Libertarians Rule, Socialists Rock!

This is a somewhat contrarian blog entry, and yes, it is about transit.

Libertarians are about a serious lack of control. Something I strongly wish the Federal Government would take to heart, for the sake of transit and cities. Socialists have the opposite attitude, and want a very hands on Government, which locally and in cities I find to be a very positive and good thing. As long, of course, that this socialist Government at a city level is for and by the people. Here’s my reasoning.

First the Feds & Libertarianism

The Federal Government, in the United States and other places for that matter, suck at knowing much about local issues. The Federal Government is famous for wanting to make everything cookie cutter for every place, every locale, and not allowing each place to exist as it is. In the United States, the Federal Government has been largely responsible for encouraging a perpetuation of suburban expansion through very socialist policies (wealth redistribution, public roadways, large scale zoning encouraged everywhere, etc).

In Portland and Seattle, two cities that pay far more federal taxes than they ever get back, suffer because of Federal Wealth Redistribution through roadway¬†construction, welfare, and other notions. In reality, the cities would be much better off without the Federal intrusion into individual’s coffers and incomes. I’ll add more about this in a minute.

Now for Socialism at a Local Level

At a local level, in a city, socialism works. Why does it work? Easy, it is the way people behave in the first place. We are a social animal, and we work together to achieve larger cities, greater inventions, new thoughts, and expansion of the human experience!

In Seattle and Portland especially, the cities basically pay for their own infrastructure plus the surrounding areas infrastructure. That includes thousands of miles of roads and such that expand far past the edges of the city. That’s fine, and those roadways have existed and would exist without Federal intrusion. It’s because cities will work together for connections, just as they do within the city itself.

What would this give us? If we achieved this split among Federal, State, and Local Politics? What would happen if cities actually could keep 100%, or even just 60% or 90% of that revenue that flows out? Here are some thoughts about that…

  1. Cities like Portland and Seattle would have even more extensive infrastructure (as they did 100 years ago, per capita, we’re pretty weak in the infrastructure department these days).
  2. Portland and Seattle would have happier people, less cars, and more livability than they do (and they’re not doing bad as it is).
In one of my next entries I’m going to step into where some of that money goes to after it leaves the cities. I’m currently researching where the Federal Government sucks all that money up and where it all ends up, because right now, 90%+ of it doesn’t end up back in the state. That money ends up in Iraq, Afghanistan, places like Idaho or South Dakota, Brazil, Israel, and a host of other places. But it doesn’t end up back here in the cities that create the wealth.
What could we do if we invested back into our country? Into our cities, into our states? I’d imagine, and am betting, that it would be a massive change!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s