Nashville Republican & Democratic convention 2024!???

[Armacing]

On 7/13/2022 at 4:51 PM, BnaBreaker said:

A big state government strong arming and extorting a local government into holding a party for it's rowdy buddies that it has reservations about is essentially the very sort of thing a libertarian is supposed to vehemently oppose.  

Just saw your response.  No, a libertarian is opposed to the government-funded convention center.  The state was asleep-at-the-wheel when they allowed the city to use public funds to build the convention center, they should have passed a law in the state legislature preventing that.  But I have to assume they didn't because they are just as corrupt as the metro government.  So it's red team v/s blue team but both are equally corrupt as far as I can tell.  

There is nothing about libertarianism that elevates local governments to a moral high-ground above state or national governments.  There is only freedom, and I will cheer for any entity that is protecting individual liberty regardless of the partisan politics involved.

On 7/13/2022 at 4:51 PM, BnaBreaker said:

But it sounds to me like if you're into whatever it is big government is doing, then you just slap the convenient ole "freedom" label on it and call it libertarianism for the sake of consistency. 

Ha!  I welcome your personal attacks because it means you are utterly defeated on the issue at hand.  Keep it coming 

On 7/13/2022 at 4:51 PM, BnaBreaker said:

 And if that is indeed the skewed version of so-called libertarianism you're trying to pedal here, then you can also count me out further discussion about it.  Now queue the 'anonymous' Armacing laughing response emoji.  

As I mentioned above, I place no importance on the federal/state/local government involved in a particular issue.  I evaluate every issue on its merits when it comes to increasing or decreasing personal liberty.  Since you're out of the discussion now though, can I at least get an anonymous BNABreaker laughing emoji on this post?

On 7/15/2022 at 4:24 PM, BnaBreaker said:

 I'm not a Libertarian myself, but I have immense respect for Libertarians who are actually consistent in their beliefs all the way across the board. 

If you respect them so much, why not join them and become a Libertarian?  Team Yellow!

In all seriousness though, I take it as a point of pride that my opinion on any issue prompts you to contemplate the merits of a freedom-focused political affiliation, regardless of how you interpret that concept.  If we have now reached the point in the argument where we are debating who loves freedom more, then we are on the right track.

On 7/13/2022 at 2:03 PM, Bos2Nash said:

But you are okay with the "tax-collecting apparatus of government" forcing people to pay for expanding highways so that more people can choose (oh thank goodness for that choice) to buy a personal vehicle (and pay for the insurance and maintenance) and sit in traffic and then complain about such traffic. So it is okay one way, but not the other? 

You are arguing against the Republican position on this issue... That's not me.  I don't believe in publicly funded roads.  They should all be private roads, and most of the highways would be toll roads in that scenario.  I believe in privately owned rail.  Keep in mind, it was the government that built all these massive highways and encouraged suburbanization.  Government policies that pushed people out into the suburbs whether via zoning or taxes or schools.   Remember the Nashville Streetcars?  Those were all private companies driven out of business by a corrupt government that was funding roads and attempting to control the electrical infrastructure (NES is a government-backed monopoly).

 

On 7/13/2022 at 2:03 PM, Bos2Nash said:

 Rural communities don't have the resources for services such as trash collection, sewer system (and maintenance), sometimes they don't have water systems (and maintenance), power supply.

The term "Rural Communities" is code for "Rural Government" in your dialogue.  I prefer to focus on Rural Residents... Let's talk about what they have.  Do they generate trash?  Yes, they haul it to the dump.  Do they generate sewage?  Yes, it goes into the sceptic tank.  Do they have city water?  No, they get it from a well.  When it comes to electricity, just about every rural residence is connected to the electrical grid, but some new "off-grid" residences are designed to use solar or wind power, so even that is not as universal as it once was.

These rural residents have decided they don't need their government to provide any of those services, and they like it that way because they don't have to pay taxes for those services.  Everyone takes care of their own needs - - true individual freedom in that regard.

On 7/13/2022 at 2:03 PM, Bos2Nash said:

 Everything relies on the private sector which the government then needs to regulate in order to maintain some of the affordability of the rural lifestyle.

Wrong!  The "rural lifestyle" is not dependent upon government price regulations.  The affordability is actually due to the lack of government regulation because it allows people the freedom to live how they want and in the cheapest way possible, without anyone else having an ability to stop them because they disagree with their manner of living.  Many people in Tennessee like to live on large tracts of land that put ample distance between them and their neighbors.  That physical distance keeps everyone out of everyone else's business, and so a wonderous variety of cheap living styles flourish back in the boondocks - - many of which would be illegal in a city like Nashville.

On 7/13/2022 at 2:03 PM, Bos2Nash said:

 Also, an urban environment does not want to rely on such private entities within the urban environment because then you have a tangle of different companies that don't communicate and don't work together like public agencies do.

That is a classic socialist argument against the free market.  Here is how it usually goes:  "We can't have a bunch of private companies providing services to the people!  It will be mass chaos!  Better to have one company building the houses, one company making the cars, and one company baking the bread.  And it avoids the wasted expense of advertising that all these companies spend to compete with each other!"

Of course, we all know that the benefit of multiple companies is that they do not work together most of the time, but rather,  they compete and try to drive the other out of business by offering the best product at the lowest price.  So the consumer benefits, blah, blah, blah.  The story is no different with any utility service.

On 7/13/2022 at 2:03 PM, Bos2Nash said:

 That isn't even going into the climate considerations of having one fleet of agencies versus 2, 5, 10 fleets of agencies.

I wish you would have gone into it because I have no idea what you're talking about.   What agencies?  And how do they affect the climate?

On 7/13/2022 at 2:03 PM, Bos2Nash said:

When it comes to transportation as a whole, the urban environment continues to subsidize the roads going out into the suburban/rural communities because the State builds the roads from the urban tax revenue to make these rural/suburban communities realistic. 

Sounds to me like you agree with my idea of making all those highways toll roads so they are self-sustaining entities.  That way all the resources can stay in the urban areas.  Let's get the state out of the business of road building and leave that to the road building companies.   Heck, you might even come to love the libertarian economy where most people live close to the city and ride privately-owned street cars to avoid the expense of tolls and car ownership, which will help pay for the private schools their kids attend. 

On 7/13/2022 at 2:03 PM, Bos2Nash said:

What you fail to see is that Mass Transit is actually an equalizer for the city. You choose to only look at mass transit as a business that should be making a profit year over year. Mass Transit has economic benefits leaps and bounds – LEAPS AND BOUNDS – above that of hosting a "major" political convention, or a Super Bowl, or a World Cup, or any other event that the State is trying to force Metro to host under the guise of "Economic Benefit". 

I haven't read much about that political convention you guys keep mentioning (I did see something about in in an article covering the airport authority), so I'll just state this as plainly as possible:  The state should not be involved in hosting any events, or lobbying for any events, or funding any events, or funding the construction of any event venues.  If the people of Tennessee and the companies located here want to host an event - Great!  Let them organize it and put on a fancy show.  That sort of business endeavor is not a legitimate function of government.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Armacing

[samsonh]

.

Edited August 5, 2023 by samsonh

[samsonh]

@ArmacingI posted a reply on mobile but wanted to do it on desk top because it is easier to link.  I understand your opposition to the MCC, I was as well. But it has turned out to be quite successful.  You propose the state was asleep at the wheel during the MCC. This ignores the reality of how long planning for the MCC took. A new convention center had been proposed for at least a decade before it even got the council. This was not a surprise to the state. Additionally, it was not as if this was a project without local opposition. It was quite controversial. 

It also ignores the fact that the state used similar funding mechanisms to entice the city to build a new Titan's stadium. Surely you know that? The state also contributed $500 million of your money to the stadium.  These are the guys that you think would have stopped the MCC? https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/07/26/what-happens-when-a-cash-poor-billionaire-wants-a-new-sports-stadium-lobbying/