Cabbie

Viros and regulation of rural areas

18 posts in this topic

ewv, you've mentioned this several times and I gather that you have been pointing out that beaurocrats in America have pre-emptively made it near impossible to go "off the grid" in our country. Would you mind elaborating a bit more on this? Also, I have no idea what you mean by "viro" besides as a root for 'virus'.

Look forward to your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, I have no idea what you mean by "viro" besides as a root for 'virus'.

enviromentalist ;) But I'd also be interested to know if the choice of abbreviation is a play on "virus", since that's what the movement is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, I have no idea what you mean by "viro" besides as a root for 'virus'.

enviromentalist ;) But I'd also be interested to know if the choice of abbreviation is a play on "virus", since that's what the movement is.

It's simple conservation of letters, which they should enthusiastically embrace to reduce their alphabet footprint. Any similarity between viruses and living or past individuals in the movement is purely coincidental. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ewv, you've mentioned this several times and I gather that you have been pointing out that beaurocrats in America have pre-emptively made it near impossible to go "off the grid" in our country. Would you mind elaborating a bit more on this?

By going "off the grid" under the heading "Viros and regulation of rural areas" I assume you mean generally the possibility of moving into a remote area of the country where one would be left alone and free of bureaucracy while living a semi-self sufficient, independent life.

The viro movement has for decades sought to depopulate rural areas for wilderness and to over time herd most people into islands of urban areas. (The exceptions are politically-connected viros themselves, who would keep their estates in and overlooking scenic areas.) As such there has been a massive increase in ever-growing land use laws restricting and prohibiting use of both private and government land in rural areas. They have mapped out the entire country with satellite and airplane surveillance and know everything that is there, including all aspects of the "ecosystem", what special features they have prioritized, and who owns the land and how it is being used.

Many remote areas are already in government ownership and a lot of the rest is politically targeted for acquisition for wilderness parks and refuges as it becomes politically feasible.

The Federal government alone owns over 30% of the country, mostly through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), with state and local governments bringing government ownership up to or over about 50%. (The worst state regarding government ownership is Alaska, where less than 1% of the land is privately owned.) On land already owned by the government, there are growing restrictions on how the land can be used; viros seek to eliminate mining, ranching, oil and gas production, logging, or any other extraction of natural resources or industrial processes on government land. A new system doing just this, called the National Conservation Areas begun administratively under the Clinton-Gore Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, is now going through Congress (having been held up when Republicans had more influence).

They are also after private land across the country, which still dominates in the east. There are massive 'hit lists' of hundreds of millions of acres regarded as future acquisition targets especially for the National Park Service. There are growing restrictions on private land use under the same police powers of the state used to legally justify zoning, and such Federal statutes as "wetlands" regulations (which apply to dry land) and the Endangered Species Act. The degrees of overall restrictions vary in different states, but all are getting worse. They don't care who holds the deed as long as they get the control, but they prefer Federal ownership, and by the National Park Service in particular because it is most stringent. Some areas (called Greenlines) have a mixture of private and government land (such as the Adirondack park in upstate NY, the Pine Barrens in NJ, and the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area in Washington and Oregon) because it was politically infeasible to eliminate all private ownership at the beginning. Killing the private economy through viro controls, taxes, and bureaucratic requirements has become a trend where they don't yet have consolidated park-like controls; as the economy dies, normal people leave or become less influential in an area with no political clout, and more people are driven into poverty and dependence on government.

Up through about the 1970s the dominant threat was government acquisition, but due to political resistance to the use of eminent domain and killing rural communities, more of their initiatives were blocked. Those goals haven't gone away -- and as you read this there is a political process now taking place to try to get more power and guaranteed entitlement funding for the National Park Service as an independent agency with even less accountability -- but over the last three or four decades the use of land use controls to tie up private land has become more sophisticated and more widespread. There are of course still rural areas where people live, but the nicer the area, the more vulnerable you are, and the suffocating taxes, social controls and government involvement in the economy follow you everywhere. (If current government policies and trends had been in place for Atlast Shrugged, the "ray screen" over the Valley hiding the civilization there would not have helped: it would have been taken over precisely because it looked like pristine wilderness.)

That is a very brief summary of a very complex political and legal process and trend that most people know nothing about but which is already very bad and threatens to evolve into something much worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is terrifying and liable to keep me up several more hours contemplating the implications of market distortions created by 50% off-limits land, and what a struggle it would be to undo the damage. It's not looking good considering how hard the environmentalists have been selling its garbage to the very young. I remember my own public elementary education in the early 90s where we had school-wide fundraisers to help 'protect' rainforests from being cleared in South America. I got a black shirt with a colorful yellow frog on it and thought that it was the greatest thing at the time. I despair of finding any person on the street who thinks that no land should be for 'public' use. I can hear it now, 'Well what about Old Faithful, they'll turn it into a walmart!' (as if any sane businessman would want to destroy such a lucrative landmark).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is terrifying and liable to keep me up several more hours contemplating the implications of market distortions created by 50% off-limits land, and what a struggle it would be to undo the damage. It's not looking good considering how hard the environmentalists have been selling its garbage to the very young. I remember my own public elementary education in the early 90s where we had school-wide fundraisers to help 'protect' rainforests from being cleared in South America. I got a black shirt with a colorful yellow frog on it and thought that it was the greatest thing at the time.

There is more to it than market distortions, and it is more than 50% because of all the controls over private land. They are literally shutting down the natural resources industries by slow strangulation and are trampling the rights of individuals to even live in their own homes free to act on their own land. The bureaucratic social controls are suffocating and threatening, with punitive outbursts against innocent indivuals. The way they torment and harass people is literally wrecking people's lives.

I despair of finding any person on the street who thinks that no land should be for 'public' use. I can hear it now, 'Well what about Old Faithful, they'll turn it into a walmart!' (as if any sane businessman would want to destroy such a lucrative landmark).

You would think that government managing a preserve, which doesn't take much, would be the most innocuous of all the things they do and the least worth worrying about in today's context, but the power-seeking bureaucratic mentality with police powers is extremely dangerous no matter what he does. Watch this short video previously cited here on the Forum to see what they do to people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can hear it now, 'Well what about Old Faithful, they'll turn it into a walmart!' (as if any sane businessman would want to destroy such a lucrative landmark).
I thought, just for a minute, how great it would be if these natural wonders were surrounded by a Walmart. Well, not a Walmart, per se, but private business designed to entertain me! I've been to a number of national parks and I see a lot of wasted money (e.g. Tourist information lodges every 68 feet, trying very hard to look log-cabiney) and a lot of wasted opportunities because they're too worried about changing anything (let's get some chair lifts to the top of the mountain!). A private business could make those decisions and they'd offer services that the current ones don't. Private would be more beautiful, not less (this is not to imply that you said differently).

Sometimes, when you start thinking about these things, it's fun until you realize that things could be so much better right now, but instead they probably won't be for a long time... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the reason I mentioned (in other posts) that the only way a group of thinking, reasonable individuals could exist freely today is if they were to personally have and control a weapon of such massive destructive properties that even the insane, power hungry governments would be hesitant to attempt anything against them.

What puts Man above brute beasts (including those that take on human shape) is the ability to think, that ability alone is the only resource against government gone amok. When faced with an attack in the woods by, say a grizzly bear, you survive by out thinking the bear - I submit that is the only way we will ever win against the present day beasts that are running our government. The problem is they have the tools and weapons that thinkers have given them, so our only recourse is to have better tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can hear it now, 'Well what about Old Faithful, they'll turn it into a walmart!' (as if any sane businessman would want to destroy such a lucrative landmark).
I thought, just for a minute, how great it would be if these natural wonders were surrounded by a Walmart. Well, not a Walmart, per se, but private business designed to entertain me! I've been to a number of national parks and I see a lot of wasted money (e.g. Tourist information lodges every 68 feet, trying very hard to look log-cabiney) and a lot of wasted opportunities because they're too worried about changing anything (let's get some chair lifts to the top of the mountain!). A private business could make those decisions and they'd offer services that the current ones don't. Private would be more beautiful, not less (this is not to imply that you said differently).

Sometimes, when you start thinking about these things, it's fun until you realize that things could be so much better right now, but instead they probably won't be for a long time... ;)

In some National Parks selected private businesses are allowed to operate various facilities by permission of the government; the operations are called "concessions". The viro park lobby is doing everything it can to get rid of even that. Having eliminated the private property they now claim that those remaining are "privileged" and "exploiting the public's land" for profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the reason I mentioned (in other posts) that the only way a group of thinking, reasonable individuals could exist freely today is if they were to personally have and control a weapon of such massive destructive properties that even the insane, power hungry governments would be hesitant to attempt anything against them.

Think of national self-defense using WMD's (Co-60 is a bad idea though) and you describe nothing different than what has existed for decades (other than an actual willingness to use them.) But first you have to have a nation to defend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be no weapon or nonsense like that. We aren't going to be free right now and I don't see why anyone would waste psychic energy on a 'quick fix'. The right steps are being taken...getting Objectivist intellectuals into universities, getting Miss Rand's works into the hands of the young, getting a rational perspective into newspapers...the long-haul approach is the best.

Down here in Texas, folks feel alienated and are honestly and openly discussing secession and are convinced that it should be on the table as an option. I shake my head at that, because even though it would have a vastly freer market, as its own country Texas would be a different form of statist...likely a crushingly judeo-christian state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Down here in Texas, folks feel alienated and are honestly and openly discussing secession and are convinced that it should be on the table as an option.

Is that why Chuck Norris made these comments (which are at once serious and hilarious)?

(CNN) – Actor Chuck Norris has his eyes on the presidency, but not the White House. Norris wrote that he would be interested in becoming the president of Texas, if the state were ever to secede from the Union.

“I may run for president of Texas,” Norris wrote Monday in a column posted at WorldNetDaily. “That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.”

The actor claimed “thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation” and said that if states decide to secede from the union, that Texas would lead the way.

“Anyone who has been around Texas for any length of time knows exactly what we'd do if the going got rough in America,” Norris wrote.

“Let there be no doubt about that.” Norris was a strong supporter of Mike Huckabee’s presidential bid, and he helped to draw attention to the former Arkansas governor’s campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Mercury. Texas nationalism has strong support and many (and i mean MANY) feel that we can and should leave the union by choice since we joined the union by choice. Governer GoodHair (aka Rick Perry) drew wide popular support for turning down some of the stimulus bill on account of attached strings. Texans think we'll be fine economically on our own (and that businesses will flock to Texas as they often do, as we are considered the best pro-business environment, see link). Texans are trying to build up a a sense of outrage among eachother to legitimize it. I'll collect quotes by average joe's as I encounter them to post in the future.

Am I the only Texan posting here? Its odd for me to explain these sentiments to people since I am surrounded by it constantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Mercury. Texas nationalism has strong support and many (and i mean MANY) feel that we can and should leave the union by choice since we joined the union by choice. Governer GoodHair (aka Rick Perry) drew wide popular support for turning down some of the stimulus bill on account of attached strings. Texans think we'll be fine economically on our own (and that businesses will flock to Texas as they often do, as we are considered the best pro-business environment, see link). Texans are trying to build up a a sense of outrage among eachother to legitimize it. I'll collect quotes by average joe's as I encounter them to post in the future.

Am I the only Texan posting here? Its odd for me to explain these sentiments to people since I am surrounded by it constantly.

I was born and raised in Texas.

It wouldn't hurt my feelings if we became our own republic again one day. Our state is huge, filled with wonderful resources and farmland, and has one of the strongest economies of any state in the union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Mercury. Texas nationalism has strong support and many (and i mean MANY) feel that we can and should leave the union by choice since we joined the union by choice. Governer GoodHair (aka Rick Perry) drew wide popular support for turning down some of the stimulus bill on account of attached strings. Texans think we'll be fine economically on our own (and that businesses will flock to Texas as they often do, as we are considered the best pro-business environment, see link). Texans are trying to build up a a sense of outrage among eachother to legitimize it. I'll collect quotes by average joe's as I encounter them to post in the future.

Am I the only Texan posting here? Its odd for me to explain these sentiments to people since I am surrounded by it constantly.

I lived in Texas for 2 years (I attended Texas A&M for grad school), so I fully understand and appreciate Texan nationalism. I have been to the The Alamo, and have driven across Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, and Galveston. I have returned there for weddings, and, so, still have some contacts there. I even miss the weather sometimes.

I can still remember how shocked I was when I moved to New Jersey only to find out that renting a movie cost $3. In America, I had known only the price at the College Station Hastings: 49c for "regular" movies, and $1 for new releases. Rent for a spacious one-bedroom was under $400. Even when I moved to Nashville, my rent never crossed $600, and this was Brentwood.

Gawd, I miss the American South!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Mercury. Texas nationalism has strong support and many (and i mean MANY) feel that we can and should leave the union by choice since we joined the union by choice. Governer GoodHair (aka Rick Perry) drew wide popular support for turning down some of the stimulus bill on account of attached strings. Texans think we'll be fine economically on our own (and that businesses will flock to Texas as they often do, as we are considered the best pro-business environment, see link). Texans are trying to build up a a sense of outrage among eachother to legitimize it. I'll collect quotes by average joe's as I encounter them to post in the future.

Am I the only Texan posting here? Its odd for me to explain these sentiments to people since I am surrounded by it constantly.

I lived in Texas for 2 years (I attended Texas A&M for grad school), so I fully understand and appreciate Texan nationalism. I have been to the The Alamo, and have driven across Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, and Galveston. I have returned there for weddings, and, so, still have some contacts there. I even miss the weather sometimes.

I can still remember how shocked I was when I moved to New Jersey only to find out that renting a movie cost $3. In America, I had known only the price at the College Station Hastings: 49c for "regular" movies, and $1 for new releases. Rent for a spacious one-bedroom was under $400. Even when I moved to Nashville, my rent never crossed $600, and this was Brentwood.

Gawd, I miss the American South!

What did you study at A&M? I attended for undergrad, class of '05, and I'm actually heading to college station tonite. The only thing that shocks me about your post is missing the weather. Most people not born here can stand the fickle nature of it! I love my Houston humidity however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Mercury. Texas nationalism has strong support and many (and i mean MANY) feel that we can and should leave the union by choice since we joined the union by choice. Governer GoodHair (aka Rick Perry) drew wide popular support for turning down some of the stimulus bill on account of attached strings. Texans think we'll be fine economically on our own (and that businesses will flock to Texas as they often do, as we are considered the best pro-business environment, see link). Texans are trying to build up a a sense of outrage among eachother to legitimize it. I'll collect quotes by average joe's as I encounter them to post in the future.

Am I the only Texan posting here? Its odd for me to explain these sentiments to people since I am surrounded by it constantly.

I was born and raised in Texas.

It wouldn't hurt my feelings if we became our own republic again one day. Our state is huge, filled with wonderful resources and farmland, and has one of the strongest economies of any state in the union.

Absolutely true. If there was a state that could do it, it's Texas. Secession would only happen, though, if Washington were truly too weak to stop it, and it's not even close to that point yet. Also, I'm not sure how I feel about the chances that anything cohesive and clear coming out of Austin. Our state legislature can't even get it together to rewrite our constitution despite many attempts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Mercury. Texas nationalism has strong support and many (and i mean MANY) feel that we can and should leave the union by choice since we joined the union by choice. Governer GoodHair (aka Rick Perry) drew wide popular support for turning down some of the stimulus bill on account of attached strings. Texans think we'll be fine economically on our own (and that businesses will flock to Texas as they often do, as we are considered the best pro-business environment, see link). Texans are trying to build up a a sense of outrage among eachother to legitimize it. I'll collect quotes by average joe's as I encounter them to post in the future.

Am I the only Texan posting here? Its odd for me to explain these sentiments to people since I am surrounded by it constantly.

I lived in Texas for 2 years (I attended Texas A&M for grad school), so I fully understand and appreciate Texan nationalism. I have been to the The Alamo, and have driven across Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, and Galveston. I have returned there for weddings, and, so, still have some contacts there. I even miss the weather sometimes.

I can still remember how shocked I was when I moved to New Jersey only to find out that renting a movie cost $3. In America, I had known only the price at the College Station Hastings: 49c for "regular" movies, and $1 for new releases. Rent for a spacious one-bedroom was under $400. Even when I moved to Nashville, my rent never crossed $600, and this was Brentwood.

Gawd, I miss the American South!

What did you study at A&M? I attended for undergrad, class of '05, and I'm actually heading to college station tonite. The only thing that shocks me about your post is missing the weather. Most people not born here can stand the fickle nature of it! I love my Houston humidity however.

I studied Management Information Systems, and graduated in '00.

I grew up in Lagos, Nigeria, so Houston's humidity is not new to me. It does get unbearably hot sometimes though, which is why a tropically-warm place closer to the water (Florida? North Carolina? Georgia?) or with a mild winter (Tennessee) would be perfect. But, compared to Toronto, I'll gladly take Houston, warts and all. ;)

Not to mention the absence of a state income tax...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites