I took the bus this summer. I won't do that again, voluntarily. Other than horse-drawn carriage, I cannot imagine a more time consuming, uncomfortable, inefficient manner of travel. It quadrupled my commute time, increased my anxiety and reduced time with my family. On top of that, it didn't save me any gas money and cost taxpayers an additional 5X what I paid for the fare. Simply shocking that the nation is $15,000,000,000,000 in debt (not counting state & local debt).
Mark Perry continues to impress me and this piece about trade with China (and the supposed evils of their currency manipulation) is insightful and well worth your time... if you're willing to think a bit.
Milton Friedman was a national treasure. Thanks to Youtube and the interwebs, he remains so.
I thought about responding to the Forum's swipe at me but decided it wasn't worth it. If they want to be known for slandering minority opinions, they can continue to sink their paper along with that tactic. I will continue to fight for the liberty of Moorhead residents and I won't apologize for it.
Ron Paul is coming to Fargo/Moorhead. You may not agree with him (yet), but I believe he is the most important political thinker of my lifetime.
Showing posts with label moorhead. Show all posts
Showing posts with label moorhead. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Moorhead Monday: A Troubled Bridge Over Water
As a free market proponent, I certainly have no objections to toll bridges in theory - I think it is a preferable model. However, I think the law should apply as equally as possible, even if it isn't a perfect one. This is the main reason I support converting the north Moorhead (15th Ave)/Fargo (12th Ave) to a cities-owned and maintained toll-free bridge as soon as the current contract expires - which is 1/1/2013. The alternative is to make all the bridges in Fargo-Moorhead toll bridges... and if that ever gets legs I'll go along with that.
The toll bridge owners have requested an extension but the Moorhead city council has not, to this point, agreed. I think the toll-payers, who have not been exempted from paying for the other bridges, have "paid their dues" for the last 25 years. Unfortunately, the owners of the bridge have decided to leave the bridge closed to protest our decision to stick with the existing agreement. If they stick to their guns, our choices are: 1) agree to 5 more years of tolls or, 2) live without the bridge for another 19 months and then take ownership. For now, I'll stick with what the parties have already agreed to.
The toll bridge owners have requested an extension but the Moorhead city council has not, to this point, agreed. I think the toll-payers, who have not been exempted from paying for the other bridges, have "paid their dues" for the last 25 years. Unfortunately, the owners of the bridge have decided to leave the bridge closed to protest our decision to stick with the existing agreement. If they stick to their guns, our choices are: 1) agree to 5 more years of tolls or, 2) live without the bridge for another 19 months and then take ownership. For now, I'll stick with what the parties have already agreed to.
Monday, April 18, 2011
It's a Start
Reason.tv explores outsourcing local services. But, while Sandy Springs, GA has an improved model, it doesn't quite get to my property tax-free model (stay tuned for details).
Monday, April 11, 2011
Moorhead Monday: City Council Loves Liberty!
Well, maybe not quite yet. Here's my statement regarding an ordinance to repeal a part of the city code relating to tattoos, body art and body piercing.
I have to admit I got really excited when I saw this item on the agenda. Of course, I was quickly disappointed once I realized that even in repealing this ordinance, freedom was not advanced. We were simply relinquishing control to the State of Minnesota. Unfortunately, since we don't have the qualified staff to administer an amended ordinance that meets the state standard, I will grudgingly support this. My hope is that in repealing our ordinance, the state will do the same one day soon allowing these customers and merchants to freely conduct transactions without government interference.
I have to admit I got really excited when I saw this item on the agenda. Of course, I was quickly disappointed once I realized that even in repealing this ordinance, freedom was not advanced. We were simply relinquishing control to the State of Minnesota. Unfortunately, since we don't have the qualified staff to administer an amended ordinance that meets the state standard, I will grudgingly support this. My hope is that in repealing our ordinance, the state will do the same one day soon allowing these customers and merchants to freely conduct transactions without government interference.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Moorhead Monday: Coercion or Charity
My statement at tonight's Moorhead City Council meeting regarding the contract with the Fargo Park District for Metro Senior Ride.
While the increase in the contracted cost from $6/ride in early 2010 to $9/ride as proposed tonight is enough to oppose this action, my objection has more to do with a matter of principles. First, by subsidizing 70% of the cost of this service, a virtual government forced monopoly is supported. Second, as only a portion of our citizens can use this service, I find it troubling that the majority of the cost is paid by those prohibited from using it. Knowing many seniors, I can't imagine that they are the kind of people that would insist that someone else pay for their transportation - I think our seniors are self-reliant and reject entitlement mentality. Third, many of the people that are forced to subsidize this service are living on fixed incomes, unemployed or teetering on foreclosure.
I do not doubt the benefit of this service to some, and I agree with the goal of this program. But I subscribe to a belief in voluntary charity. Government programs are delivered through funds appropriated via coercion and force and in this case from many who are less able to absorb those costs. On one hand we claim to care about people facing homelessness and on the other hand we implement policies such as this which directly oppose that claim. Additionally, when government uses force to enact charitable programs, it pushes out voluntarily funded religious and fraternal organizations. I reject this method of coercive "charity", regardless of the stated goals.
Finally, if I am aware of true need, have the means to help, and fail to do so; that is MY sin. But when elected bodies support government forcing people further into need, that is THEIR sin.
While the increase in the contracted cost from $6/ride in early 2010 to $9/ride as proposed tonight is enough to oppose this action, my objection has more to do with a matter of principles. First, by subsidizing 70% of the cost of this service, a virtual government forced monopoly is supported. Second, as only a portion of our citizens can use this service, I find it troubling that the majority of the cost is paid by those prohibited from using it. Knowing many seniors, I can't imagine that they are the kind of people that would insist that someone else pay for their transportation - I think our seniors are self-reliant and reject entitlement mentality. Third, many of the people that are forced to subsidize this service are living on fixed incomes, unemployed or teetering on foreclosure.
I do not doubt the benefit of this service to some, and I agree with the goal of this program. But I subscribe to a belief in voluntary charity. Government programs are delivered through funds appropriated via coercion and force and in this case from many who are less able to absorb those costs. On one hand we claim to care about people facing homelessness and on the other hand we implement policies such as this which directly oppose that claim. Additionally, when government uses force to enact charitable programs, it pushes out voluntarily funded religious and fraternal organizations. I reject this method of coercive "charity", regardless of the stated goals.
Finally, if I am aware of true need, have the means to help, and fail to do so; that is MY sin. But when elected bodies support government forcing people further into need, that is THEIR sin.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Moorhead Monday: Fiddling with Real Estate
Tonight's council meeting included a proposal to spend $25,000 for a housing market analysis. After pointing out that we consume the entire take home pay of a median Moorhead family to do it, I questioned the wisdom of meddling in real estate in the first place.
What would be the potential action we would take on these information in the analysis? If the study confirms what we already know, that MN burdens its citizens with high tax and regulatory costs, particularly in relation to our western neighbors, we are limited to two options (one in the same at the core): transfer wealth or change the rules.
A December 28, 2010 Forum article identified that Moorhead has the highest rental prices. Why aren't developers capitalizing on that? While our state's legislature has, for the past several decades, added greater tax and regulatory burdens, for which they deserve scorn, our own city has added to them. The fact that a business had to fight for 11 years to improve its property is a symptom of the underlying problems. Those city controls not only make it harder to do business in Moorhead, the costs fall disproportionately on the poor.
Part of the reason I opposed this measure is my apprehension about what a majority of this council will do that will ultimately make the situation worse. We'll probably shift some tax burden to another segment of our citizens or dream up new rules for otherwise voluntary transactions amongst buyers, sellers and occupants. After eight more years of interference we'll commission another study to see why there are new problems in the market.
Simply put; freedom is the answer. We should empower consumers to once again drive the housing market. Problems in this market, or any other, aren't caused by too much consumer choice but by too much political and bureaucratic meddling - at all levels of government. We should get politicians out of the real estate market and let the consumers spend their money.
The resolution to commission the study passed 7-1.
What would be the potential action we would take on these information in the analysis? If the study confirms what we already know, that MN burdens its citizens with high tax and regulatory costs, particularly in relation to our western neighbors, we are limited to two options (one in the same at the core): transfer wealth or change the rules.
A December 28, 2010 Forum article identified that Moorhead has the highest rental prices. Why aren't developers capitalizing on that? While our state's legislature has, for the past several decades, added greater tax and regulatory burdens, for which they deserve scorn, our own city has added to them. The fact that a business had to fight for 11 years to improve its property is a symptom of the underlying problems. Those city controls not only make it harder to do business in Moorhead, the costs fall disproportionately on the poor.
Part of the reason I opposed this measure is my apprehension about what a majority of this council will do that will ultimately make the situation worse. We'll probably shift some tax burden to another segment of our citizens or dream up new rules for otherwise voluntary transactions amongst buyers, sellers and occupants. After eight more years of interference we'll commission another study to see why there are new problems in the market.
Simply put; freedom is the answer. We should empower consumers to once again drive the housing market. Problems in this market, or any other, aren't caused by too much consumer choice but by too much political and bureaucratic meddling - at all levels of government. We should get politicians out of the real estate market and let the consumers spend their money.
The resolution to commission the study passed 7-1.
Friday, March 18, 2011
TIF = Incremental Problems
Tax Increment Funding is touted as a pain-free way to redevelop certain neighborhoods. But even Mayor (wow!) Rahm "every crisis is an opportunity" Emmanuel recognizes at least some of the unintended consequences of this wealth transfer scheme.
Amazingly, a fellow Moorhead City Council Member once told me in reference to TIF, "Sometimes you have to reach into people's pockets and invest their money for them". Seriously.
Amazingly, a fellow Moorhead City Council Member once told me in reference to TIF, "Sometimes you have to reach into people's pockets and invest their money for them". Seriously.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Redevelopment Destroys the Market
Economist Thomas Sowell suggests, "In reality, what redevelopment does is transfer wealth from one place to another place, with no net addition to the wealth of the country as a whole."
Additionally, even if executed perfectly, redevelopment is a net loss to the country since it involves both a middle man (bureaucrats) and aggression (via taxation or eminent domain).
Additionally, even if executed perfectly, redevelopment is a net loss to the country since it involves both a middle man (bureaucrats) and aggression (via taxation or eminent domain).
Thursday, June 24, 2010
In defense of liberty
I'm intending this page to be my local defense of the case for liberty. Not only do I believe libertarianism to be consistent with Christianity, but consistent with human (natural) rights, optimal prosperity and the defense of the individual against all forms of aggression. I ran for, and was elected to, public office as a city council member because of my passion for freedom consistent with natural law. It has often proven to be a very challenging position, but the principle of individual liberty is what drives me to continue fighting. Some of the influences that assist the development of these ideas are: Rodney Stueland (my dad), George Will, John Stossel, Ron Paul, Thomas Woods, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises and, most importantly, Jesus Christ.
I hope you find the conversation stimulating and are willing to engage me on difficult, and sometimes uncomfortable, issues. I certainly haven't made up my mind on every issue, but I will apply consistent principles to each issue: respect for individual liberty, commitment to non-aggression and a desire to walk humbly with my Savior. Thanks for stopping by!
I hope you find the conversation stimulating and are willing to engage me on difficult, and sometimes uncomfortable, issues. I certainly haven't made up my mind on every issue, but I will apply consistent principles to each issue: respect for individual liberty, commitment to non-aggression and a desire to walk humbly with my Savior. Thanks for stopping by!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)