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 public transportation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public transportation. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)