or may not pass, but if it fails they will try again. It would end farmers markets and roadside stands. Agri-business loves it because it will hamstring the small farmer. Control freaks in government love it because all food sold would need their permission.

While all this is going on, government will continue to tax rural residents and send the money to cities. Cities will get one government hand-out after another. Rural areas will get more regulations, lose more schools, and find personal travel to be more expensive. The overall effect, and intent, will be to push people into cities.

It is hard for a normal well-adjusted person to understand the bent psyche of the control-freaks that infest government. The average person just does not sit around dreaming up big plans for everyone else’s life. But some people do, and when they get some authority, it’s scary. Consolidation of schools, policies that drive people into cities, and loss of individual travel freedom are all measures that make populations easier to control. Whatever the stated reason for these coming changes, control is the real reason.

11 Comments:

Anonymous Rick said...

Sounds to me like its time to liquidate all assets and move to another country or in the very least a more secluded area like Alaska.

4:31 AM, November 29, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

There is still the question of how far they will get with these grandiose schemes, though with this media I see little sign that Americans are even aware of the threats, much less willing to counter them.

5:15 AM, November 29, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They look around their big cities and see that light rail works for them and that they don’t need cars and so they decide that the rest of us don’t either.

Furthermore, it's irrelevant whether others think we need cars or not. Liberty includes the ability to do what my neighbors think is superfluous or even extravagant.

7:06 AM, November 29, 2010  
Anonymous RockThisTown said...

Actually, I don't have a problem with bike trails, even those leading into commercial centers, as I am an avid bike rider myself; it helps keep my blood pressure, weight & blood sugar in check. However, I don't try to push my bike riding onto others; if others want to, fine, and if not, that's fine, too - they can keep on paying outrageous prices for gasoline, prices that are, in all likelihood, fixed by the industry, rather than the marketplace.

This is probably a separate discussion, but while I agree with Anon@7:06 that it's irrelevant whether others think we need cars . . , I do have a problem with a government forcing me to pay for the health care of others when they have done nothing to improve their own health, and in many cases, have done things to worsen it. Thus, if the govt. is going to make me pay for the health care of others, then I say make 'em ride bikes or walk, as it might actually improve their health, which, hopefully, may keep me from having to pay for the health problems of couch potatoes, particularly those that are preventable.

9:20 AM, November 29, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I think we agree that taxpayers should not be on the hook for preventable health care costs. The question here is, who should pay for bicycle paths, those who use them or all taxpayers? With regular roads, the fuel tax ensures road users pay for roads.

11:04 AM, November 29, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"With regular roads, the fuel tax ensures road users pay for roads."

Of course keeping in mind that the poor pay a disproportionate amount of this tax because they are more apt to have older less fuel efficient cars. Where the wealthy family of 4, with each kid given a hybrid, drive more miles, but pay less in use of the public commons because it's based upon gas consumed and not actual miles driven.

8:39 PM, November 29, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/organic.asp


snopes.com: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009
The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 would eliminate home gardens and put organic farmers out of business?

oops!

8:41 PM, November 29, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Why do you assume the rich will buy a hybrid and not a hummer? An SUV and not a Focus?

The guys that drive giant pick ups and hummers ought to pitch in more for the roads, regardless of income, because they use more gas and wear out more road per mile than my focus.

4:24 AM, November 30, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

1) snopes is not trustworthy.

2. They attempt to waive off legitimate concerns about the language of the bill, such as the new power given to the FDA to mandate what fertilizers have to be used and a definition of who is covered that is expansive.

4:29 AM, November 30, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Proof that Snopes is a liberal propaganda site is plentiful, including their repeated weighing in authoritatively on pending legislation when not even the idiots in congress know what's in their bills or what will end up in the final version of a given bill.

Even Pelosi said that she wouldn't know the scope of Obamacare until after it became law, and congressman Conyers once candidly admitted that it would be impractical to read and understand most bills before voting.

10:51 AM, November 30, 2010  
Anonymous RockThisTown said...

"The guys that drive giant pick ups and hummers ought to pitch in more for the roads, regardless of income, because they use more gas and wear out more road per mile than my focus."

If they're using more gas, they already are paying more regardless of income. That's the idea behind fuel taxes: the more you drive and the bigger the vehicle you drive, the more you pay for the greater wear you cause. One of the many things I like about riding a bicycle: no gas, no fuel taxes, no liability insurance, no license, low maintenance costs.

12:30 PM, November 30, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home