DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Archives
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1699--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: davep Date: April 18, 2011, 2:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Government certainly has the power to impose such use
restrictions on leases from private property owners, or to
require all owners of property to use the land instead of
leaving it fallow, or to use the land for agricultural purposes
instead of any other purpose, and even require that the crops
are planted the first day of January each year."
Just out of curiosity, which part of the Constitution would give
the Federal Government the power to require all owners of
property to use the land?
"
Dave, you spent time in the military, so I will use a military
example. Saying that a military action should have as little
effect as possible on civilian populations is meaningless, since
the military, drawing its members from the civilian population
and any military action, or for that matter inaction, therefore
has an effect on the civilian population. And, therefore,
Dresden and Hiroshima are fine and not even worth discussing."
That goes beyond a stretch. It is totally irrelivant.
Any landowner has the right to place whatever restrictions upon
use by a leasee, and a potential leasee has the right, in fact
the obligation to decide how much to pay for the lease,
including it's restrictions. If the government gives 5 year
leases without right of renewal, it us up to potential leasees
to decide whether or not to enter into such a lease. The
Federal government has no obligations to do what is "good" for
society when deciding upon those restrictions. Or more
accurately, by it's action of putting those restrictions in the
lease, they have made the decision that it is good for the
society. You may not agree with those restrictions, but have
given no pursusive reasons why the particular restrictions would
be bad for the country, the economy, or even for Jes.
#Post#: 2622--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: Keysbear Date: April 21, 2011, 1:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
uh oh...protesters inside an Obam fundraiser. I guess the days
of fainting upon seeing the messiah are over. I love the part
where he didn't even recognize that it was a protest song.
#Post#: 2632--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: davep Date: April 21, 2011, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Key - did you see the segment on Fox the other day that was
talking about the recent strong turnabout in real estate values
in central and south Florida?
#Post#: 2639--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: Keysbear Date: April 21, 2011, 3:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No, I missed it. Would certainly be good news. It's been brutal
where I live.
#Post#: 2840--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: April 22, 2011, 11:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
<i> "Government certainly has the power to impose such use
restrictions on leases from private property owners, or to
require all owners of property to use the land instead of
leaving it fallow, or to use the land for agricultural purposes
instead of any other purpose, and even require that the crops
are planted the first day of January each year."
<b>Just out of curiosity, which part of the Constitution would
give the Federal Government the power to require all owners of
property to use the land?</i></b>
Government is not limited to the federal government.
<i>Any landowner has the right to place whatever restrictions
upon use by a leasee, and a potential leasee has the right, in
fact the obligation to decide how much to pay for the lease,
including it's restrictions. </i>
We have not disagreed about that point. Our disagreement is
over whether government SHOULD impose such restrictions on land
it owns, whether such restrictions benefit society (they tend to
be imposed either to create political talking points or to
distort the cost benefit analysis of current use as opposed to
future use in order to make current use more attractive, which
will marginally lower current prices and marginally increase
current employment, both helping the office holder at the
moment, in part by eliminating from the table the question of
whether society would benefit more by delaying extraction and
use until some later date), and whether government should be
owning and therefor absolutely controlling as much land as it
does -- in many western states the Federal government owns more
than 40% of all of the land in the state.
You write that I have given no reason to believe that having
government decide how land is used is a mistake, specifically
writing that I have "given no pursusive reasons why the
particular restrictions would be bad for the country, the
economy."
Do we really need to debate whether with regard to the use of
land or other resources, the government is more or less likely
to make good decisions regarding the use of land or other
resources than the free market is likely to make good decisions?
Is that really something which needs debate?
If government can in fact be counted on to make better
decisions, then by all means let's put more control of the
economy in the hands of government. Despite the fact that
politicians routinely complain that the marketplace fails to
adequately account for future needs and will not invest or
conserve resources for future use, that criticism is actually
far more applicable to government.
#Post#: 2951--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: davep Date: April 22, 2011, 4:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Government is not limited to the federal government."
In fact, Government is not restricted to the United States.
But we were talking about whether or not the United States
Federal Government should take a specific action. I believe
that, as a property owner, the Government has the right to put
their land to any use they wish, and right now I believe that
increasing the output of oil from Federal land will benefit our
society much more than the various alternative uses or non-uses
of that land.
You said that the Federal Government should not do as I said
because the Federal government should not do anything to affect
the market. But the fact that the action of the Federal
Government in this instance will affect the market is
irrelavent, since any action, or any lack of action, will affect
the market. Nor is there any way to tell at this point that the
action of the Federal Government would have a greater affect on
the market than no action whatsoever.
#Post#: 3025--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: April 22, 2011, 9:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
<i>right now I believe that increasing the output of oil from
Federal land will benefit our society much more than the various
alternative uses or non-uses of that land.</i>
And "right now" you are a good socialist. Now, you may well
come to your senses tomorrow, but <b>right now</b> you believe
it is best for government to control and determine how land, one
of the most basic of resources and components of production, is
used.
<i>But the fact that the action of the Federal Government in
this instance will affect the market is irrelavent, since any
action, or any lack of action, will affect the market. </i>
What government should do is as quickly as is practical get its
ass OUT of the market so it does not distort it and so the free
market is allowed to function. Until that is accomplished, it
should conduct itself as a property owner in the manner likely
to alter the market decisions of others as little as
possible.... which, in this case would mean having few to no
restrictions on those leasing the property, at least regarding
the timing of the extraction of any resources.
#Post#: 3147--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: davep Date: April 23, 2011, 1:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. I am making a recommendation on what a the Government
should do with it's property. The issue of whether or not the
Government should own land might be a socialist question, but
owning the land, the question of what to do with it is a
legitimate policy decision.
#Post#: 3327--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: craig Date: April 24, 2011, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Christ is risen. Heh, it's easter morning, and I have a
week of crucifixion and resurrection passages and songs in my
head and heart. Love's redeeming work is done.
Easter morning, it's warm and bright and beautiful with
springtime out here in Minnesota. A reminder of the goodness of
God's purposes and the new life that comes each spring and that
is available through the redeeming promises and work of God.
I don't visit the politics/religion board often. But I'm
grateful for all the diverse and interesting Bleacher Bums
friends whose thoughts and humor and Cubs stuff and passions I
get to share.
I pray that many of you may already know the grace, forgiveness,
and love of God. Happy Easter everybody!
#Post#: 3336--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: Robb Date: April 24, 2011, 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Great stuff Craig. Thanks for sharing that.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page