I'm hard, but not unfair.... an apology

[flintauqua]

I believe you have used the phrase 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" or something very close it recently on this forum.  This phrase applies as equally to economic power as it does to political power.  And I also assert as a given truth that economic power is political power. 

So, if I understand your statements correctly, you have a serious problem with politicians and government in general having too much power, the theoretical extreme of which would be a fully governmentally controlled economy, or pure Marxist-Leninist Communism.  (Which the U.S. is and has always been a long-long way from no matter how much the right wants to claim otherwise.)

Yet you don't seem to have the same disdain of pure laizze-fair capitalism where the state exists only to protect property rights, or the even more extreme anarcho-capitalism where the state is completely eliminated.  Is this an untrue statement? 

Wouldn't this lead to absolute power being held by whatever group of capitalists rose to the top of the economic heap?

[Patriot]

I believe you have used the phrase 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" or something very close it recently on this forum.  This phrase applies as equally to economic power as it does to political power.  And I also assert as a given truth that economic power is political power...

...Yet you don't seem to have the same disdain of pure laizze-fair capitalism where the state exists only to protect property rights, or the even more extreme anarcho-capitalism where the state is completely eliminated.  Is this an untrue statement? 

You know full well where I used that phrase, as you just spent 30 minutes reading the post where I used it.  Your attempt to piggyback on Anmar's post lacks originality.  Your question was asked and answered by the originator of the post you just studied.  But I will say again...Yes, your statement is untrue.

If you had been reading carefully (or reporting honestly), you would have also noticed my references to undue private sector influence on government (via megacorps, special interests of many stripes, etc.).  You would have also noticed that I held them in contempt just as I do over intrusive government, left or right. 

I don't believe I even discussed the specifics of any views I might hold regarding pure libertarian economics.  With respect to anarcho-capitalism (such a deprecatory label), I've not expressed a preference for NO government regulation, only much less government regulation, especially in the affairs of private citizens.  But I will express an affinity for the concept of sovereignty of the individual and the assignment of individual accountability and responsibility.  I will also admit that property rights are on my list of important issues.  The entire land grant process undertaken by the US supports the contention that matters of individual sovereignty and property rights are paramount in a free society and fundamental to the continuation of this republic as it was expressed by our founders. 

I do not believe in absolute anarchy nor that the state should exist only to protect property rights.  Where ever did you get that silly notion? 

Now, we both know that you have undertaken an expedition to discredit me based on selective & out of context observations of my prior statements (you've researched them exhaustively) and by attributing unpopular views (or views easily perceived as radical by casual readers) as replacements of my actual views or unstated positions.  Especially humorous, by the way, was your use of the word 'extreme' as quoted above.  A word that Senator Charles Schumer was recently caught encouraging left wing operatives to use in reference to right leaning opponents as a means to try and discredit them.  Are you on the DNC mailing list?

I refer you, again, to the Alinsky methods and admonish you to re-read his Rules for Radicals.  While your efforts are admirable, they fail.  Go find a better rope, because the one you are using is old and frayed.

[Diane Amberg]

So then you are saying there is no hope for Elk County and it should fold up and cease to exist because it's too far gone already?

[Patriot]

So then you are saying there is no hope for Elk County and it should fold up and cease to exist because it's too far gone already?

Are you asking a question or asserting an assumption?  I have never relegated Elk County to the lost cause refuse pile.  There always remains hope that practical, reasonable, lawful and realistic means can be found to enhance life in and the attractiveness of the county.

[srkruzich]

So then you are saying there is no hope for Elk County and it should fold up and cease to exist because it's too far gone already?

?  no one said that. But quite frankly unless you bring in a lot of jobs, it will die a slow painful death and to bring in jobs you have to do the basic functions of government like roads, power, transportation lines ect.  One of the worst things that happened to the county is the govt allowing the rail lines to collapse and be pulled up.  One of the biggest probems is supplies. You can't run a  industry here with no supplies nearby or a way to bring them in, in large enough quantity.  

We see it in the decline of students in the county. As folks die off, and people move out to better jobs, there won't be anyone here except the large land owners already here.  Guess they'll have to pay the taxes themselves

i've seen it happen before, and it happened in harrington georgia i think, might be harelson, where a good meaning individual decided to spend their money in town revitalizing it.  It had the opposite effect and the town is now a ghost town.  Business moved elsewhere.  Its the sign of times you know, rise and fall of communties, cities, nations ect ect ect.

the worst thing about it is that as it dies, the taxes just keep going up causing those who would want to stay to have to move elsewhere.  Once that starts happening you might as well hammer the nails in the coffin cause it is too late

[Wilma]

I do not believe that it was Elk County that decided to do away with rail service.  Besides there is still a railroad across the south part of the county.  The defunct railroad ran through Elk County serving other counties as well.  It was the railroad, not the counties that decided to quit.

[Lookatmeknow!!]

There is still a railroad that runs through Moline. Just seen the train the other night. I also don't think that counties decide to pull the railroads up, I think that would be the railroad companies, as don't they own the land or pay something for their railroad to run on it???

[Patriot]

I didn't see any statement about the county closing the rail lines/depots.  I saw an inference that government didn't aggressively try to keep them from vacating.  Yes, a rail line still runs through the south of the county.  How many stops in Longton, Moline or Grenola do those trains make to deliver raw materials, supplies or goods and/or pick up grains or other products generated in the county?

Without infrastructure like rail, supplying local industrial endeavors of consequence becomes expensive and impractical.

[srkruzich]

There is still a railroad that runs through Moline. Just seen the train the other night. I also don't think that counties decide to pull the railroads up, I think that would be the railroad companies, as don't they own the land or pay something for their railroad to run on it???

The rail companies own the land, and keep the land.  IF they started a rail line up again,  they could come back in, and run it over the old line routes as they still own the rights to it.   For example thats why sprint communications  is owned by i think southern pacific railroad. THey own the land and easements along all their rail lines.

[Wilma]

Not all railroad rights-of-way are owned by the railroads.  Some of them revert to the landowner if the railroad is discontinued.