Hey if that isn't what he means, why don't you explain it? Try to do so where govt. is not involved in where you live, so that I am wrong in what I said.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
lowing wrote:
well if you wanna tell me that the govt. goes out of its way to make sure you don't venture off too far for its own conveniences , I am not sure what kind of a response you would expect from a person who, above all, values his freedom from govt. intervention in his life on such matters.FatherTed wrote:
i'd hoped there was a fairly decent conversation about the differences between the US and Europe and why those differences exist, but if you're just going to go 'lol nanny state' and so on then v0v i cant be arsed.cheekyninja wrote:
I thought you were just having a moan about me putting words into your mouth and then you come out with that?
of course you can. no one is going to say 'no, come live in our socialist tower-blocks'. you can build wherever you can get planning permission - conservation and greenbelt regulations aside (we have less space and look after our public spaces, too). you're just discouraged by the higher-cost, which has an obvious cause. i don't know what the fuck lowing is on about with the 'nanny state' choosing where we live. what's the difference between living costs in certain areas being higher because of access to amenities, and people mass-abandoning an entire city and migrating elsewhere because of the whim of the market? i'd rather have a nanny than a deadbeat dad that ups and leaves home, as you have had in america with your itinerant market.Ilocano wrote:
Still seems kind of odd. Can't anyone over there who wants to build out to some out of the way place just pay someone to get connected: water, electricity, phone, etc.? Here, no one is discouraged from building a home out in the boonies. It's just on their dime if they want the coverage afforded in established infrastructures. Like contracting out police and fire. propane tanks and water towers where gas and water lines are never going to happen.Uzique wrote:
lowing our infrastructure is much older than yours in america. no shit the govt. is going to try and incentivize people to live where it's more convenient for everyone. if you live in a nanny-state, you'd rather it be an efficient one than one that throws money away, no?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
i mean detroit is really hot right now i hear, and all those poor blacks in the ghetto-slums sure do appreciate their government standing back and just giving everybody so much damn choice about the matter. if in america you abhor the state having any role in encouraging or discouraging where to (smartly and wisely) live, then it seems quite the paradox because you leave it to the property market and the irrationalism of capitalism; the operative difference is that the state can exert some small degree of control, whereas the market is entirely impossible to manage in this regard. 'freedom' at lowing's finest, i'm sure.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
because it is cheaper to live farther away from "amenities" not more expensive. The govt. is going to price you out of the market to live where you want making sure you live where THEY want.Uzique wrote:
of course you can. no one is going to say 'no, come live in our socialist tower-blocks'. you can build wherever you can get planning permission - conservation and greenbelt regulations aside (we have less space and look after our public spaces, too). you're just discouraged by the higher-cost, which has an obvious cause. i don't know what the fuck lowing is on about with the 'nanny state' choosing where we live. what's the difference between living costs in certain areas being higher because of access to amenities, and people mass-abandoning an entire city and migrating elsewhere because of the whim of the market? i'd rather have a nanny than a deadbeat dad that ups and leaves home, as you have had in america with your itinerant market.Ilocano wrote:
Still seems kind of odd. Can't anyone over there who wants to build out to some out of the way place just pay someone to get connected: water, electricity, phone, etc.? Here, no one is discouraged from building a home out in the boonies. It's just on their dime if they want the coverage afforded in established infrastructures. Like contracting out police and fire. propane tanks and water towers where gas and water lines are never going to happen.Uzique wrote:
lowing our infrastructure is much older than yours in america. no shit the govt. is going to try and incentivize people to live where it's more convenient for everyone. if you live in a nanny-state, you'd rather it be an efficient one than one that throws money away, no?
if you live in the ghetto it is by your doing, not the govts. so don't even try it.Uzique wrote:
i mean detroit is really hot right now i hear, and all those poor blacks in the ghetto-slums sure do appreciate their government standing back and just giving everybody so much damn choice about the matter. if in america you abhor the state having any role in encouraging or discouraging where to (smartly and wisely) live, then it seems quite the paradox because you leave it to the property market and the irrationalism of capitalism; the operative difference is that the state can exert some small degree of control, whereas the market is entirely impossible to manage in this regard. 'freedom' at lowing's finest, i'm sure.
yeah because everybody is responsible and should be held accountable for the circumstances of their birth, eh lowing.
would you support employing 4 year olds in sweat-shops, then, so they could emancipate themselves from the all-so-deserved shackles of poverty?
i really think you're losing it sometimes.
and the government does no such thing to 'price you out of the market'. you have to pay more money to have electricity and shit pumped out to you but that's done by private companies. you simply incur your own building and services costs according to how far in the middle of fucking nowhere you want to be. land can be relatively cheap (provided it's not greenbelt and subject to land-conservation regulations), but at the end of the day it's you paying 10x the fuel bill (i hope the government's tax on fuel is not perceived by you as some evil plot to confine us all to metropolitanism).
would you support employing 4 year olds in sweat-shops, then, so they could emancipate themselves from the all-so-deserved shackles of poverty?
i really think you're losing it sometimes.
and the government does no such thing to 'price you out of the market'. you have to pay more money to have electricity and shit pumped out to you but that's done by private companies. you simply incur your own building and services costs according to how far in the middle of fucking nowhere you want to be. land can be relatively cheap (provided it's not greenbelt and subject to land-conservation regulations), but at the end of the day it's you paying 10x the fuel bill (i hope the government's tax on fuel is not perceived by you as some evil plot to confine us all to metropolitanism).
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
lowing how exactly can you be such a staunch supporter of 'individual freedom' when you're so quick to dismiss those born into intolerable poverty as somehow "asking for it" and deserving to be kept in a life of poor living standards with little-to-no opportunities. shouldn't you be all about empowering these individuals and giving them everything that they should - rightfully, fairly and justly, according to classical liberalism's main tenets - be just as entitled to as you? why is the black guy born to a crackhead mom in the bronx somehow 'deserving' of that set-up in life? is it because it doesn't inconvenience your own lifestyle of relying-upon-state-employment and profiting from the misery of others, via war? such a patriot.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
yes, everyone is responsible for their actions and their choices, if not the individual, then who? If you want to help children, so be it I am on board, up to and including removing the child from the shit hole and charge the parents with negligence. If you want to excuse a 35 year old that lives in the ghetto, no thanks, that is all on him.Uzique wrote:
yeah because everybody is responsible and should be held accountable for the circumstances of their birth, eh lowing.
would you support employing 4 year olds in sweat-shops, then, so they could emancipate themselves from the all-so-deserved shackles of poverty?
i really think you're losing it sometimes.
and the government does no such thing to 'price you out of the market'. you have to pay more money to have electricity and shit pumped out to you but that's done by private companies. you simply incur your own building and services costs according to how far in the middle of fucking nowhere you want to be. land can be relatively cheap (provided it's not greenbelt and subject to land-conservation regulations), but at the end of the day it's you paying 10x the fuel bill (i hope the government's tax on fuel is not perceived by you as some evil plot to confine us all to metropolitanism).
It is cheaper for us to live away from metropolitan centers, not more expensive, and if you do not think a tax that pretty much forces you to choose NOT to move out, is not pricing you out of the market, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
where's this tax you speak of
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Nice post. Wasted on the target though.Uzique wrote:
lowing how exactly can you be such a staunch supporter of 'individual freedom' when you're so quick to dismiss those born into intolerable poverty as somehow "asking for it" and deserving to be kept in a life of poor living standards with little-to-no opportunities. shouldn't you be all about empowering these individuals and giving them everything that they should - rightfully, fairly and justly, according to classical liberalism's main tenets - be just as entitled to as you? why is the black guy born to a crackhead mom in the bronx somehow 'deserving' of that set-up in life? is it because it doesn't inconvenience your own lifestyle of relying-upon-state-employment and profiting from the misery of others, via war? such a patriot.
I never said they "asked for it", I say if they make no decisions that takes them away from it, then that is their choice, and not my responsibility. Because they DO have the freedom to make those types of choices.Uzique wrote:
lowing how exactly can you be such a staunch supporter of 'individual freedom' when you're so quick to dismiss those born into intolerable poverty as somehow "asking for it" and deserving to be kept in a life of poor living standards with little-to-no opportunities. shouldn't you be all about empowering these individuals and giving them everything that they should - rightfully, fairly and justly, according to classical liberalism's main tenets - be just as entitled to as you? why is the black guy born to a crackhead mom in the bronx somehow 'deserving' of that set-up in life? is it because it doesn't inconvenience your own lifestyle of relying-upon-state-employment and profiting from the misery of others, via war? such a patriot.
What is it exactly, you think, I think, I am entitled to? Not sure where you get the notion that I am a "state employee" but whatever, it makes no difference, if the "state" requires a service, and a person takes on that task of providing that service to the state, ( the people) they should get compensated for it. It is called EARNING
"but at the end of the day it's you paying 10x the fuel bill (i hope the government's tax on fuel"... did I misunderstand this?Uzique wrote:
where's this tax you speak of
.....and you "rest your case"?Jaekus wrote:
Nice post. Wasted on the target though.Uzique wrote:
lowing how exactly can you be such a staunch supporter of 'individual freedom' when you're so quick to dismiss those born into intolerable poverty as somehow "asking for it" and deserving to be kept in a life of poor living standards with little-to-no opportunities. shouldn't you be all about empowering these individuals and giving them everything that they should - rightfully, fairly and justly, according to classical liberalism's main tenets - be just as entitled to as you? why is the black guy born to a crackhead mom in the bronx somehow 'deserving' of that set-up in life? is it because it doesn't inconvenience your own lifestyle of relying-upon-state-employment and profiting from the misery of others, via war? such a patriot.
Nah, you're no fun any more. Just the same old. No new ideas or understanding reaches you. I'll let someone else take it up whilst I take a nap.
ok sleep tight. See if you can come back with actual new ideas instead of smart ass comments.Jaekus wrote:
Nah, you're no fun any more. Just the same old. No new ideas or understanding reaches you. I'll let someone else take it up whilst I take a nap.
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-18 17:09:23)
so you think tax on fuel == government coercing everyone to live where they want them to? it's your choice if you want to commute 150 miles to work as you preferred to live in the middle of a bog in a village of 25 inhabitants. i thought you were into the idea of personal responsibility?lowing wrote:
"but at the end of the day it's you paying 10x the fuel bill (i hope the government's tax on fuel"... did I misunderstand this?Uzique wrote:
where's this tax you speak of
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Is that what you are talking about? Because it was made pretty clear earlier that govt. seems to have their hand and their interests best served by "encouraging" you to NOT move away.Uzique wrote:
so you think tax on fuel == government coercing everyone to live where they want them to? it's your choice if you want to commute 150 miles to work as you preferred to live in the middle of a bog in a village of 25 inhabitants. i thought you were into the idea of personal responsibility?lowing wrote:
"but at the end of the day it's you paying 10x the fuel bill (i hope the government's tax on fuel"... did I misunderstand this?Uzique wrote:
where's this tax you speak of
Bottom line is, it is cheaper for us to move away from the city, it costs you more. You are discouraged by the govt. to move away, and if you do, they are gunna make sure it costs you
where did i say it cost more to live in the countryside than the city, here? i said that property in european cities is ridiculously more expensive than large, spread-estate mansions in the US. are you reading my posts?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
you said this regarding moving away form the city ------> "you can build wherever you can get planning permission - conservation and greenbelt regulations aside (we have less space and look after our public spaces, too). you're just discouraged by the higher-cost, "Uzique wrote:
where did i say it cost more to live in the countryside than the city, here? i said that property in european cities is ridiculously more expensive than large, spread-estate mansions in the US. are you reading my posts?
It cost LESS not more to live away form the city here. You are discouraged from doing so by being priced out of the market.
Mid-size Apartments in Manhattan are significantly more expensive than multi-acre property, in say, lakeside forest lined picturesque property in commuter distant parts of Connecticut. Europe is not exclusive to crowded in demand locations.Uzique wrote:
where did i say it cost more to live in the countryside than the city, here? i said that property in european cities is ridiculously more expensive than large, spread-estate mansions in the US. are you reading my posts?
But , way off topic...
i also said that similar things happen in the booming cities of the US. are either of you two reading or are you too busy being contemptuous and anti-european?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
no similar things don't happen, there is no city where it is cheaper to live in than the suburbs. None.Uzique wrote:
i also said that similar things happen in the booming cities of the US. are either of you two reading or are you too busy being contemptuous and anti-european?
You are telling me that it is cheaper to live in the city because you are "discouraged" to live away. Who could discourage you from moving away other than govt. in a socialist country where I am sure the govt. has their hand in the marketplace.
Nah, juggling work and bf2s. I love Europe. Thoroughly enjoy the people, especially the English in general, and French women. Love the various cultures, lifestyles, and "cottage" feel outside the major cities.
I've got an acquintance attending Cambridge, BTW.
I've got an acquintance attending Cambridge, BTW.
nobody discourages you to move away - all we've said is that it can be a pain in the ass to get planning permission in certain greenbelt areas (we are much smaller geographically and our greenbelt plots tend to still be greenbelts after 2,000 years of construction for a reason-- they're conserved or public spaces) and that the practical costs and services costs are ordinarily more. how is this socialist? it's basic business. there are no cities where it is cheaper to live than in the suburbs? so it's cheaper to live on long island than in the bronx? all i'm saying is that most european cities (especially capitals) are old, well-developed and incredibly gentrified. they're expensive. a townhouse or flat in a european city will often cost more than a huge estate-plot mansion in america: land costs are cheaper per acre/square measure and there's plenty to go around.lowing wrote:
no similar things don't happen, there is no city where it is cheaper to live in than the suburbs. None.Uzique wrote:
i also said that similar things happen in the booming cities of the US. are either of you two reading or are you too busy being contemptuous and anti-european?
You are telling me that it is cheaper to live in the city because you are "discouraged" to live away. Who could discourage you from moving away other than govt. in a socialist country where I am sure the govt. has their hand in the marketplace.
where exactly is this great socialist plot or discouragement or taxation you keep going on about? re-read things; i'm not saying anything that controversial.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/