youtube - The Martian - Deleted Scene #1 - Mark Arrives at Earth

[a425couple]

Interesting scene -
The Martian - Deleted Scene #1 - Mark Arrives at Earth [Blu-Ray/DVD 2016]
The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.

[Quadibloc]

Post by a425couple
The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.

It does align with some views... expressed by Heinlein. But they're
not among his _controversial_ ones, nor are they unique to Heinlein.

As that scene seems like a good, if old-fashioned, way to end a
movie, leaving the audience to feel it was _about_ something, it
seems to me a pity that it _was_ deleted.

John Savard

[a425couple]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by a425couple
The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.

It does align with some views... expressed by Heinlein. But they're
not among his _controversial_ ones, nor are they unique to Heinlein.

I hear strong echoes of Robert Heinlein in this scene ...
“Our behavior is different. How often have you seen a headline like
this? -- TWO DIE ATTEMPTING RESCUE OF DROWNING CHILD. If a man gets lost
in the mountains, hundreds will search and often two or three searchers
are killed. But the next time somebody gets lost just as many volunteers
turn out.
Poor arithmetic, but very human. It runs through all our folklore, all
human religions, all our literature--a racial conviction that when one
human needs rescue, others should not count the price.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, "Starship Troopers" (1959)

Post by Quadibloc
As that scene seems like a good, if old-fashioned, way to end a
movie, leaving the audience to feel it was _about_ something, it
seems to me a pity that it _was_ deleted.
John Savard

Yes. It would have fit well.

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 11 May 2021 07:51:26 -0700, a425couple

Post by a425couple

Post by Quadibloc

Post by a425couple
The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.

It does align with some views... expressed by Heinlein. But they're
not among his _controversial_ ones, nor are they unique to Heinlein.

I hear strong echoes of Robert Heinlein in this scene ...
“Our behavior is different. How often have you seen a headline like
this? -- TWO DIE ATTEMPTING RESCUE OF DROWNING CHILD. If a man gets lost
in the mountains, hundreds will search and often two or three searchers
are killed. But the next time somebody gets lost just as many volunteers
turn out.
Poor arithmetic, but very human. It runs through all our folklore, all
human religions, all our literature--a racial conviction that when one
human needs rescue, others should not count the price.”
? Robert A. Heinlein, "Starship Troopers" (1959)

Post by Quadibloc
As that scene seems like a good, if old-fashioned, way to end a
movie, leaving the audience to feel it was _about_ something, it
seems to me a pity that it _was_ deleted.
John Savard

Yes. It would have fit well.

In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 11 May 2021 07:51:26 -0700, a425couple

Post by a425couple

Post by Quadibloc

Post by a425couple
The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.

It does align with some views... expressed by Heinlein. But they're
not among his _controversial_ ones, nor are they unique to Heinlein.

I hear strong echoes of Robert Heinlein in this scene ...
“Our behavior is different. How often have you seen a headline like
this? -- TWO DIE ATTEMPTING RESCUE OF DROWNING CHILD. If a man gets lost
in the mountains, hundreds will search and often two or three searchers
are killed. But the next time somebody gets lost just as many volunteers
turn out.
Poor arithmetic, but very human. It runs through all our folklore, all
human religions, all our literature--a racial conviction that when one
human needs rescue, others should not count the price.”
? Robert A. Heinlein, "Starship Troopers" (1959)

Post by Quadibloc
As that scene seems like a good, if old-fashioned, way to end a
movie, leaving the audience to feel it was _about_ something, it
seems to me a pity that it _was_ deleted.
John Savard

Yes. It would have fit well.

In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

If someone was doing something that they shouldn't,
then they may be charged.

Not in that sense here
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55860877>
referring to mountain climbers in Scotland breaching
COVID-19 regulations and being fined and/or charged
with illegal behaviour. Money did change hands.

Mountain rescue operates in Scotland because safe
enjoyment of the mountains brings in money from
visitors, and I think also the teams on the ground are
mostly volunteers and enthusiasts themselves -
not necessarily enjoying going out in the worst
conditions, though. Not having a rescue may happen
if it is dangerously bad for going out to get them.

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke
In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.

But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
die in that situation.

So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
activities of those who do.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
die in that situation.
So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
activities of those who do.

And this is why conservatives do not want more "help" from the
government. Because ultimately it becomes another excuse to gouge or
control us.

[James Nicoll]

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
die in that situation.
So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
activities of those who do.

And this is why conservatives do not want more "help" from the
government. Because ultimately it becomes another excuse to gouge or
control us.

I don't know if this is still true but at one point Nova Scotia had one
of the best S&R systems in North America. This was because people got
lost in the woods in Nova Scotia at a surprisingly high frequency. I
read an Emergency Preparedness paper on the issue, which admitted there
didn't seem to be an obvious reason why people got lost in NS more often
than elsewhere in Canada (unless it was NS forests being so beautiful
people were distracted wandering through them). At least getting stranded
in the middle of nowhere requiring an expensive rescue was something all
Nova Scotians could enjoy.

The paper didn't touch on this but there's an interesting difference
between people getting lost now and people getting lost 150 years ago,
which is now they die of exposure pretty quickly, whereas 150 years ago
it was starvation once they ran out of fellow campers.

[Quadibloc]

Post by James Nicoll
The paper didn't touch on this but there's an interesting difference
between people getting lost now and people getting lost 150 years ago,
which is now they die of exposure pretty quickly, whereas 150 years ago
it was starvation once they ran out of fellow campers.

Now that _is_ odd. Is it because people don't dress as warmly today?

Or is it because less people know how to make a fire in the woods
without special equipment?

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
die in that situation.
So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
activities of those who do.

The same argument could be used against publicly-funded Fire
Departments.

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
die in that situation.
So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
activities of those who do.

The same argument could be used against publicly-funded Fire
Departments.

It's true some people have more expensive homes than others, and
some people are more careless about fire safety than others.

But there's an important counter-argument here: fire spreads from
one building to the next.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 12 May 2021 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
die in that situation.
So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
activities of those who do.

The same argument could be used against publicly-funded Fire
Departments.

It's true some people have more expensive homes than others, and
some people are more careless about fire safety than others.
But there's an important counter-argument here: fire spreads from
one building to the next.

And dead out-of-state/out-of-country hikers kill the tourist industry.

BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
they refused to do anything about it.

Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
Inalienable Right or something.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 12 May 2021 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
die in that situation.
So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
activities of those who do.

The same argument could be used against publicly-funded Fire
Departments.

It's true some people have more expensive homes than others, and
some people are more careless about fire safety than others.
But there's an important counter-argument here: fire spreads from
one building to the next.

And dead out-of-state/out-of-country hikers kill the tourist industry.
BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
they refused to do anything about it.
Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
Inalienable Right or something.

At one time the Midway Fire Department would issue door plaques to
houses who subscribed to their services. Though as I recall they were
just printed on cardstock, so I suppose they would probably have gone
up fairly quickly..

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 12 May 2021 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
die in that situation.
So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
activities of those who do.

The same argument could be used against publicly-funded Fire
Departments.

It's true some people have more expensive homes than others, and
some people are more careless about fire safety than others.
But there's an important counter-argument here: fire spreads from
one building to the next.

And dead out-of-state/out-of-country hikers kill the tourist industry.
BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
they refused to do anything about it.
Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
Inalienable Right or something.

At one time the Midway Fire Department would issue door plaques to
houses who subscribed to their services. Though as I recall they were
just printed on cardstock, so I suppose they would probably have gone
up fairly quickly..

The subscription based fire service was the norm in the US way back
when. The problems with it are what led to it becoming a municipal
responsibility. (Just little things like fire companies fighting in the
street over who would get the money from the desperate homeowner who'd
home was on fire, lighting the buildings of subscribers to competing
companies' on fire, that kind of thing.)

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Thu, 13 May 2021 11:01:59 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 12 May 2021 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
die in that situation.
So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
activities of those who do.

The same argument could be used against publicly-funded Fire
Departments.

It's true some people have more expensive homes than others, and
some people are more careless about fire safety than others.
But there's an important counter-argument here: fire spreads from
one building to the next.

And dead out-of-state/out-of-country hikers kill the tourist industry.
BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
they refused to do anything about it.
Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
Inalienable Right or something.

At one time the Midway Fire Department would issue door plaques to
houses who subscribed to their services. Though as I recall they were
just printed on cardstock, so I suppose they would probably have gone
up fairly quickly..

The subscription based fire service was the norm in the US way back
when. The problems with it are what led to it becoming a municipal
responsibility. (Just little things like fire companies fighting in the
street over who would get the money from the desperate homeowner who'd
home was on fire, lighting the buildings of subscribers to competing
companies' on fire, that kind of thing.)

It was the norm in much of the world for centuries. May still be,
some places.

I once had a friend who grew up in Tangier, and when she was little
the _police_ were run on a subscription basis -- if a shopkeeper
didn't pay his monthly fee and display his subscription plaque, he was
basically asking to be robbed.

No problems with competition, though -- the police chief had a royal
license, and anyone else who tried to run a similar protection racket
would find representatives of the Moroccan army asking rude questions.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person
BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
they refused to do anything about it.
Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
Inalienable Right or something.

Maybe he just misunderstood what "voluntary subscription basis" meant.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
they refused to do anything about it.
Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
Inalienable Right or something.

Maybe he just misunderstood what "voluntary subscription basis" meant.

Because you _are_ right that having fires extinguished is not a right.

It is concievable that a country could be so poor the government could
not afford to institute a fire department from its own revenues. The same
applies to safe drinking water; that isn't a right either. The only absolute
inalienable rights that can exist are negative rights, the right not to be
a victim of force or fraud.

This, however, doesn't mean that the governor of Michigan gets a pass
on Flint.

Although there is no absolute right to safe drinking water that applies to
*all times* and *all places*, it happens that the United States is a rich
country. So if a mainly black area is without safe drinking water due to
actively malicious policies of a senior level of government, violations of
the rights of equity and fair treatment have been committed.

So while safe drinking water may not be a basic human right, it is in
effect a right of black Americans whether in Michigan or Mississippi,
and of Native Americans in Canada as well. It may not have been a
right in ancient Mesopotamia, though.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 13 May 2021 10:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
they refused to do anything about it.
Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
Inalienable Right or something.

Maybe he just misunderstood what "voluntary subscription basis" meant.

Because you _are_ right that having fires extinguished is not a right.
It is concievable that a country could be so poor the government could
not afford to institute a fire department from its own revenues. The same
applies to safe drinking water; that isn't a right either. The only absolute
inalienable rights that can exist are negative rights, the right not to be
a victim of force or fraud.

Sorry to interrupt you in mid-tirade, but I don't think you know what
an "inalienable right" actually /is/.

[Kevrob]

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 13 May 2021 10:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
they refused to do anything about it.
Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
Inalienable Right or something.

Maybe he just misunderstood what "voluntary subscription basis" meant.

Because you _are_ right that having fires extinguished is not a right.
It is concievable that a country could be so poor the government could
not afford to institute a fire department from its own revenues. The same
applies to safe drinking water; that isn't a right either. The only absolute
inalienable rights that can exist are negative rights, the right not to be
a victim of force or fraud.

Sorry to interrupt you in mid-tirade, but I don't think you know what
an "inalienable right" actually /is/.
--

People can have differing ideas on what inalienable rights are,
but a right can't be claimed against the physical environment.
I have the right not to be murdered by another person, but I
don't have a claim against a lightning bolt.

A "right to safe drinking water" could be a contractual claim
against the company or polity who promised to supply it to
you, or it could be restated as a limitation on some other agent:
You do not have the liberty to pollute someone else's property,
such as a stream, pond or well he depends on for drinking and/or
you don't have the right to pollute a commons that others depend
on for drinking, fishing, etc.



Even by Quaddie's "no force nor fraud" standard - one I am usually in
agreement with - the authorities in Flint can be accused of defrauding
the taxpayers and any of their tenants by promising clean water,
then delivering a tainted product. If that were the result of mere
incompetence rather an intent to defraud, it still could have been
criminal negligence.

Recommended reading for those interested:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Isaiah Berlin:

https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/files/content/docs/BERLIN_TWO_CONCEPTS_OF_LIBERTY_(AS08).PDF

Garret Hardin

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html

We have plenty of these folks in the USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_fire_department

The local VFD where I grew up raised funds by donation, rather
than subscription, plus whatever tax subsidy, grants etc it could
get from various levels of government. The annual "fireman's
picnic" with "firematic competitions" were always an annual social
highlight and fundraiser.

Firematics?

https://www.27east.com/arts/a-history-of-fire-departments-in-high-speed-competition-1374001/

ObScience: the complaints against the Chinese space program
for not picking up after itself in the orbital commons, and letting
equipment too large to completely burn up upon reentry be a
safety hazard when it did de-orbit. Aside from a piece of space junk
landing on someone or something of value, there's a question of
pollution from even a successful reentry.

https://spacenews.com/aerospace-agu-reentry-pollution/

ESA is going to experiment with collecting a piece of spacejunk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearSpace-1

There's an employment opportunity in space, who knows how
far in the future: operating a fleet of spacecraft that collect
obsolete and abandoned artifacts, and, if not recycling or repurposing
the junk yourself, delivering them to those who can. Heck, park the
stuff in a higher orbit and run a shop that sells the salvage onto
those who want to reuse it. Toss it into the sun if its worthless.

Any SF stories with this theme come to mind? There was the
TV movie "Salvage" back in 1979, where the character played
by Andy Griffith builds a recovery vehicle capable of landing on
the moon and bringing back what the astronauts left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_1

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079847/

[Quadibloc]

Post by Kevrob
Even by Quaddie's "no force nor fraud" standard - one I am usually in
agreement with - the authorities in Flint can be accused of defrauding
the taxpayers and any of their tenants by promising clean water,
then delivering a tainted product. If that were the result of mere
incompetence rather an intent to defraud, it still could have been
criminal negligence.

What happened in Flint had nothing to do with the
authorities in Flint.

It was in the Michigan statehouse that the decision was made.

Flint, Michigan ran out of money. That's because they tried to
supply essential amenities to their people, but with a tax base
made up of mostly poor people.

So it went into recievership. And the state government imposed
various measures.

And one of the cost-saving measures that the governor of
Michigan _specifically insisted on_ was that the city stop getting
its water from Detroit, but instead use its own water treatment
facilities. Despite the fact that this was known to be unsafe.

Now, while I am in agreement with the basic principle that the
people of Flint don't have an automatic right to help themselves
to the contents of the pockets of other Michigan taxpayers...

given that Michigan is _not_ located in the impoverished Third
World, there is a question of basic human decency here.

So I would find it entirely reasonable for the law to be such as
to find the governor of Michigan guilty of multiple counts of
aggravated assault, at least one count of murder - and, because
there is reasonable evidence to suggest his decision was
influenced by the fact that most of the residents of Flint are
black - crimes against humanity.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 14 May 2021 15:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Kevrob
Even by Quaddie's "no force nor fraud" standard - one I am usually in
agreement with - the authorities in Flint can be accused of defrauding
the taxpayers and any of their tenants by promising clean water,
then delivering a tainted product. If that were the result of mere
incompetence rather an intent to defraud, it still could have been
criminal negligence.

What happened in Flint had nothing to do with the
authorities in Flint.
It was in the Michigan statehouse that the decision was made.
Flint, Michigan ran out of money. That's because they tried to
supply essential amenities to their people, but with a tax base
made up of mostly poor people.
So it went into recievership. And the state government imposed
various measures.
And one of the cost-saving measures that the governor of
Michigan _specifically insisted on_ was that the city stop getting
its water from Detroit, but instead use its own water treatment
facilities. Despite the fact that this was known to be unsafe.
Now, while I am in agreement with the basic principle that the
people of Flint don't have an automatic right to help themselves
to the contents of the pockets of other Michigan taxpayers...

Don't see why not.

/Lots/ of States have less-wealthy counties being supported by the
better off counties.

And, yes, since this is usually a city/farming split, it is also often
a Democrat/Republican split as well. But not always.

[Kevrob]

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 14 May 2021 15:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Kevrob
Even by Quaddie's "no force nor fraud" standard - one I am usually in
agreement with - the authorities in Flint can be accused of defrauding
the taxpayers and any of their tenants by promising clean water,
then delivering a tainted product. If that were the result of mere
incompetence rather an intent to defraud, it still could have been
criminal negligence.

What happened in Flint had nothing to do with the
authorities in Flint.
It was in the Michigan statehouse that the decision was made.
Flint, Michigan ran out of money. That's because they tried to
supply essential amenities to their people, but with a tax base
made up of mostly poor people.
So it went into recievership. And the state government imposed
various measures.
And one of the cost-saving measures that the governor of
Michigan _specifically insisted on_ was that the city stop getting
its water from Detroit, but instead use its own water treatment
facilities. Despite the fact that this was known to be unsafe.
Now, while I am in agreement with the basic principle that the
people of Flint don't have an automatic right to help themselves
to the contents of the pockets of other Michigan taxpayers...

Don't see why not.
/Lots/ of States have less-wealthy counties being supported by the
better off counties.
And, yes, since this is usually a city/farming split, it is also often
a Democrat/Republican split as well. But not always.
--

MI would have had to mulct the suburbs, as the cities were broke.

The people wielding authority, legitimately or not, for Flint had
the new water source arranged, and were only going to use the
Flint River supply as an interim source. They could have stayed
with the safer Detroit water, but the contract for interim service
would have been more costly then when they were a "regular
customer." Detroit, which had its own financial problems...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_bankruptcy

...was also under a state emergency manager for the last
10 months of 2013 and all of 2014.

[quote]

In April 2013, state, Flint and Detroit officials held an unsuccessful last-
chance meeting to try to avert Flint's disconnection from Michigan's
largest water system. Detroit's Water and Sewerage Department already
had sent Flint a notice of termination indicating the flow of water would
stop in one year after Flint officials agreed to join a new regional authority
based in Genesee County.

Both cities were run by (Gov) Snyder-appointed emergency managers.

[/quote] - Craig Mauger | The Detroit News | 12 May, 2021

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/12/snyders-lawyers-want-ags-office-sanctioned-over-bankruptcy-records/5060288001/

If state environmental regulars had demanded Flint's treatment
plant be used, it would have required expensive upgrades. All
local pockets were bare. The state had cut its revenue sharing
with municipalities.

I don't think that the skin color of Flint's residents factored in
the decisions of Snyder and his appointees, except for the fact
that they overwhelmingly voted for his Democratic opponents.

Across the river from where I live the water company is owned by a private,
regulated utility company. In our county, H20 was originally provided
by a private water company, but that was purchased by a Regional
Water Authority set up by the state that runs everything as a "quasi-
governmental" company. Our suburban area still has some folks who
use wells exclusively, or in conjunction with "city water." There doesn't
seem to be much difference between a for-profit, regulated private
utility and a state-run one in this case. I did live through Milwaukee's
Cryptosporidiosis outbreak. in 1993. Drinking tea helps, since
you are going to boil the water anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Milwaukee_Cryptosporidiosis_outbreak

The city ran its own water works.

[Kevrob]

On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 5:19:00 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:

[snip]

If state environmental regulars .....

Make that "regulators," please.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Kevrob
I don't think that the skin color of Flint's residents factored in
the decisions of Snyder and his appointees, except for the fact
that they overwhelmingly voted for his Democratic opponents.

Should one really have to prove intent for the crime of genocide?

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 13 May 2021 10:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
they refused to do anything about it.
Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
Inalienable Right or something.

Maybe he just misunderstood what "voluntary subscription basis" meant.

Because you _are_ right that having fires extinguished is not a right.
It is concievable that a country could be so poor the government could
not afford to institute a fire department from its own revenues. The same
applies to safe drinking water; that isn't a right either. The only absolute
inalienable rights that can exist are negative rights, the right not to be
a victim of force or fraud.

Sorry to interrupt you in mid-tirade, but I don't think you know what
an "inalienable right" actually /is/.
--

People can have differing ideas on what inalienable rights are,
but a right can't be claimed against the physical environment.
I have the right not to be murdered by another person, but I
don't have a claim against a lightning bolt.

I don't doubt that people have differing ideas on what inalienable
rights /are/, but I am asking what an inalienable right /is/.

This refers to something I said above, but it isn't quite on-point
here. Still, it /is/ connected.

Post by Kevrob
The local VFD where I grew up raised funds by donation, rather
than subscription, plus whatever tax subsidy, grants etc it could
get from various levels of government. The annual "fireman's
picnic" with "firematic competitions" were always an annual social
highlight and fundraiser.

The movie /The Firemen's Ball/ shows something similar.

Hopefully, the picnics were less ... disasterous.

And didn't almost get the director thrown into prison.


And then we wander /completely/ off the ranch ... space junk is indeed
a problem, but so are a lot of other things.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person
Sorry to interrupt you in mid-tirade, but I don't think you know what
an "inalienable right" actually /is/.

It is a right that I am unable to surrender or sell to someone, because
it can't be alienated.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Fri, 14 May 2021 15:05:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
Sorry to interrupt you in mid-tirade, but I don't think you know what
an "inalienable right" actually /is/.

It is a right that I am unable to surrender or sell to someone, because
it can't be alienated.

That is, at best, an explanation of "in" and, at worst, circular.
Kindly try again.

"Alienate" is sometimes used as a legal term for the transfer of title.

Perhaps that will help.

Of course, that depends on what you meant by your question. I am attempting
to define the term "inalienable right", because the definition is the answer to the
question "what an 'inalienable right' actually is".

But perhaps you were expecting the answer to a _different_ question. Perhaps
you wanted the answer to this question: "What inalienable rights to people
have".

There is no agreed-upon answer to _that_ question. There is no universal
agreement on what is right, and what is wrong. There are those who believe
that there is no such thing as a natural right, only legal rights granted by
governments.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

On Fri, 14 May 2021 15:05:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
Sorry to interrupt you in mid-tirade, but I don't think you know what
an "inalienable right" actually /is/.

It is a right that I am unable to surrender or sell to someone, because
it can't be alienated.

That is, at best, an explanation of "in" and, at worst, circular.
Kindly try again.

"Alienate" is sometimes used as a legal term for the transfer of title.

That is, I suspect, more relevant than you know.

But it goes back into feudalism.

Post by Quadibloc
Perhaps that will help.

So, then, an /inalienable/ right would be a right which ...

Post by Quadibloc
Of course, that depends on what you meant by your question. I am attempting
to define the term "inalienable right", because the definition is the answer to the
question "what an 'inalienable right' actually is".

And yet ... not succeeding.

<snip speculation on alternate goals>

[Jonathan]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by a425couple
The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.

It does align with some views... expressed by Heinlein. But they're
not among his _controversial_ ones, nor are they unique to Heinlein.
As that scene seems like a good, if old-fashioned, way to end a
movie, leaving the audience to feel it was _about_ something, it
seems to me a pity that it _was_ deleted.
John Savard

Thing is the scene is correct we have an instinct
to save those in distress.

But in the scenario spending hundreds of millions to
save one person is more about politicians wanting
to keep their jobs.

And especially wanting to continue milking the whole
'life on Mars' thing for as long as humanly possible
to extend their careers into eternity.

That's why the rovers are deliberately designed
so that they can't prove life is on Mars and
why they deliberately choose sites that are
best for geological, not biological discoveries.

NASA wants their decades long sample return mission
and especially manned landings on the Moon and Mars.

Finding life on Mars would short-circuit all of that
just as the Apollo program disbanded once the big
event happened.

If NASA found life on Mars now, they could flush their
thirty year plan designed to find life after then
not before.


Astrobiologists have little doubt microbes are
to be found on Mars, this conference makes that
clear.

For instance in 2012 the astrobiology conference
had a few dozen posters presented mostly by starry-eyed
graduate students. But look at the last NASA astrobiology
conference in 2017, more papers than you can count
and by top flight universities after the rover landed
at Meridiani and found all those spheres. Spheres that
can't be accounted for without invoking life, btw.

Geology alone can't explain them.



2017 Abscicon Author list (A-K)
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2017/authorindex.cfm


The field didn't explode like this after the rovers
by accident, they know what they found, microbial life
is almost certainly there just meters below the surface.
And literally the entire northern hemisphere of Mars
just underground is an ideal habitat for microbial life.

A few pics from Mars as teasers.

Can you explain this using only geological explanations?
It's not possible.
Loading Image...


A Frozen Ocean the Size of the North Sea
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1741.pdf



And this razor flat horizon can only be created by
...recent body of water or ice. This used to be a
shallow underground body of water/ice that dried up
and was later exposed by erosion, it's the bottom
of a shallow underground sea.

Loading Image....html


And this exposed sea floor is coated from horizon
to horizon by the Martian spheres, all coming
in three /uniform/ sizes. Countless billions
of them like these.

Loading Image....html

Loading Image....html

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/opportunity_m014.html

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML



You can see their process of growth due to
repeated soaking clearly in the sphere in
the...lower left...of this pic, in
the sphere that has a half shell.

Loading Image...



This stunning pic may show their ongoing
formation. This is a pic of a patch of soft
clay like sphere rich soil.

Loading Image....html

Yes, clay on the surface of Mars.


PHY.ORG
Martian 'blueberries' could be clues to presence of life

Previous theories suggested these concretions were formed
by simple chemical reactions without the help of life.
However, new UWA research shows clear evidence that microbes
were essential in their formation.

This raises the possibility that Martian "blueberries" may
not only reveal that water was present on Mars - but life too.

UWA scientists David Wacey and Matt Kilburn used
high-resolution NanoSIMS technology at the University's
Centre for Microscopy, Characterisation and Analysis to
show clear relationships in the Utah concretions between
microbe-like forms and concentrations of biological
elements such as carbon and nitrogen.

Their findings - in collaboration with scientists from
the University of Nebraska - feature on the front cover
of the August issue of the journal Geology.

University of Nebraska Assistant Professor Karrie Weber
said UWA's CMCA facility - which is used to study
everything from early life on Earth to cancer drugs,
plant biology, rocks and soils, and nanotechnology
- was chosen because of its demonstrated success in
identifying microbial fossils.

Read more at:
https://phys.org/news/2012-09-martian-blueberries-clues-presence-life.html#jCp





Journal of Astrobiology and Space Science Reviews,
Vol 1, 40-81, 2019

JournalofAstrobiology.com/EvidenceofLifeonMars.html



Evidence of Life on Mars?

1. Overview: The Evidence

Presented here is a body of evidence and observations which
do not prove but supports the hypothesis Mars was, and is, a
living planet hosting prokaryotes, lichens, and fungi.
This evidence includes:

https://www.astro.umd.edu/~hamilton/teaching/HONR289Vspring19/Handouts/LifeOnMars.pdf

[Quadibloc]

Post by Jonathan
That's why the rovers are deliberately designed
so that they can't prove life is on Mars

I have very little patience for that kind of conspiracy theory...

Post by Jonathan
and
why they deliberately choose sites that are
best for geological, not biological discoveries.

There is another possible reason for that.

Post by Jonathan
Astrobiologists have little doubt microbes are
to be found on Mars, this conference makes that
clear.

One of the first probes sent to Mars took a soil sample, and
put it in a nutrient solution as a simple test for life on Mars,
and it produced a strong - even suspiciously strong - positive
result.

Later investigations turned up the cause: highly reactive
chemicals - perchlorates - on the surface of Mars.

No liquid water, a very thin atmosphere, and chemicals that
are inimical to life over the Martian surface... I would think
that odds are that Mars is as utterly sterile as the Moon.

It's just that we don't know enough to totally rule out life on Mars,
and so it's still worth investigating. But Jupiter may be a likelier
place for life, since it at least has a useful chemistry.

John Savard

[Jonathan]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jonathan
That's why the rovers are deliberately designed
so that they can't prove life is on Mars

I have very little patience for that kind of conspiracy theory...

Conspiracy theory? Have you looked at the science
packages on the rovers? I have, in detail.

I dare you to show me any instrument on any of the rovers
that could prove life is there now.

And why don't they?

And pictures are not proof. I've been
watching the rover program in detail
since day one. This is not a casual
or uneducated opinion.

Do you deny the lesson of Apollo? Or that
NASA learned that lesson?

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jonathan
and
why they deliberately choose sites that are
best for geological, not biological discoveries.

There is another possible reason for that.

Post by Jonathan
Astrobiologists have little doubt microbes are
to be found on Mars, this conference makes that
clear.

One of the first probes sent to Mars took a soil sample, and
put it in a nutrient solution as a simple test for life on Mars,
and it produced a strong - even suspiciously strong - positive
result.

Ancient news and still contradictory results.

Post by Quadibloc
Later investigations turned up the cause: highly reactive
chemicals - perchlorates - on the surface of Mars.

That's not the latest findings, your statement is dated
and inaccurate.

Post by Quadibloc
No liquid water,

The soil of almost the entire northern hemisphere of Mars
has up to 50% water/ice just meters below the surface.
The water mostly went underground, not into space.

Did you click the link I provided for evidence
for a frozen body of water the size of the N Sea
currently present on the surface of Mars?

No water? Reading is fundamental


A Frozen Ocean the Size of the North Sea
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1741.pdf

Post by Quadibloc
a very thin atmosphere,

As one goes deeper underground, the temperatures rise
and so does the protection from solar radiation.

Just a few meters underground is an ideal habitat for
microbes. Warm, wet and with abundant life supporting
minerals. Just the exact recipe for microbes.

Post by Quadibloc
and chemicals that
are inimical to life over the Martian surface... I would think
that odds are that Mars is as utterly sterile as the Moon.

Did you click this link and peruse the papers
at the following link?

If not you're uninformed, sorry but it's true.
I've been studying the topic of life on Mars
for over a decade.

CLICK HERE, what do you see?

Few fields of science have exploded like
astrobiology post rovers.

2017 Abscicon Author list (A-K)
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2017/authorindex.cfm


The field didn't explode like this after the rovers
by accident, they know what they found, microbial life
is almost certainly there just meters below the surface.
And literally the entire northern hemisphere of Mars
just underground is an ideal habitat for microbial life.

Can you explain this using only geological explanations?
It's not possible.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG

Can you explain the above pic using geology?

No one has yet. NO ONE.

HOW CAN THEY ALL BE THE SAME SIZE??? That's a hallmark
of life and virtually impossible via geology or
chemistry alone.

Post by Quadibloc
It's just that we don't know enough to totally rule out life on Mars,
and so it's still worth investigating. But Jupiter may be a likelier
place for life, since it at least has a useful chemistry.
John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by a425couple
Interesting scene -
The Martian - Deleted Scene #1 - Mark Arrives at Earth [Blu-Ray/DVD 2016]
The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.
http://youtu.be/8yM2fnXGcr0

My network is limited. What happens? He gets to Earth
and gets invoiced for the equipment he used on Mars
to survive, plus his ride home?

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 12 May 2021 07:08:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by a425couple
Interesting scene -
The Martian - Deleted Scene #1 - Mark Arrives at Earth [Blu-Ray/DVD 2016]
The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.
http://youtu.be/8yM2fnXGcr0

My network is limited. What happens? He gets to Earth
and gets invoiced for the equipment he used on Mars
to survive, plus his ride home?

Doesn't look like it.

But then, this is my main computer, and the sound is ... off.

So I can hear the music I actually /want/ to hear, and not what some
web page or App wants to afflict me with.

[Quadibloc]

My network is limited. What happens? He gets to Earth
and gets invoiced for the equipment he used on Mars
to survive, plus his ride home?

No, because he wasn't some reckless private citizen who flew to
Mars on his own for thrills. He was a brave hero going to Mars on
behalf of the U.S. government.

John Savard

[Jonathan]

Post by Quadibloc

My network is limited. What happens? He gets to Earth
and gets invoiced for the equipment he used on Mars
to survive, plus his ride home?

No, because he wasn't some reckless private citizen who flew to
Mars on his own for thrills. He was a brave hero going to Mars on
behalf of the U.S. government.
John Savard

So we should only rescue people when their
plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?

Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
that, but still in the real world people are people.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Jonathan
So we should only rescue people when their
plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
that, but still in the real world people are people.

Oh, no. We should always rescue people.

But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
for permits or insurance or whatever.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jonathan
So we should only rescue people when their
plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
that, but still in the real world people are people.

Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
for permits or insurance or whatever.

That's what taxes are for.

To pay for those items considered essential to society.

The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an attempt to
define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base -- while denying that it
/is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is the mantra.

This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and other
special-purpose districts), which is financed by property taxes paid
by the owners of the property being protected. This is distinguishable
for "permits or insurance or whatever" only in that payment is
required.

So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in fact, user fees
paid by everyone for the services rendered.

[Kevrob]

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jonathan
So we should only rescue people when their
plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
that, but still in the real world people are people.

Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
for permits or insurance or whatever.

That's what taxes are for.
To pay for those items considered essential to society.
The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an attempt to
define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base -- while denying that it
/is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is the mantra.
This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and other
special-purpose districts), which is financed by property taxes paid
by the owners of the property being protected. This is distinguishable
for "permits or insurance or whatever" only in that payment is
required.
So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in fact, user fees
paid by everyone for the services rendered.
--

Taxes tend to be set by standards unrelated to who uses a service, or
how much. "User fees" can collect from those, as the name implies,
who use or are likely to use a service.

Factory A takes professional advice about how to make their plant
less of a fire hazard than its neighbor, Factory B. B winds up paying
higher fire insurance rates. If the businesses are of similar value in
the metric used for setting fire district taxes (income or property
valuation, or whatever) ought they pay the same fire protection tax,
or should the safer business be rewarded for making an effort by
paying less tax?

I'd go further, and ask why fire protection wasn't funded by
your insurer, and the user fee included in your premium.
Then we could discuss whether an owner of a residence or
of a firm should be able to "self-insure" or be required to
carry insurance, as many states require insurance for vehicles.
One could go on and on, but I'll stop.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jonathan
So we should only rescue people when their
plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
that, but still in the real world people are people.

Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
for permits or insurance or whatever.

That's what taxes are for.
To pay for those items considered essential to society.
The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an attempt to
define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base -- while denying that it
/is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is the mantra.
This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and other
special-purpose districts), which is financed by property taxes paid
by the owners of the property being protected. This is distinguishable
for "permits or insurance or whatever" only in that payment is
required.
So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in fact, user fees
paid by everyone for the services rendered.
--

Taxes tend to be set by standards unrelated to who uses a service, or
how much. "User fees" can collect from those, as the name implies,
who use or are likely to use a service.

Nice attempt to evade reality.

And to maintain a distinction without a difference.

A tax is a tax no matter what it is called.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

On Sun, 16 May 2021 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob

On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 12:33:03 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan

Post by Jonathan
So we should only rescue people when their
plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
that, but still in the real world people are people.

Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
for permits or insurance or whatever.

That's what taxes are for.
To pay for those items considered essential to society.
The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an attempt
to define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base -- while denying
that it /is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is the mantra.
This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and other
special-purpose districts), which is financed by property
taxes paid by the owners of the property being protected. This
is distinguishable for "permits or insurance or whatever" only
in that payment is required.
So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in fact,
user fees paid by everyone for the services rendered.
--

Taxes tend to be set by standards unrelated to who uses a
service, or how much. "User fees" can collect from those, as
the name implies, who use or are likely to use a service.

Nice attempt to evade reality.
And to maintain a distinction without a difference.
A tax is a tax no matter what it is called.

There is a qualitative difference between the services of a fire
department, which everybody needs and which everybody benefits from
even when someone else's house burns down, and a permit fee to
climb a mountain, which is purely a recreational activity, and
which is paid only by participants. If you don't climb a mountain,
you don't pay the fee, but you pay property tax whether your house
catches fire or not.

But you are, of course, too stupid to grasp such a subtle,
complicated concept.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 17 May 2021 10:09:28 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

On Sun, 16 May 2021 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob

On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 12:33:03 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan

Post by Jonathan
So we should only rescue people when their
plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
that, but still in the real world people are people.

Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
for permits or insurance or whatever.

That's what taxes are for.
To pay for those items considered essential to society.
The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an attempt
to define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base -- while denying
that it /is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is the mantra.
This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and other
special-purpose districts), which is financed by property
taxes paid by the owners of the property being protected. This
is distinguishable for "permits or insurance or whatever" only
in that payment is required.
So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in fact,
user fees paid by everyone for the services rendered.
--

Taxes tend to be set by standards unrelated to who uses a
service, or how much. "User fees" can collect from those, as
the name implies, who use or are likely to use a service.

Nice attempt to evade reality.
And to maintain a distinction without a difference.
A tax is a tax no matter what it is called.

There is a qualitative difference between the services of a fire
department, which everybody needs and which everybody benefits from
even when someone else's house burns down, and a permit fee to
climb a mountain, which is purely a recreational activity, and
which is paid only by participants. If you don't climb a mountain,
you don't pay the fee, but you pay property tax whether your house
catches fire or not.

If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
right to charge for the right to climb it.

But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
means that we /all/ own it.

Restricting those who pay for it to those who use will inevitably
result in the most radical "greens" taking it over and running to
their satisfaction, since "he who pays the piper calls the tune".
There have already been efforts along that line regarding
historically-significant cabins established, IIRC, for firespotters.

National Parks, Monuments, and Forests, being the property of
/everyone/, need to be run by /everyone/ and paid for by /everyone/.

This is what it means to be a Nation. As opposed to a Banana Republic.
Or the Unified States of Bernie.

<snippo bot-like nonsense>

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 17 May 2021 10:09:28 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

On Sun, 16 May 2021 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob

On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 12:33:03 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan

Post by Jonathan
So we should only rescue people when their
plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
that, but still in the real world people are people.

Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
for permits or insurance or whatever.

That's what taxes are for.
To pay for those items considered essential to society.
The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an
attempt to define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base --
while denying that it /is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is
the mantra.
This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and other
special-purpose districts), which is financed by property
taxes paid by the owners of the property being protected.
This is distinguishable for "permits or insurance or
whatever" only in that payment is required.
So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in fact,
user fees paid by everyone for the services rendered.
--

Taxes tend to be set by standards unrelated to who uses a
service, or how much. "User fees" can collect from those, as
the name implies, who use or are likely to use a service.

Nice attempt to evade reality.
And to maintain a distinction without a difference.
A tax is a tax no matter what it is called.

There is a qualitative difference between the services of a fire
department, which everybody needs and which everybody benefits
from even when someone else's house burns down, and a permit fee
to climb a mountain, which is purely a recreational activity,
and which is paid only by participants. If you don't climb a
mountain, you don't pay the fee, but you pay property tax
whether your house catches fire or not.

If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly
has the right to charge for the right to climb it.
But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly
owned/, such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National
Park"? It means that we /all/ own it.
Restricting those who pay for it to those who use will
inevitably result in the most radical "greens" taking it over
and running to their satisfaction, since "he who pays the piper
calls the tune". There have already been efforts along that line
regarding historically-significant cabins established, IIRC, for
firespotters.
National Parks, Monuments, and Forests, being the property of
/everyone/, need to be run by /everyone/ and paid for by
/everyone/.
This is what it means to be a Nation. As opposed to a Banana
Republic. Or the Unified States of Bernie.
<snippo bot-like nonsense>

Not a single word of that drivel is in any way relevant to the
difference between a usage fee and a tax.

As expected.

Idiot.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 18 May 2021 09:51:15 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 17 May 2021 10:09:28 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

On Sun, 16 May 2021 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob

On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 12:33:03 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan

Post by Jonathan
So we should only rescue people when their
plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
that, but still in the real world people are people.

Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
for permits or insurance or whatever.

That's what taxes are for.
To pay for those items considered essential to society.
The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an
attempt to define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base --
while denying that it /is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is
the mantra.
This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and other
special-purpose districts), which is financed by property
taxes paid by the owners of the property being protected.
This is distinguishable for "permits or insurance or
whatever" only in that payment is required.
So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in fact,
user fees paid by everyone for the services rendered.
--

Taxes tend to be set by standards unrelated to who uses a
service, or how much. "User fees" can collect from those, as
the name implies, who use or are likely to use a service.

Nice attempt to evade reality.
And to maintain a distinction without a difference.
A tax is a tax no matter what it is called.

There is a qualitative difference between the services of a fire
department, which everybody needs and which everybody benefits
from even when someone else's house burns down, and a permit fee
to climb a mountain, which is purely a recreational activity,
and which is paid only by participants. If you don't climb a
mountain, you don't pay the fee, but you pay property tax
whether your house catches fire or not.

If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly
has the right to charge for the right to climb it.
But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly
owned/, such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National
Park"? It means that we /all/ own it.
Restricting those who pay for it to those who use will
inevitably result in the most radical "greens" taking it over
and running to their satisfaction, since "he who pays the piper
calls the tune". There have already been efforts along that line
regarding historically-significant cabins established, IIRC, for
firespotters.
National Parks, Monuments, and Forests, being the property of
/everyone/, need to be run by /everyone/ and paid for by
/everyone/.
This is what it means to be a Nation. As opposed to a Banana
Republic. Or the Unified States of Bernie.
<snippo bot-like nonsense>

Not a single word of that drivel is in any way relevant to the
difference between a usage fee and a tax.

That is because there is /no/ difference between a "usage fee"
(whatever that is; the term I am familiar with is "user fee") and a
tax.

Can't be relevant to something that doesn't exist.

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
As expected.

Well, of course: it is not possible to be relevant to a difference
that does not exist.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 18 May 2021 09:51:15 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 17 May 2021 10:09:28 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

On Sun, 16 May 2021 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob

Post by Kevrob

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan

Post by Jonathan
So we should only rescue people when their
plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
that, but still in the real world people are people.

Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
for permits or insurance or whatever.

That's what taxes are for.
To pay for those items considered essential to society.
The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an
attempt to define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base --
while denying that it /is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is
the mantra.
This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and
other special-purpose districts), which is financed by
property taxes paid by the owners of the property being
protected. This is distinguishable for "permits or
insurance or whatever" only in that payment is required.
So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in
fact, user fees paid by everyone for the services
rendered. --

Taxes tend to be set by standards unrelated to who uses a
service, or how much. "User fees" can collect from those,
as the name implies, who use or are likely to use a service.

Nice attempt to evade reality.
And to maintain a distinction without a difference.
A tax is a tax no matter what it is called.

There is a qualitative difference between the services of a
fire department, which everybody needs and which everybody
benefits from even when someone else's house burns down, and a
permit fee to climb a mountain, which is purely a recreational
activity, and which is paid only by participants. If you don't
climb a mountain, you don't pay the fee, but you pay property
tax whether your house catches fire or not.

If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly
has the right to charge for the right to climb it.
But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly
owned/, such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that
"National Park"? It means that we /all/ own it.
Restricting those who pay for it to those who use will
inevitably result in the most radical "greens" taking it over
and running to their satisfaction, since "he who pays the
piper calls the tune". There have already been efforts along
that line regarding historically-significant cabins
established, IIRC, for firespotters.
National Parks, Monuments, and Forests, being the property of
/everyone/, need to be run by /everyone/ and paid for by
/everyone/.
This is what it means to be a Nation. As opposed to a Banana
Republic. Or the Unified States of Bernie.
<snippo bot-like nonsense>

Not a single word of that drivel is in any way relevant to the
difference between a usage fee and a tax.

That is because there is /no/ difference between a "usage fee"
(whatever that is; the term I am familiar with is "user fee")
and a tax.

Only in your idiotic fantasy land. I've already explained why there
is, but you're too stupid to understand it.

Post by Paul S Person
Can't be relevant to something that doesn't exist.

And you're a retard.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
As expected.

Well, of course: it is not possible to be relevant to a
difference that does not exist.

I'm sure you'll keep chanting that to yourself, but it will never
be true outside what passes for your mind.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person
If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
right to charge for the right to climb it.
But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
means that we /all/ own it.

You're changing the topic.

We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
to pay rent for the mountain.

It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
thing.

John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
right to charge for the right to climb it.
But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
means that we /all/ own it.

You're changing the topic.
We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
to pay rent for the mountain.
It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
thing.

I think the government owning a National Park is
different from it being owned by "all the people",
and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.
Regardless, a simplistic description of a National
Park is that it is /not/ used, but is kept to be admired
from a decent distance. Charging a fee means that
use is allowed, but not willy-nilly.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 19 May 2021 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
right to charge for the right to climb it.
But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
means that we /all/ own it.

You're changing the topic.
We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
to pay rent for the mountain.
It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
thing.

I think the government owning a National Park is
different from it being owned by "all the people",
and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.

You are hazy on who owns Mt Rainier? or Mt Rushmore? or any National
Forest? You think, perhaps, that they are owned by Space Aliens and
merely leased to the US Gummint?

Post by Robert Carnegie
Regardless, a simplistic description of a National
Park is that it is /not/ used, but is kept to be admired
from a decent distance. Charging a fee means that
use is allowed, but not willy-nilly.

You mean, of course, only by those with enough money to pay the fee.

Hoi polloi need not apply.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 19 May 2021 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie
I think the government owning a National Park is
different from it being owned by "all the people",
and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.

You are hazy on who owns Mt Rainier? or Mt Rushmore? or any National
Forest? You think, perhaps, that they are owned by Space Aliens and
merely leased to the US Gummint?

No, no.

He's thinking about a principle that came up recently on January 6th of
this year.

The U.S. Capitol building, and the property it stands on, are owned by
the U.S. Government.

Does that make every American, as a stockholder in the U.S. government,
able to just wander in there any time he feels like? After all, if it belongs
to America, that means it belongs to him too!

Now do you see the distinction?

After all, the Pentagon, the National Security Agency, and the Central
Intelligence Agency, for example, could hardly do their work properly
if any American could just wander through their buildings at any hour
of the day or night.

Thus, the Government of the United States of America, even though it
_ultimately_ belongs to the people of the country, and is controlled by
them, still has an existence as a corporate person in its own right. It
can own property which it keeps to itself, not allowing the American
people to freely use that property directly.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 19 May 2021 09:56:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 19 May 2021 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie
I think the government owning a National Park is
different from it being owned by "all the people",
and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.

You are hazy on who owns Mt Rainier? or Mt Rushmore? or any National
Forest? You think, perhaps, that they are owned by Space Aliens and
merely leased to the US Gummint?

No, no.
He's thinking about a principle that came up recently on January 6th of
this year.
The U.S. Capitol building, and the property it stands on, are owned by
the U.S. Government.

Nice diversion.

He clearly said he doesn't know whether "either statement" is true.

And one of those is "the government owns the National Parks".

But just keep diverting the flow ...

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 19 May 2021 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
right to charge for the right to climb it.
But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
means that we /all/ own it.

You're changing the topic.
We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
to pay rent for the mountain.
It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
thing.

I think the government owning a National Park is
different from it being owned by "all the people",
and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.

You are hazy on who owns Mt Rainier? or Mt Rushmore? or any National
Forest? You think, perhaps, that they are owned by Space Aliens and
merely leased to the US Gummint?

I actually do not know. Does the government own
everything there - and which government? Or do
they only regulate what is there? Who owns the
hotels? The McDonalds?

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Robert Carnegie
Regardless, a simplistic description of a National
Park is that it is /not/ used, but is kept to be admired
from a decent distance. Charging a fee means that
use is allowed, but not willy-nilly.

You mean, of course, only by those with enough money
to pay the fee.
Hoi polloi need not apply.

And there's the cost of travelling. But it needn't
be prohibitive. You won't tell me that Mt Rushmore
was built to attract the elite, will you?

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 19 May 2021 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
right to charge for the right to climb it.
But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
means that we /all/ own it.

You're changing the topic.
We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
to pay rent for the mountain.
It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
thing.

I think the government owning a National Park is
different from it being owned by "all the people",
and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.

You are hazy on who owns Mt Rainier? or Mt Rushmore? or any National
Forest? You think, perhaps, that they are owned by Space Aliens and
merely leased to the US Gummint?

I actually do not know. Does the government own
everything there - and which government? Or do
they only regulate what is there? Who owns the
hotels? The McDonalds?

They are Federal Government land. The US Federal government owns land.
It was either donated to or bought by the Federal government. The
various amenities such as lodging and dining are run by contractors who
go thru Federal bidding procedures.

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Robert Carnegie
Regardless, a simplistic description of a National
Park is that it is /not/ used, but is kept to be admired
from a decent distance. Charging a fee means that
use is allowed, but not willy-nilly.

You mean, of course, only by those with enough money
to pay the fee.
Hoi polloi need not apply.

And there's the cost of travelling. But it needn't
be prohibitive. You won't tell me that Mt Rushmore
was built to attract the elite, will you?

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:19:05 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 19 May 2021 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
right to charge for the right to climb it.
But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
means that we /all/ own it.

You're changing the topic.
We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
to pay rent for the mountain.
It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
thing.

I think the government owning a National Park is
different from it being owned by "all the people",
and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.

You are hazy on who owns Mt Rainier? or Mt Rushmore? or any National
Forest? You think, perhaps, that they are owned by Space Aliens and
merely leased to the US Gummint?

I actually do not know. Does the government own
everything there - and which government? Or do
they only regulate what is there? Who owns the
hotels? The McDonalds?

They are Federal Government land. The US Federal government owns land.
It was either donated to or bought by the Federal government. The
various amenities such as lodging and dining are run by contractors who
go thru Federal bidding procedures.

Precisely.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
right to charge for the right to climb it.
But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
means that we /all/ own it.

You're changing the topic.
We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
to pay rent for the mountain.
It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
thing.

I think the government owning a National Park is
different from it being owned by "all the people",
and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.
Regardless, a simplistic description of a National
Park is that it is /not/ used, but is kept to be admired
from a decent distance. Charging a fee means that
use is allowed, but not willy-nilly.

Your simplistic description is fundamentally wrong in regards to the
USA. Admiring is a usage. (Other nations have created their own
National Parks or equivalents based on the American Parks System but I'm
sure they handle them differently.) The National Park System juggles a
set of contradictory demands. Preservation, entertainment/relaxation,
education, research, etc. Access to with minimal disruption would be a
better simplistic description.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Wed, 19 May 2021 09:56:48 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Your simplistic description is fundamentally wrong in regards to the
USA. Admiring is a usage. (Other nations have created their own
National Parks or equivalents based on the American Parks System but I'm
sure they handle them differently.)

Two semi-contradictory points:

The Croatian national park system (which is amazing) is so much like
the U.S. system it was weirdly familiar, almost uncomfortably so.

Not all U.S. national parks operate the same way. Oh, some features
are pretty much universal, but others are unique to a particular park.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 19 May 2021 09:56:48 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Your simplistic description is fundamentally wrong in regards to the
USA. Admiring is a usage. (Other nations have created their own
National Parks or equivalents based on the American Parks System but I'm
sure they handle them differently.)

The Croatian national park system (which is amazing) is so much like
the U.S. system it was weirdly familiar, almost uncomfortably so.

Hey! I did say "based on". Some are just more "based on" than others. :)

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Not all U.S. national parks operate the same way. Oh, some features
are pretty much universal, but others are unique to a particular park.

Nitpicker! :-P We could also get into "Not all national parks are
actually national _parks_. Monuments, seashores, forests, etc. And I
did say the Parks _System_.

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:15:18 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 19 May 2021 09:56:48 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Your simplistic description is fundamentally wrong in regards to the
USA. Admiring is a usage. (Other nations have created their own
National Parks or equivalents based on the American Parks System but I'm
sure they handle them differently.)

The Croatian national park system (which is amazing) is so much like
the U.S. system it was weirdly familiar, almost uncomfortably so.

Hey! I did say "based on". Some are just more "based on" than others. :)

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Not all U.S. national parks operate the same way. Oh, some features
are pretty much universal, but others are unique to a particular park.

Nitpicker! :-P We could also get into "Not all national parks are
actually national _parks_. Monuments, seashores, forests, etc. And I
did say the Parks _System_.

Just an aside but if you have a taste for murder mysteries and want a
gentle introduction to the National Parks, you might find Nevada Barr
of interest. When she started writing she was working as a park
ranger and she wrote what she knew so her detective is a law
enforcement ranger with the US National Park Service. She places ever
novel in a different park.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 19 May 2021 09:56:48 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
right to charge for the right to climb it.
But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
means that we /all/ own it.

You're changing the topic.
We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
to pay rent for the mountain.
It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
thing.

I think the government owning a National Park is
different from it being owned by "all the people",
and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.
Regardless, a simplistic description of a National
Park is that it is /not/ used, but is kept to be admired
from a decent distance. Charging a fee means that
use is allowed, but not willy-nilly.

Your simplistic description is fundamentally wrong in regards to the
USA. Admiring is a usage. (Other nations have created their own
National Parks or equivalents based on the American Parks System but I'm
sure they handle them differently.) The National Park System juggles a
set of contradictory demands. Preservation, entertainment/relaxation,
education, research, etc. Access to with minimal disruption would be a
better simplistic description.

Yes, they have many "stakeholders" to consider and consult.

And being funded by the general tax system, as part of the government,
instead of by taxes on very small groups described as "user fees" to
conceal their nature, is one way to ensure that all of those
stakeholders are, in fact, listened to.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 19 May 2021 06:15:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
right to charge for the right to climb it.
But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
means that we /all/ own it.

You're changing the topic.
We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
to pay rent for the mountain.
It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
thing.

Actually, the gummint /licenses/ doctors (and nurses and pilots an
EMTs and ...), which means that it /does/ own them -- in the sense
that "if you can destroy a thing, you control a thing". In this case,
the right to practice medicine.

And the rescue service is simply part-and-parcel of property
management. As any company whose owners ended up in prison because
they didn't keep the fire doors clear has learned to its cost.

I suspect amusement parks also have a fairly well-developed
organization for rescuing people from malfunctioning rides. And
including the cost in the price of admission, which they can charge
because it is privately owned.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Wed, 19 May 2021 09:42:34 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
I suspect amusement parks also have a fairly well-developed
organization for rescuing people from malfunctioning rides. And
including the cost in the price of admission, which they can charge
because it is privately owned.

For some it isn't as well-developed as one might wish.

(Others do a fine job.)

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person
And the rescue service is simply part-and-parcel of property
management. As any company whose owners ended up in prison because
they didn't keep the fire doors clear has learned to its cost.
I suspect amusement parks also have a fairly well-developed
organization for rescuing people from malfunctioning rides. And
including the cost in the price of admission, which they can charge
because it is privately owned.

Of course, the idea that owning a mountain makes you responsible for the
people who try to climb it...

because it isn't as if you _built_ that mountain

rests on the "attractive nuisance" principle.

If the cost of rescuing the odd person who gets lost in the wilderness is not
an undue burden on the taxpayer, that's one thing. If it _is_, one can always put
fences around the mountains...

John Savard

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 19 May 2021 14:24:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc
If the cost of rescuing the odd person who gets lost in the wilderness is not
an undue burden on the taxpayer, that's one thing. If it _is_, one can always put
fences around the mountains...

They actually do that in Australia around Ayers Rock / Uluru

[The Horny Goat]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 19 May 2021 14:24:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc
If the cost of rescuing the odd person who gets lost in the wilderness is not
an undue burden on the taxpayer, that's one thing. If it _is_, one can always put
fences around the mountains...

They actually do that in Australia around Ayers Rock / Uluru

Yes but that's not why - rather a misguided viewpoint on who 'owns'
it.

It's not the sort of place one would get lost around - maybe hurt when
climbing but not lost. (I've never been there but my late father did)

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:41:34 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly
has the right to charge for the right to climb it.
But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly
owned/, such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National
Park"? It means that we /all/ own it.

You're changing the topic.

Of course he is. He demonstrated how fucking *stupid* he is on the
old topic, and he's not man enough to admit it, so he has to dance
from topic to topic.

In short, he's a sniveling little weasel.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Jonathan]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jonathan
So we should only rescue people when their
plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
that, but still in the real world people are people.

Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
for permits or insurance or whatever.

I would agree with that, thrill seeking should
be a solo sport, not a burden to society.

Post by Quadibloc
John Savard

[Paul S Person]

Post by Jonathan

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jonathan
So we should only rescue people when their
plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
that, but still in the real world people are people.

Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
for permits or insurance or whatever.

I would agree with that, thrill seeking should
be a solo sport, not a burden to society.

Like someone who goes out into the Everglades to view the stars?

If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?

Should you be required to get a permit? Or pay a user fee? Or have
insurance?

People do stuff. Some of it doesn't make sense to other people. This
is normal, and nothing to worry about. Calling them names doesn't
help.

[Default User]

Post by Paul S Person
If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?

Crocodile attacks are exceendingly rare in the US due to the low
population of the species and its reclusive nature. Alligators, on the
other hand, are much more dangerous.


Brian

[Kevrob]

Post by Default User

Post by Paul S Person
If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?

Crocodile attacks are exceendingly rare in the US due to the low
population of the species and its reclusive nature. Alligators, on the
other hand, are much more dangerous.

Go too far north in Florida and the winters are too cold for
the American croc.

[quote]

Within the United States, the American crocodile's distribution is generally
limited to the southern tip of Florida, though at least two have been found
as far north as the Tampa Bay area.

[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_crocodile

A few Nile crocs have been introduced, whether on purpose or
as a result of zoos, or people with illegal exotic pets losing track
of them, I can't say.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article78680152.html

If a saurian chomps anyone in the `Glades, on the "sound of hooves,
think horses, not zebras" principle, assume it was a gator until
you hear otherwise.

BTW, when something is "owned by the people," it isn't necessarily
"government property," though pols and bureaucrats can make it
seem that way. Many resources are held as a commons, which may
be well managed, or the infamous "Tragedy of the Commons." Access
to use the resource or take part of it can be handled in various ways:
auctions, quotas, lotteries, customary law, and even "museum fees
are waived on Sundays." Some of the New England town greens used
to be the commons, where colonists would let their cattle graze. The
New Haven Green is overseen by these folks:

https://tinyurl.com/NHG-Proprietors {which is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven_Green#The_Committee_of_the_Proprietors_of_Common_and_Undivided_Lands_at_New_Haven }

In an alternate universe, the parkland managed by the US government
might have been assigned to a private foundation or membership group.

There are these folks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_Conservancy

...who took the same name as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Conservancy_(UK)

Go back far enough and only the Aristos got to make full use of
them.

Issues of land tenancy show up in Stirling's Emberverse novels,
with "lords of the manor" in the Portland part of the Montival
kingdom set-up by SCA enthusiasts.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Default User

Post by Paul S Person
If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?

Crocodile attacks are exceendingly rare in the US due to the low
population of the species and its reclusive nature. Alligators, on the
other hand, are much more dangerous.

Go too far north in Florida and the winters are too cold for
the American croc.
[quote]
Within the United States, the American crocodile's distribution is generally
limited to the southern tip of Florida, though at least two have been found
as far north as the Tampa Bay area.
[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_crocodile
A few Nile crocs have been introduced, whether on purpose or
as a result of zoos, or people with illegal exotic pets losing track
of them, I can't say.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article78680152.html
If a saurian chomps anyone in the `Glades, on the "sound of hooves,
think horses, not zebras" principle, assume it was a gator until
you hear otherwise.
BTW, when something is "owned by the people," it isn't necessarily
"government property," though pols and bureaucrats can make it
seem that way. Many resources are held as a commons, which may
be well managed, or the infamous "Tragedy of the Commons." Access
auctions, quotas, lotteries, customary law, and even "museum fees
are waived on Sundays." Some of the New England town greens used
to be the commons, where colonists would let their cattle graze. The
https://tinyurl.com/NHG-Proprietors {which is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven_Green#The_Committee_of_the_Proprietors_of_Common_and_Undivided_Lands_at_New_Haven }

Sounds interesting! Perhaps someone could record a musical project about
such a preservation society..

[Kevrob]

[snip]

https://tinyurl.com/NHG-Proprietors {which is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven_Green#The_Committee_of_the_Proprietors_of_Common_and_Undivided_Lands_at_New_Haven }

Sounds interesting! Perhaps someone could record a musical project
about such a preservation society..
--

..with accompanying Picture Book? :)

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Kevrob
[snip]

https://tinyurl.com/NHG-Proprietors {which is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven_Green#The_Committee_of_the_Proprietors_of_Common_and_Undivided_Lands_at_New_Haven }
Sounds interesting! Perhaps someone could record a musical project
about such a preservation society..
--

..with accompanying Picture Book? :)

You really got me!

[Default User]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Default User

Post by Paul S Person
If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?

Crocodile attacks are exceendingly rare in the US due to the low
population of the species and its reclusive nature. Alligators, on
the other hand, are much more dangerous.

Go too far north in Florida and the winters are too cold for
the American croc.
[quote]
Within the United States, the American crocodile's distribution is
generally limited to the southern tip of Florida, though at least two
have been found as far north as the Tampa Bay area.
[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_crocodile
A few Nile crocs have been introduced, whether on purpose or
as a result of zoos, or people with illegal exotic pets losing track
of them, I can't say.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article78680152.html
If a saurian chomps anyone in the `Glades, on the "sound of hooves,
think horses, not zebras" principle, assume it was a gator until
you hear otherwise.

I found one news report of an attack (no fatalities) from a couple that
went swimming in an inlet or something with a high "am croc" population.


Brian

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Default User

Post by Paul S Person
If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?

Crocodile attacks are exceendingly rare in the US due to the low
population of the species and its reclusive nature. Alligators, on the
other hand, are much more dangerous.

Go too far north in Florida and the winters are too cold for
the American croc.
[quote]
Within the United States, the American crocodile's distribution is generally
limited to the southern tip of Florida, though at least two have been found
as far north as the Tampa Bay area.
[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_crocodile
A few Nile crocs have been introduced, whether on purpose or
as a result of zoos, or people with illegal exotic pets losing track
of them, I can't say.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article78680152.html
If a saurian chomps anyone in the `Glades, on the "sound of hooves,
think horses, not zebras" principle, assume it was a gator until
you hear otherwise.

Some genre works with a bogeymonster alleged
to be in the local lake have reality-savvy characters
who suspect that a large but mundane crocodilian
is the explanation, and why shouldn't it be?
A monster can be crocodile-ish, and a crocodile
is pretty Good as a monster. But then it wouldn't
be genre...?

I most recently watched the episode of _Grimm_
in which tourists on the lake are turning up dead,
but note <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quagmire_%28The_X-Files%29>
(spoilers). Both stories give due time to the alligated
monster possibly being an alligater. ;-)

Post by Kevrob
BTW, when something is "owned by the people," it isn't necessarily
"government property," though pols and bureaucrats can make it
seem that way. [snip]

Thank you for addressing this question.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Kevrob

Post by Default User

Post by Paul S Person
If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?

Crocodile attacks are exceendingly rare in the US due to the low
population of the species and its reclusive nature. Alligators, on the
other hand, are much more dangerous.

Go too far north in Florida and the winters are too cold for
the American croc.
[quote]
Within the United States, the American crocodile's distribution is generally
limited to the southern tip of Florida, though at least two have been found
as far north as the Tampa Bay area.
[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_crocodile
A few Nile crocs have been introduced, whether on purpose or
as a result of zoos, or people with illegal exotic pets losing track
of them, I can't say.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article78680152.html
If a saurian chomps anyone in the `Glades, on the "sound of hooves,
think horses, not zebras" principle, assume it was a gator until
you hear otherwise.

Some genre works with a bogeymonster alleged
to be in the local lake have reality-savvy characters
who suspect that a large but mundane crocodilian
is the explanation, and why shouldn't it be?
A monster can be crocodile-ish, and a crocodile
is pretty Good as a monster. But then it wouldn't
be genre...?

I give you now Professor Twist
The conscientious scientist.
Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles"
And sent him off to distant jungles.
Camped on a tropic riverside
One day he missed his lovely bride.
She had, the guide informed him later,
Been eaten by an alligator.
Professor Twist could not but smile.
"You mean," he said, "a crocodile!"

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 21 May 2021 00:15:57 -0000 (UTC), "Default User"

Post by Default User

Post by Paul S Person
If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?

Crocodile attacks are exceendingly rare in the US due to the low
population of the species and its reclusive nature. Alligators, on the
other hand, are much more dangerous.

Thanks for correcting my incorrect choice of large reptilian
flesh-eaters. I will try to keep this in mind in the future.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 21 May 2021 00:15:57 -0000 (UTC), "Default User"

Post by Default User

Post by Paul S Person
If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?

Crocodile attacks are exceendingly rare in the US due to the low
population of the species and its reclusive nature. Alligators, on the
other hand, are much more dangerous.

And the previous reference to "star-gazing" is surely a reference to
the fact that the largest alligator refuge in the United States is
owned by NASA which uses roughly 5% of their land for the spaceport
and 95% for the gators.

(I toured Canaveral in 1998 and the section of the tour dealing with
the alligator refuge was for me the most surprising part of the tour)

[a425couple]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by a425couple
Interesting scene -
The Martian - Deleted Scene #1 - Mark Arrives at Earth [Blu-Ray/DVD 2016]
The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.
http://youtu.be/8yM2fnXGcr0

My network is limited.

Interesting.
Can you access Google? or Bing?
I suppose, if it was something important, you could go
to a public library and the staff would help.

Post by Robert Carnegie
What happens?

Any way, it is a 1 minute scene,
Mark is looking out a big picture window on the
returning space ship,
"I think about the sheer number of people ---
that pulled together to save my sorry ass,
and I can barely comprehend it. The cost of
my survival was in the 100s of millions of $,
just to save a botanist with anti-authority issues,
why bother?? ----"
Transitions to an older Mark sitting on a park
bench overlooking a big green where youth
are training.
"-- because that's what we do. Every human being
has a basic instinct to help each other out.
---- lost hiker, people organize a search ---
-- if an earthquake levels a city, people send
emergency supplies. This instinct is found in
every culture without exception.
And because of it, I had an entire planet on my side."

So, it has definite ties to the message on the last
page from my book, pages 368&9, but kind of, goes further.

Comments include:
Josh T
4 years ago
They shouldn't have taken this part out. It was the moral of the book

Gino
1 year ago (edited)
"I have an entire planet on my side" this was beautiful.

ad set
3 years ago
"...and because of that I had an entire planet on my side". Pretty
powerful stuff, I must say. Sends little shivers down my spine.

Ashish Venkatesh Gad
3 years ago
This scene had an impact, if a person puts race, culture, gender and
wealth aside, and look at each other like human beings and see through
all sufferings, help reach out, this is a beautiful place to be in

Cougarsamurai
3 days ago
If they didn't make the effort to save him NO-ONE would volunteer for
anything ever again! People have to believe they are not disposable.