Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Liberty - what is it? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=718803)

  • Dec 1, 2012, 02:58 AM
    tomder55
    What nonsense ! How could a single oyster harvesting operation be a threat to harbor seals ? And even if it was there were mitigations that could've been employed to remedy. Being from NY ,I'm well aware of and approve measures to protect the oyster beds of the nation . It wasn't that long ago that oysters were a staple food of the poor here. Long before pizza ,Nathan's hotdogs ,bagels and street cart prezels ,oysters were the food identified with NY .The NY harbor beds virtually disappeared with the combination of harbor dredging and pollution. Now they are on the rebound thanks to conservation efforts. But what good are all the efforts if managed harvesting cannot take place?

    As usual the left has it all backwards. The best way to manage and preserve public lands is not government management . The best proven way is leasing rights to private enterprise.
  • Dec 1, 2012, 09:40 AM
    talaniman
    Did you bother reading any of the links?

    Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special Use Permit Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Point Reyes National Seashore

    http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...t_7&id=8599796
  • Dec 1, 2012, 10:51 AM
    tomder55
    Yes especially the part about the bogus $1 million study on the effect of the oyster operation on harbor seals. If even Sen Dianne Feinstein has a problem with the decision then you know it's extreme.
  • Dec 3, 2012, 02:09 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post

    As usual the left has it all backwards. The best way to manage and preserve public lands is not government management . The best proven way is leasing rights to private enterprise.

    Good idea. That way we can drill it and mine it.


    Tut
  • Dec 3, 2012, 05:29 AM
    excon
    Hello Tut:
    Quote:

    The best proven way is leasing rights to private enterprise.
    Quote:

    Good idea. That way we can drill it and mine it.
    Good one. VERY good!

    Excon
  • Dec 3, 2012, 08:00 AM
    speechlesstx
    You couldn't have asked for a more responsible steward of the environment than this oyster company. Apparently you're fine with government using shoddy "science" to bully them out of business and renege on their promise, causing people to lose their jobs, homes and land. Again so much for liberal compassion...
  • Dec 3, 2012, 08:48 AM
    tomder55
    You can mock it all you want to ;but the only reason there is a lobster industry left in New England is because there were leasing rights and a quota system established. Leasing rights for public lands is the best way to preserve them and for conservation .
  • Dec 3, 2012, 09:48 AM
    talaniman
    The best way to preserve the land and its ecology is to leave them alone and let nature do what she does.

    Its just more profitable for them to be leased to private interests. Still looking for the science and studies that say this fellow was a good steward while he made his million on oysters, and how he treated and paid his 30 workers.
  • Dec 3, 2012, 10:19 AM
    speechlesstx
    I gave you all the links you needed. Drakes Bay was recognized as an outstanding steward of the environment, scientists sided with them over the feds, and their employees are devastated.

    Quote:

    "It's disbelief and excruciating sorrow," he said of the mood at the oyster farm, where 30 people are employed, including seven families that live on the property.

    "There are 30 people, all in tears this morning, who are going to lose their jobs and their homes," Lunny said. "They are experts in seafood handling and processing in the last oyster cannery in California, and there is nowhere for them to go."
    Not to mention the feds broke the contract that was to be renewed in perpetuity. But go ahead, keep bobbing an weaving and otherwise showing your lack of compassion and disrespect for science and the truth.
  • Dec 3, 2012, 10:53 AM
    tomder55
    Tal ,you in Texas should know what happens when we let the brush grow unmanaged . Natures ways are not always in the best interests of humans . We can harvest oysters and also preserve them at the same time. Around here we have a terrible need to cull the deer herds ;they are a great source of nutrition ,while at the same time collecting license fees for the right to hunt them . It wasn't that many years ago that progressives understood conservation. I guess the enviro-wackos took over the movement .
  • Dec 3, 2012, 10:55 AM
    Wondergirl
    Deer herds were culled naturally by predators, but man has moved into their territory and upset the balance of nature.
  • Dec 3, 2012, 10:58 AM
    tomder55
    OK what would the natural predators for deer be ? Maybe you think we should coexist with coyotes and bobcats in the suburbs too ?
  • Dec 3, 2012, 11:09 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Deer herds were culled naturally by predators, but man has moved into their territory and upset the balance of nature.

    Man is part of nature, too.
  • Dec 3, 2012, 11:13 AM
    tomder55
    Nah we are locust who need to be exterminated in the womb.
  • Dec 3, 2012, 11:27 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    nah we are locust who need to be exterminated in the womb.

    Locust are probably protected.
  • Dec 3, 2012, 02:51 PM
    speechlesstx
    As if the Drakes dilemma isn't a bad a enough example of the federal government that 3/4 of liberals love run amok, the IRS has been chasing an "illegal eagle", sending the owners of Robert Rauschenberg's "Canyon" depicting a stuffed bald eagle a $29.2 million tax bill plus "undervaluation penalty" of 40% for another $11.2 million plus interest.

    Quote:

    On Wednesday last week, New York's Museum of Modern Art unveiled its most recent gift, and one of the most significant in its history: Robert Rauschenberg's "Canyon" (1959). Rauschenberg was among the leading American artists of the post-World War II era, and "Canyon" is a "combine," a kind of large-scale, three-dimensional collage that includes photographs, pieces of wood, a mirror, a pillow and a stuffed bald eagle.

    The arrival of "Canyon" at MoMA is the culmination of a five-year absurdist farce—one tinged more by Kafka than Feydeau—that involved the IRS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the heirs of art dealer Ileana Sonnabend. It might have been laughable, except that the stakes were so high.

    Sonnabend, a dealer and collector, died in 2007, leaving a collection of art by Rauschenberg as well as such contemporaries as Andy Warhol and Jasper Johns. It was valued at about $1 billion. Her heirs, Nina Sundell and Antonio Homem, paid about $471 million in taxes on the value of the collection, selling some $600 million worth of art from it to do so.

    But "Canyon" was another story. The presence of the stuffed eagle meant it couldn't be sold without violating the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Since the artwork couldn't be sold, logic dictated that it be listed as having zero value, which is what the Sonnabend family's three appraisers, one of them Christie's auction house, did.

    But don't look for "logic" in any government dictionary. In the summer of 2011, the IRS sent the family an unsigned report appraising "Canyon" at $15 million. When they rejected the valuation, the government upped the ante: The appraisal was increased to $65 million, which yielded a $29.2 million tax bill. And the IRS levied a special "undervaluation penalty" of 40%, applied in cases where a party has made what the IRS deems a "gross understatement" of a property's value. That added $11.2 million to the tab. Plus interest.

    Only in the fantasy bazaar of the U.S. government's imagination can an item that is worthless carry a multimillion-dollar price tag.

    Ms. Sundell and Mr. Homem had another option: donate "Canyon" to a museum. But since they were declaring that it had no value, they would have to forfeit the charitable deductions that normally accrue to individuals in such cases. In the end, this is what they chose to do. "Canyon," which had been on extended loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, now joins five other Rauschenberg combines at MoMA. In exchange, the government has dropped its $40 million-plus claim against Sonnabend's estate.

    "Canyon" had, in fact, been in the feds' sights long before this particular debacle. According to a New York Times story last summer, in the early 1980s the combine had caught the attention of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which tried to seize it from Sonnabend.

    A deal was struck allowing her to keep possession as long as the work remained on public display. The issue resurfaced a few years later. In 1988, Rauschenberg himself had to submit a notarized letter stating that the eagle had been killed and stuffed by one of Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders long before the 1940 law went into effect.
    Someone inherits a piece of art, pays the estate taxes on it, then gets pursued by the IRS again which says it can't be sold rendering it worthless, then bills them $29 million in taxes plus an undervaluing fee plus interest. Seriously?

    If only Rauschenberg had used an eagle killed by a windmill instead of one shot by a Rough Rider. Perhaps Drakes Bay Oyster Co. should have gotten windmills involved as well.
  • Dec 3, 2012, 02:57 PM
    paraclete
    Speaking of windmills, could Don Quixote be resident in the IRS
  • Dec 4, 2012, 01:08 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    You couldn't have asked for a more responsible steward of the environment than this oyster company. Apparently you're fine with government using shoddy "science" to bully them out of business and renege on their promise, causing people to lose their jobs, homes and land. Again so much for liberal compassion...


    I completely agree with your thoughts on the matter, but my response was in relation to the claim that, "The best way to manage and preserve public lands is not government management. The best proven way is leasing rights to private enterprise"

    I was just wondering what Tom had in mind with the above statement.

    Is he suggesting that the best form of management of a wilderness area can be found in actively digging something up or chopping it down?

    Is he suggesting that a wilderness areas is properly managed by handing out a variety of leases to private companies and that somehow the total of these private activities will constitute overall management?

    The oyster farmers appear to manage their small part of the environment very well. But they don't constitute the overall management of the park. I am sure they were happy managing their bit.


    Tut
  • Dec 4, 2012, 05:07 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Is he suggesting that the best form of management of a wilderness area can be found in actively digging something up or chopping it down?
    Sometimes yes . I already spoke of the lack of wilderness management related to out of control wild fires . One of the things I do in my spare time is help trail blaze in public parks . The advantage of my efforts to make access easier for recreational purposes is that the trails become conviently placed fire breaks .
    I'll go further to say that managed logging is better for a forest than unimpeded growth . I also already pointed out that leasing rights of federal ocean areas to fisheries and lobstermen resulted in the preservation and conservation of the lobster population in New England .
    Before enviro-wackos took over the debate ,conservationists recognized these facts.
  • Dec 4, 2012, 01:01 PM
    paraclete
    So you trail blaze with a bulldozer Tom
  • Dec 4, 2012, 01:09 PM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    sometimes yes . I already spoke of the lack of wilderness management related to out of control wild fires . One of the things I do in my spare time is help trail blaze in public parks . The advantage of my efforts to make access easier for recreational purposes is that the trails become conviently placed fire breaks .
    I'll go further to say that managed logging is better for a forest than unimpeded growth . I also already pointed out that leasing rights of federal ocean areas to fisheries and lobstermen resulted in the preservation and conservation of the lobster population in New England .
    Before enviro-wackos took over the debate ,conservationists recognized these facts.


    I agree with most of that, but do you see the need for some type of overall government management of a wilderness area? It seems to me you were suggesting that overall management is best achieved through a variety of 'private concerns'. At least this is what I think you were saying.


    Tut
  • Dec 4, 2012, 01:40 PM
    paraclete
    Tom it seems you can't find a role for government anywhere, you cannot really believe that left to its own devices private enterprise will preserve the environment, no, they will pursue profits and that doesn't include cleaning up after themselves
  • Dec 4, 2012, 03:26 PM
    speechlesstx
    Don't confuse "better" with "only." It's like the saga of the Delta smelt, the feds turned one of the most agriculturally productive regions in the world, the San Joaquin Valley, into a dust bowl to protect a minnow.

    We all acknowledge government has a proper role. As with the above example, bullying environmentally responsible people out of their homes and businesses on cherry-picked evidence in contravention of the contract the government made isn't one of them.
  • Dec 4, 2012, 04:15 PM
    paraclete
    Yes Speech, things can go too far, we have all seen it
  • Dec 4, 2012, 04:33 PM
    tomder55
    I'm kind of sick of answering this strawman canard . I hope I make this clear. Because I think a limited government role is ideal does not mean I don't think government plays a role . First off ;I've never diminished the role of the local and state governments . They are only restricted by their own local charters or state constitutions .
    AND I've never said that the Federal Government doesn't have a role . I only ask that they confine their powers to those enumerated in the constitution . Capiche ?

    And YES ,leasing rights are the best way to manage public lands . Look up the 'tragedy of the commons'.
  • Dec 4, 2012, 05:40 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Yes Speech, things can go too far, we have all seen it
    The feds want me to eat good fats like in avocados... they cost me nearly $2.00 each thanks to their intervention. That's not going too far, it's stupidity. Encourage good behavior while making it impossible except for the wealthy that they allegedly hate. What's the price of arugula these days anyway? Oh that's right, the taxpayers buy it for Obama so who cares? Let 'em eat cake... oops, no Twinkies for us either.
  • Dec 4, 2012, 05:52 PM
    talaniman
    I don't think you can have an effective government when you have a powerful business class with a bunch of loot.

    What good is even having a constitution if business makes the local rules in there own interests, and the central government cannot work in the peoples interest? That's not an environment for effective governent.

    As bad as we complain about government stifling business, its obvious these rich guys have done quite well in this down economy. That's without all those land leases, and taxes and regulations. They still don't create jobs here, despite record low taxes, and high profits.

    So if government is the problem we also have to blame the job creators for failure to live up to their title also.
  • Dec 4, 2012, 05:54 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I'm kinda sick of answering this strawman canard . I hope I make this clear. Because I think a limited government role is ideal does not mean I don't think government plays a role . First off ;I've never diminished the role of the local and state governments . They are only restricted by their own local charters or state constitutions .
    AND I've never said that the Federal Government doesn't have a role . I only ask that they confine their powers to those enumerated in the constitution . capiche ?

    And YES ,leasing rights are the best way to manage public lands . Look up the 'tragedy of the commons'.

    But Tom they can't assume powers they don't have, this is why you have the Supreme Court, but if quangos like the EPA exercise powers it is because those powers have been given them by Congress, otherwise known as the legislature, so what you are saying is the legislature is acting outside its constitutional power and authority. You put too much reliance on local and state governments, there are too many vested interests at local level, this is why you have federal legislation.
  • Dec 4, 2012, 07:29 PM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    The feds want me to eat good fats like in avocados...they cost me nearly $2.00 each thanks to their intervention. That's not going too far, it's stupidity. Encourage good behavior while making it impossible except for the wealthy that they allegedly hate. What's the price of arugula these days anyway? Oh that's right, the taxpayers buy it for Obama so who cares? Let 'em eat cake...oops, no Twinkies for us either.

    If Hostess had been better managed, they might till be around and the workers who lose their jobs are not at fault, yet the ones that ran things in the ground will benefit.
  • Dec 4, 2012, 07:51 PM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    But Tom they can't assume powers they don't have, this is why you have the Supreme Court, but if quangos like the EPA exercise powers it is because those powers have been given them by Congress, otherwise known as the legislature, so what you are saying is the legislature is acting outside its constitutional power and authority. You put too much reliance on local and state governments, there are too many vested interests at local level, this is why you have federal legislation.
    Yes there was a reason for a central federal government ;it was intentionally designed to be restricted by the powers enumerated to it by the Constitution. That is the system I prefer . It is the reason I live here and not in other nations where the powers of the central government are seemingly limitless and not defined .

    Are you saying that because Congress acts that makes their action constitutional ? The fact that so many of their acts are declared unconstitutional proves that point false. But in this case I'm not arguing against a federal authority like the EPA. I'm saying that public lands are better managed by leasing arrangements with private interests .

    Let me give you another example... NYC used to manage Bryant Park. Under their leadership is was an unsavory dangerous place for the public to go . So how did it change ? NYC handed over leasing rights to a businessman ;Dan Biederman ,who runs a conservancy in a nonprofit public-private partnership model . He raised private funding from businesses(those greedy rich people ) around the park, real estate owners, concessions and events sponsors. Since 1966 it has been a place that the public feels welcome and safe to go. Oh they pass by the occasional vendor or 2 selling food and gifts;but the park has been self sustaining not requiring a dime of taxpayer's money since.
    A little known secret is that NYC has also adopted that model for the management of Central Park. It was once managed by the city ;and it was a dangerous crime infested place . Now ;it is a model of what a public commons can become.

    In both cases the government role is oversight ;not direct management ;and that is a superior model .

    "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it." Aristotle
  • Dec 4, 2012, 08:08 PM
    talaniman
    We can disagree with the actions of government, but that doesn't make the action unconstitutional. Only SCOTUS can rule on that so it either meets or NOT a constitutional challenge. That's the system intended or NOT. Right or wrong.

    As for the best way to manage public lands, agree or disagree, there is also a process for that too. If the owners of Oyster bay want to bring a challenge to government actions they can avail themselves of that option.

    That's up to them and the court of public opinion has little to do with the owners decision.
  • Dec 4, 2012, 09:19 PM
    paraclete
    Tom what you speak about is some sort of policing model if implemented with private security and the city was perfectly capable of implementing such a plan they just didn't do so. There is a big difference between what local government has the power to do and what it directs its priorities too. The Parks simply weren't a priority, no matter what the local politicians said. So someone got a single focus organisation to look after a specific tract of land, very different priorities, Not that government couldn't do it, it wasn't a priority. That model worked in one place but it cannot be implemented everywhere because there just aren't enough private benefactors. You see look at the national parks, same principle but in government hands, those lands had to be protected from the exploitation of private interests
  • Dec 5, 2012, 05:10 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    AND I've never said that the Federal Government doesn't have a role . I only ask that they confine their powers to those enumerated in the constitution . capiche ?

    Yes, but what good is this. It depends on the political makeup of SCOTUS at the time.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post

    And YES ,leasing rights are the best way to manage public lands . Look up the 'tragedy of the commons'.

    Tom this can mean whatever we want it to mean. Based on the total of all arguments presented one could argue for the exact opposite. That private leasing rights is the least attractive alternative.

    Tut
  • Dec 5, 2012, 05:27 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Tom what you speak about is some sort of policing model if implemented with private security and the city was perfectly capable of implementing such a plan they just didn't do so. There is a big difference between what local government has the power to do and what it directs its priorities too. The Parks simply weren't a priority, no matter what the local politicians said. So someone got a single focus organisation to look after a specific tract of land, very different priorities, Not that government couldn't do it, it wasn't a priority. That model worked in one place but it cannot be implemented everywhere because there just aren't enough private benefactors. You see look at the national parks, same principle but in government hands, those lands had to be protected from the exploitation of private interests
    Wrong . The fact is that they are better managed by private interests . Under your model the California oysters are an endangered species. Under the privately managed arrangements oyster beds grow and the public benefits . This is just a demonstratable fact be it oysters or ;lobsters ,or parkland ,or forest management . Had that model been employed in the San Joaquin Valley the farmers would've gotten the water needed to maintain their business ;and the smelt would still be saved .
  • Dec 5, 2012, 05:30 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Tom this can mean whatever we want it to mean. Based on the total of all arguments presented one could argue for the exact opposite. That private leasing rights is the least attractive alternative.
    Make the case .
  • Dec 5, 2012, 06:03 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    go ahead and make the case .

    In short, people's behaviour does sometimes cause threatening situations, not initiated by malicious outside forces, but rather, resulting from the apparently innocent decisions of individuals and small groups acting alone

    (Hardin 1968)

    Yes, I could also find quotes that claim governments implementing a top down approach to managing 'the common' will result in similar threatening situations.

    The theory has along history and therefore is subject to volumes of debate. In fact there are probably volumes of debate.

    Tut
  • Dec 5, 2012, 06:20 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    As for the best way to manage public lands,agreeor disagree, there is also a processfor that too. If the owners of Oyster bay want to bring a challenge to government actions they can avail themselves of that option.
    The feds just unilaterally evicted them from their homes and jobs on bad science. I thought you like science, I thought you were for the underdog. You rant endlessly about big business running roughshod over the little guys but don't seem to be bothered by big government doing the same.
  • Dec 5, 2012, 06:24 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    In short, people's behaviour does sometimes cause threatening situations, not initiated by malicious outside forces, but rather, resulting from the apparently innocent decisions of individuals and small groups acting alone

    (Hardin 1968)

    Yes, I could also find quotes that claim governments implementing a top down approach to managing 'the common' will result in similar threatening situations.

    The theory has along history and therefore is subject to volumes of debate. In fact there are probably volumes of debate.
    yes but I'm presenting examples of demostrated results . In 1989 the Montana Legislature approved a pilot program that allowed the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to lease some water rights for in-stream flow during a 10-year trial period. The problem was that water rights were being used almost exculsively for agriculture and it was destroying the fish in Montana streams. In 2005, the pilot program became permanent.
    The results ? Zero fish were found on Wasson Creek in Montana in 2003. In 2008, after five years of leasing there were five fish per 100 feet in the stream. In Murphy Spring Creek , populations were measured at three fish per 100 feet of stream . In 2010, populations increased to 14 fish per 100.

    BTW ;to improve the system even more ,the Alaska model should be employed where the revenue from the leases goes back to the citizens in the form of commons land and water use dividends . What that does is recognize the basic truth that everyone has property rights in the commons .
  • Dec 5, 2012, 06:25 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    The feds just unilaterally evicted them from their homes and jobs on bad science. I thought you like science, I thought you were for the underdog. You rant endlessly about big business running roughshod over the little guys but don't seem to be bothered by big government doing the same.

    I thought that in the end there was too much flack over the science, so the Feds opted for the easy way out by not renewing their lease.

    .
  • Dec 5, 2012, 06:35 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    yes but I'm presenting examples of demostrated results . In 1989 the Montana Legislature approved a pilot program that allowed the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to lease some water rights for in-stream flow during a 10-year trial period. The problem was that water rights were being used almost exculsively for agricuture and it was destroying the fish in Montana streams. In 2005, the pilot program became permanent.
    The results ? Zero fish were found on Wasson Creek in Montana in 2003. In 2008, after five years of leasing there were five fish per 100 feet in the stream. In Murphy Spring Creek , populations were measured at three fish per 100 feet of stream . In 2010, populations increased to 14 fish per 100.

    BTW ;to improve the system even more ,the Alaska model should be employed where the revenue from the leases goes back to the citizens in the form of commons land and water use dividends . What that does is recognize the basic truth that everyone has property rights in the commons .


    Ok, that's well and good, but you told me to read the commons thing and I did. Obviously I could not read everything, but based on what I did read it seemed obvious that one could use the arguments either way.

    You said to make the case for that. And I did,


    Tut

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:23 PM.