Dallas Streetlights and Libertarian Idealism

[mdunlap1]

Just one more example of how Dallas's government is impeding the city's progress and development.


Dallas streetlights stay broken, dimming hopes for downtown (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060406dnmetstreetlights.7dcc49c.html)

09:23 PM CDT on Saturday, June 3, 2006

By DAVE LEVINTHAL / The Dallas Morning News

Each night Jack MacDonald looks out his storefront window, he grimaces at his nemesis.

There, across the intersection of Elm and Ervay streets, is a broken streetlight that he says he's asked Dallas City Hall to fix since he helped open the Press Box Grill downtown in January 2005. Four, maybe five times he's tried, to no avail.

"These are the kinds of things that drive me insane," Mr. MacDonald said. "Downtown is a tough market, and the city is not making it any easier. Who wants to come to a place if the area is uninviting at night? It's a scary place."

Folks in dying cities joke bitterly, "Would the last soul downtown please remember to turn the lights off?"

But what of the lights in a downtown like Dallas' – once left for dead, yet resuscitated, where apartments and condominiums are proliferating, numerous eateries now remain open nightly and pedestrians are off the list of endangered urban species?

Seemingly lost in the center city's broad revitalization is a concerted push to illuminate it all. Even along some of its most well-traveled tracts, downtown is just plain dark.

On Main Street between St. Paul and Harwood streets, an informal tally last month revealed 13 lights on, 19 off. Between North Akard and North Ervay, 25 streetlights on, 14 off.

For every two streetlights glowing on Commerce Street between Harwood and Field streets, one wasn't. And at the gateway to the Dallas Farmers Market, where Harwood, Cadiz and Marilla streets converge, all seven overhead streetlights were either burned out or broken off their poles. Seven of the 21 small "pedestrian lights" ringing the intersection were also out.

Downtown residents and business owners say lighting is critical to safety, which is tantamount to commerce. In other words: Bad lighting equals bad business.

Shedding light on why

Why so many lights that don't light up?

Chances are nobody's reported them as broken, says Dallas street lighting manager Brad Moss. The city doesn't regularly monitor streetlight outages downtown or anywhere else in Dallas, he said.

That job falls to TXU Electric Delivery, which has a contract with the city to repair most streetlights. The company says it surveys downtown streetlights for outages about once every three months.

The estimated response time to fix a broken streetlight is two or three days. But city and TXU Electric Delivery officials acknowledge that for a variety of reasons, replacing streetlights may take longer. Sometimes much longer.

For one, the most publicly accessible streetlight repair remedy – Dallas' 311 service-request system – isn't the most efficient solution.

If someone reports a broken streetlight through the 311 system, it isn't immediately processed. Workers compile the information and then, after a week or two, fax a list to TXU Electric Delivery, said Rex Dennison, the company's electric operations supervisor for streetlight maintenance.

A better method, he said, is contacting TXU Electric Delivery directly by phone or through the company's Web site.

Because of downtown traffic, however, TXU Electric Delivery usually does repairs only during relatively slow periods, such as Sunday mornings.

And like the childhood game "telephone," streetlight repair requests through 311 and TXU Electric Delivery's channels may get mixed up in transit, city officials acknowledged. If, for example, a caller provides incomplete information on a light's location or an inaccurate light number – an alphanumeric code is stamped on each street lamp pole – delays may occur.

Lights may also temporarily go dark because of nearby construction or because they need repairs more complicated than simple bulb replacement, Mr. Moss said.

And sometimes people report light outages on private property, for which the city isn't responsible.

"Then you have people call up sometimes and say, 'There's a light outside my house that's been out for two months!' and then they hang up," Mr. Moss said. "We want to help people, but it's hard to help someone in that case."

Said Mr. Dennison: "It's not always anyone's fault. We try to do the best job we can with the time and information and resources we have. The best set of eyes is the person who is living or working right outside the problem light, reports it and gives us accurate information."

Also complicating matters are the downtown pedestrian lights – shorter lamps used to brighten sidewalk areas – which the city has installed by the dozens in recent years. More are coming.

TXU Electric Delivery is not yet responsible for them; the city is. Mr. Moss recommends calling the city, or even him directly, for repairs to those lights.

'Central to safety'

City and TXU Electric Delivery officials say they're unsure why the streetlight Mr. MacDonald wants fixed remains dark.

But for City Council member Angela Hunt, who represents much of downtown, the issue stretches beyond one broken bulb.

"Lights are so central to safety, and we certainly want to create a safe environment downtown," Ms. Hunt said. "A lapse in getting lights repaired – we need to get that addressed immediately."

Ms. Hunt said residents should call her council office directly if a broken downtown streetlight isn't repaired quickly.

Don Raines is president of the Downtown Neighborhood Association and lives in the Kirby Building at Main and Akard streets, one of downtown's highest-profile intersections, also known as Pegasus Plaza.

But even this location, he said, is saddled with broken streetlights.

"We shouldn't have any dark spaces. It creates a negative perception, and a negative perception is the last thing we need here," Mr. Raines said. "Because, if we can win the sidewalks and get people walking on them at night, we win downtown."

Rudy Perez, an assistant manager of Footgear on Elm Street, lamented having to walk to his car in the dark.

"And more lighting will drive more pedestrians to the area, bottom line," he said.

Amen, Mr. MacDonald said.

In five years, he predicted, businesses will flock to downtown Dallas in droves, lured by a larger resident population and big business resurgence.

But in the meantime, he wonders whether he'll have enough customers willing to dodge the late-night panhandlers who congregate beneath the broken light across the street.

"I believe in downtown. I knew what I was coming into," Mr. MacDonald said. "The question is, who's going to hang around if we can't even get help on the little stuff?"

[staplesla]

Go to the txu website and fill out the contact/complaint form, hopefully the more they get the faster they'll fix them.

To report a broken streetlight, contact:

TXU Electric Delivery at 888-313-4747 or www.txuelectricdelivery.com

The city of Dallas by calling 311 or visiting DallasCityHall.com.

Dallas street lighting manager Brad Moss for downtown pedestrian lights, 214-670-1229.

[hamiltonpl]

It's a private company that is supposed to do the maintenance. If anything, this shows that private companies aren't up to the job.

[mdunlap1]

...

[mdunlap1]

It's a private company that is supposed to do the maintenance. If anything, this shows that private companies aren't up to the job.

LOL. Nice spin.

What do you think would happen if the guy decided to just start fixing the street lights on his own? Why do you think he hasn't done so already, despite the damage to his business that their being broken is doing?

Chances are nobody's reported them as broken, says Dallas street lighting manager Brad Moss... Mr. Moss recommends calling the city, or even him directly, for repairs to those lights.

Notice that he doesn't do the obvious thing and suggest that they just fix the lights themselves (as they would and do with any other light that affects their business). He knows that if he did that he'd be out of a job. (As he should be.)

[Lakewooder]

The lights on the Knox-Henderson bridge columns still have not been replaced -- is that TXDot we should be contacting? If so, does anyone have the contact info?

We should launch a mass attack on that one...

[warlock55]

Fort Worth is about to spend a lot of money replacing lights along freeways. That got cut during lean budget times a few years ago. What I'd really like to see is money spent on new lights that are covered to reduce light pollution. You don't really know what you're missing until you get way out in the country. I think people might tend to be a little more introspective if they could gaze at the stars every night...

[FoUTASportscaster]

LOL. Nice spin.

What do you think would happen if the guy decided to just start fixing the street lights on his own? Why do you think he hasn't done so already, despite the damage to his business that their being broken is doing?

Chances are nobody's reported them as broken, says Dallas street lighting manager Brad Moss... Mr. Moss recommends calling the city, or even him directly, for repairs to those lights.

Notice that he doesn't do the obvious thing and suggest that they just fix the lights themselves (as they would and do with any other light that affects their business). He knows that if he did that he'd be out of a job. (As he should be.)

Maybe it has to do with the owner not having a cherry-picker or crane that can go up to the 20 foot light poles. Or maybe it has to do with safety of what could happen if he elecrutes himself or falls off a ladder trying to fix it. Maybe it has to do with the fact that he doesn't have the proper bulb and couldn't get the proper bulb because those are industrial use bulbs only. Maybe it has to do with he isn't going to spend his own money to fix a public entity. Maybe it has to do with humans being lazy.

Yet somehow I believe you are going to find a way to fault the government anyway.

[mdunlap1]

Maybe it has to do with the owner not having a cherry-picker or crane that can go up to the 20 foot light poles.

Yeah. Only the government has these (or the ability to pick up the phone and call someone who does).


Yet somehow I believe you are going to find a way to fault the government anyway.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the government won't allow him to change the bulb.

Nahhh... too complicated an explanation.

He must just be some incompetent, lazy, business owner. Like all the others. Only government workers are motivated and competent.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Yeah. Only the government has these (or the ability to pick up the phone and call someone who does).

So out of all listed, this is the only one you debate. What about the others, or do you not have a response?


Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the government won't allow him to change the bulb.

Nahhh... too complicated an explanation.

Yeah, its actually the private company TXU that's in charge of that.


He must just be some incompetent, lazy, business owner. Like all the others. Only government workers are motivated and competent.

Yeah, cause only private interest groups are motivated and competant.

[hamiltonpl]

Yeah. Only the government has these (or the ability to pick up the phone and call someone who does).

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the government won't allow him to change the bulb.

Nahhh... too complicated an explanation.

He must just be some incompetent, lazy, business owner. Like all the others. Only government workers are motivated and competent.

Both government and private business have their fair share of incompetence.

Where in the article does it reference a government prohibition against him changing the light bulb?

It's probably not a question of government punishing him for changing the bulb, but something more practical -- like the lack of the proper replacement bulbs, equipment to get to the light fixture and expertise needed to replace the bulb.

All this begs the question, how many mdunlap1's does it take to change a lightbulb?

[mdunlap1]

So out of all listed, this is the only one you debate. What about the others, or do you not have a response?

Not really necessary. Those were all reasons why someone might not fix a light. But they weren't the reason this light is not being fixed. There's only one reason these streetlights go broken: the government has banned people from fixing them, even though its doing so is proving economically destructive and harmful to the well-being of business owners and residents who would fix them were they allowed to do so.


Yeah, its actually the private company TXU that's in charge of that.

By government assignment. No one else is even allowed to fix the light, even if they would do it much more cheaply and quickly.

[FoUTASportscaster]

No, they are the ones to fix it because it is their equipment and property. The street lights belong to TXU.

[mdunlap1]

Both government and private business have their fair share of incompetence.

Of course. Economic liberty isn't perfect. Just inherently better.


Where in the article does it reference a government prohibition against him changing the light bulb?

Just because the article doesn't reference it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (It does, fwiw.)


It's probably not a question of government punishing him for changing the bulb, but something more practical -- like the lack of the proper replacement bulbs, equipment to get to the light fixture and expertise needed to replace the bulb.

Yeah. That must be it. :rolleyes:

If he was allowed to take ownership of the lighting in front of his restaurant, he would have the economic incentive to keep the lighting up to date. The question of whose job it was to fix the lighting would be erased. He would also face scorn (or worse) from nearby business owners and residents were he to let his lighting fall into disrepair, causing a burden to their businesses. Basically, there are numerous reasons why he would quickly fix the lighting on his property. As almost all property owners do when their lighting begins to diminish their economic well-being.

But in this arrangement the government faces no punishment, no scorn, no economic hardship, etc. So the lights stay broken and the government does nothing.

[mdunlap1]

No, they are the ones to fix it because it is their equipment and property. The street lights belong to TXU.

TXU does not own the street light. They have been awarded a contract to fix the lights by the government that has monopolized sidewalk ownership and streetlight construction.

Without the government, the guy could call whomever he wants to fix the light, or, just put up his own lights.

[hamiltonpl]

Just because the article doesn't reference it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (It does, fwiw.)

Ok, please cite the prohibition you are referring to.


Without the government, the guy could call whomever he wants to fix the light, or, just put up his own lights.
So the government prohibits him from putting up his own lights? Please reference that law too.

[mdunlap1]

Ok, please cite the prohibition you are referring to.

Are you seriously questioning whether this is even illegal?

Sec. 43-39 of the Dallas City Code: (http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Texas/dallas/volumeii/chapter43streetsandsidewalks?f=templates$fn=altmai n-nf.htm$3.0#JD_43-39)

No person shall construct, reconstruct, alter, repair, remove, replace, pave, repave, surface or resurface any walk, drive, curb, gutter, paved area or appurtenance on public property in the city without first obtaining from the building inspector a permit so to do. (Ord. 8590)


So the government prohibits him from putting up his own lights? Please reference that law too.

He is not allowed to construct his own lighting on the sidewalks and streets leading to his business.

[FoUTASportscaster]

TXU does not own the street light. They have been awarded a contract to fix the lights by the government that has monopolized sidewalk ownership and streetlight construction.

Without the government, the guy could call whomever he wants to fix the light, or, just put up his own lights.


No, the DMN did a story on the problems TXU (you know, the private company) had in replacing their light poles that were 20 years old or more and were facing corrosion. So yes they do own it.

[mdunlap1]

No, the DMN did a story on the problems TXU (you know, the private company) had in replacing their light poles that were 20 years old or more and were facing corrosion. So yes they do own it.

So can the store owner call another company to come remove the light pole and put up a light pole that will work and be serviced by a better company? No. Why not? Because the government won't let him do so.

The government has given TXU a monopoly on fixing street lights. Without the government, others could (and surely would) offer to provide better services (which clearly wouldn't be hard to do).

TXU may be a private company, but this is hardly some free environment. The problem here isn't too much freedom. It's too little.

[FoUTASportscaster]

So can the store owner call another company to come remove the light pole and put up a light pole that will work and be serviced by a better company? No. Why not? Because the government won't let him do so.

The government has given TXU a monopoly on fixing street lights. Without the government, others could (and surely would) offer to provide better services (which clearly wouldn't be hard to do).

TXU may be a private company, but this is hardly some free environment. The problem here isn't too much freedom. It's too little.


You know that sounds all well and good (actually it doesn't, but whatever), problems is simple, there aren't electric companies all ovver the place that could fdo this kinda stuff.

As an aside, your surely would comment is based on nothing factual. You know, communism worked on paper, but failed in real life. This would be the same thing. This whole point is predicated on the fact that someone would do a better job. Humans are inherently lazy. To think that someone would be all of a sudden more motivated because there isn't government is absurd.

What about the situations where that occurs in real life and in the private sector. Or are you okay with a private company like Enron swindling their employees and stockholders. If it wasn't for government, they would be able to do that and get away scott free and leave a lot of people broke as they ride off in the sunset rich.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Go to the txu website and fill out the contact/complaint form, hopefully the more they get the faster they'll fix them.

To report a broken streetlight, contact:

TXU Electric Delivery at 888-313-4747 or www.txuelectricdelivery .com.

The city of Dallas by calling 311 or visiting DallasCityHall.com.

Dallas street lighting manager Brad Moss for downtown pedestrian lights, 214-670-1229.


I used this and today, the light I called about is fixed. This is great.

[FoUTASportscaster]

To add to it, I walked the Main Street side of my block to get pole numbers on Wednesday and they were fixed on Friday. This is great.

[mdunlap1]

This whole point is predicated on the fact that someone would do a better job. Humans are inherently lazy. To think that someone would be all of a sudden more motivated because there isn't government is absurd.

So only the government can fix lights?

Ummm... OK. :rolleyes:

Wow, talk about Communism.


Or are you okay with a private company like Enron swindling their employees and stockholders. If it wasn't for government, they would be able to do that and get away scott free and leave a lot of people broke as they ride off in the sunset rich.

1) Government didn't stop Enron from doing what they did. And it's not stopping anyone else from cheating people now.

2) The Enrons of the world don't do half the damage to our economy and people's well-being that our government does. It's not even close. The thieves and thugs in our government make Lay and Skilling look like absolute saints. After all, Lay and Skilling never threatened to kill or kidnap anyone for not giving them money. Our government would be out of business tomorrow if it ever promised to stop doing this.

[FoUTASportscaster]

So without laws, what's to stop Enron from happening everywhere. There is no possibility of retribution in your la-la system.

[incrediculous]

This is stupid. What's the point in debating this?

It's like defending the falibility of human nature. Governments and societies of any kind aren't perfect. Anarchy has its downside. Mdunlap will never change the world one forum at a time.

It's better to accept that which is beyond your control and employ your surroundings to maximize your gain, than it is to foolishly campaign for some idealized utopia that denies human nature.

[Justin Terveen]

It's better to accept that which is beyond your control and employ your surroundings to maximize your gain, than it is to foolishly campaign for some idealized utopia that denies human nature.

indeed.. well said

[mdunlap1]

It's better to accept that which is beyond your control and employ your surroundings to maximize your gain, than it is to foolishly campaign for some idealized utopia that denies human nature.

You shouldn't be opposed to or speak out against murder, theft, etc. It's just human nature. Beyond your control. Accept the facts and don't say these things are wrong.

By the way, where did I deny human nature?

[mdunlap1]

So without laws, what's to stop Enron from happening everywhere.

Not investing your money with people that run terrible businesses. Being more discerning about what companies you invest in, etc.

The great majority of business execs today don't want to do what Enron did, not because of any fear of the government but because doing so would leave their businesses in complete ruin.


There is no possibility of retribution in your la-la system.

The government didn't put Enron out of business. The market did. (The government only came along after the market blew the scam up and investors bailed on the stock.) And I guarantee you Lay and Skilling will happily take the protection the state will now provide them as opposed to what they would have had coming to them from the tens thousands of people (many of them very powerful themselves) from whom they stole billions of dollars.

So now liberty is a "la-la system." That's classic.

[incrediculous]

You shouldn't be opposed to or speak out against murder, theft, etc. It's just human nature. Beyond your control. Accept the facts and don't say these things are wrong.

By the way, where did I deny human nature?

Actually, murder is against human nature. It's in our evolutionary produced psychology to condemn and severely punish murder, as it is in our best interest to do so -- it gives us more opportunity to propogate our genes.

Likewise, our ability to single-out thieves is a product of evolutionary psychology. It ensures that our own genes and progeny are the beneficiaries of our daily work.

You denied human nature when you expected everyone to live without leadership and organization. We are a semi-social species. The extent of our social behavior ends at the boundary of reciprocity.

We are not like ants, who act in a purely social manner without the organizational structure and enforcement of a government. Humans form governments to more effectively identify and punish murderers and thieves, which is human nature.

[warlock55]

Actually, murder is against human nature. It's in our evolutionary produced psychology to condemn and severely punish murder, as it is in our best interest to do so -- it gives us more opportunity to propogate our genes.

Likewise, our ability to single-out thieves is a product of evolutionary psychology. It ensures that our own genes and progeny are the beneficiaries of our daily work.

You denied human nature when you expected everyone to live without leadership and organization. We are a semi-social species. The extent of our social behavior ends at the boundary of reciprocity.

We are not like ants, who act in a purely social manner without the organizational structure and enforcement of a government. Humans form governments to more effectively identify and punish murderers and thieves, which is human nature.

At a purely individual level, murder wouldn't necessarily be against human nature because each human is trying to ensure he/she and his/her offspring survives. So in some cases on that level murder would be a means to that end. Like you said though, most humans identify themselves as a part of various groups, and in that context behavior that dramatically benefits one person over the rest is typically condemned.

[incrediculous]

At a purely individual level, murder wouldn't necessarily be against human nature because each human is trying to ensure he/she and his/her offspring survives.

It's not that murder is against human nature. It's that opposition to murder is human nature. The idea that our progeny could be killed for someone else's gain is so instinctively repulsive, that we approach the subject of murder from a perspective of universal prohibition.


Like you said though, most humans identify themselves as a part of various groups, and in that context behavior that dramatically benefits one person over the rest is typically condemned.

That's where our judgement of what is fair comes from. We don't like that some people free-load, because these people and their future progeny are benefitting at the expense of ourselves and our progeny.

And what this has to do with streetlights, I have no idea. Mdunlap has a way of taking small civic problems and tackling them at levels so far out of scope, it gets a little absurd at times.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Not investing your money with people that run terrible businesses. Being more discerning about what companies you invest in, etc.

The great majority of business execs today don't want to do what Enron did, not because of any fear of the government but because doing so would leave their businesses in complete ruin.

Well, prior to the collapse, Enron was one of the most admired companies in the world and was considered a safe investment.

Without law, buisness execs would do it more, because they would get very rich and there would be no retribution. Unless you have no law and the employers who lost the retirement get to kill them.


The government didn't put Enron out of business. The market did. (The government only came along after the market blew the scam up and investors bailed on the stock.) And I guarantee you Lay and Skilling will happily take the protection the state will now provide them as opposed to what they would have had coming to them from the tens thousands of people (many of them very powerful themselves) from whom they stole billions of dollars.

So you do mean murder.


So now liberty is a "la-la system." That's classic.

No, your form of libery is a la-la system that, like communism, seems to work on paper to you, but wouldn't in everyday application. I enjoy my form of liberty which has allowed me to live very comfortably.

Question. Why are you the only on this board that continues to support this system? Are we all nuts and you are the only true sane one, or, just maybe, you are off base?

[mdunlap1]

You denied human nature when you expected everyone to live without leadership and organization.

Where did I do this?

I've actually stated numerous times that I am a fan of private government.

[mdunlap1]

No, your form of libery is a la-la system that, like communism, seems to work on paper to you, but wouldn't in everyday application.

You don't know this and have given no good arguments to show why it wouldn't.


I enjoy my form of liberty which has allowed me to live very comfortably.

Of course you enjoy "your form" of liberty (whatever that even means) because it allows you to deny numerous liberties to other people by giving you (or people you've chosen) power to exert your will over others.

Numerous tyrants throughout human history have enjoyed "their form" of liberty as well, fwiw.


Question. Why are you the only on this board that continues to support this system?

Fwiw, I've had several people here send me private messages thanking me for interjecting the classical argument for liberty into these threads (since it is almost entirely lacking otherwise). But even if that weren't the case, it wouldn't matter since ad hominems have nothing to do with the merit of the argument, fwiw.


Are we all nuts and you are the only true sane one, or, just maybe, you are off base?

Socialism (to whatever degrees you support it) isn't nuts. Just wrong.

[mdunlap1]

behavior that dramatically benefits one person over the rest is typically condemned

Transactions or arrangements where people are left at liberty to enter into them as they freely choose don't benefit one person over the rest... or else people wouldn't enter into them, by definition.

Transaction or arrangements that do benefit some over others usually require coercion to be completed. Like threat of attack for not giving up one's money or property.

Think about which of the two you support.

[warlock55]

Transactions or arrangements where people are left at liberty to enter into them as they freely choose don't benefit one person over the rest... or else people wouldn't enter into them, by definition.

Perfect decisions require perfect knowledge, which is of course impossible and why people frequently make decisions that turn out not to be in their best interest. One of the major criticisms of capitalism is based on this fact.


This has nothing to do with streetlights though. It seems like that problem has been pretty much solved by people learning who they need to contact to get the lights replaced.

[mdunlap1]

Perfect decisions require perfect knowledge, which is of course impossible and why people frequently make decisions that turn out not to be in their best interest. One of the major criticisms of capitalism is based on this fact.

Ditto that for collectivized government and its decision-making.


This has nothing to do with streetlights though. It seems like that problem has been pretty much solved by people learning who they need to contact to get the lights replaced.

Of course. But the problem could have been - and in the future would be - solved more efficiently and more fairly were people at liberty to do so as they so chose. Unfortunately liberty is greatly opposed by many (including regulars here) in this matter so we get a much less efficient situation.

[tamtagon]

Unfortunately liberty is greatly opposed by many (including regulars here) in this matter so we get a much less efficient situation.

Frankly, I dont know why you keep saying stuff like that. It's pretty clear everyone wants liberty.

[mdunlap1]

Frankly, I dont know why you keep saying stuff like that. It's pretty clear everyone wants liberty.

Sorry, but that's just simply false.

Liberty (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/liberty.html) is "the freedom to think or act without being constrained by necessity or force." Taxation is absolutely antithetical to liberty, by definition.

And people here have argued repeatedly that pure liberty is a bad thing, an unrealistic fantasy that would never work, etc., etc.

Specifically relating to this topic, the business owner is not at liberty to fix the situation with the streetlights. He is required, constrained by the threat of force, to do what government agents tell him to do in order to have the lights fixed (i.e. call the one company they've specially rewarded with a contract to fix the lights). If he chooses to fix the lights himself, as he very easily could and almost surely would were he at liberty to do so, government agents will demand money (or, a fine) from him for having done so. If he doesn't give them the money, they will send agents to kidnap (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/kidnap.html) him and attack him should he resist their attempt to do so.

[warlock55]

Frankly, I dont know why you keep saying stuff like that. It's pretty clear everyone wants liberty.

Mdunlap seems to think that liberty is an either/or proposition. It either exists completely, or doesn't exist at all. Everyone else realizes that liberty exists on a continuum from no liberty to total liberty. Most people don't want to live under either extreme. In America, in most situations people have "the freedom to think or act without being constrained by necessity or force." In others we have decided there is a higher collective good to restrain total freedom of action. That doesn't mean we hate liberty; it simply means we see that too much of a good thing can actually be bad.

[CityLove]

Why do we continue to play along?

[mdunlap1]

Mdunlap seems to think that liberty is an either/or proposition. It either exists completely, or doesn't exist at all. Everyone else realizes that liberty exists on a continuum from no liberty to total liberty.

Liberty is the "the freedom to think or act without being constrained by necessity or force". If any constraint by necessity or force exists, it is not liberty. By definition. However beneficial you may think your constraints are, however free people may still be under them, whatever you want to call the situation that exists under them, it is not liberty.

In numerous threads here regarding various issues, I have suggested liberty as the solution to the problems that exist. I can't think of even one time where you haven't strongly opposed liberty as a solution.

Maybe I am just forgetting the situations where you have supported (much less simply not opposed) liberty in these threads. Or maybe the situations where you support people being left free from constraint by force just haven't presented themselves in the dozens of threads I've seen you participate in here. So please give me some issues where you would support people being at liberty to act as they so choose regarding that issue. If you are such the supporter of liberty that you claim to be, surely this won't be too hard, right?

Government means always coercion and compulsion and is by necessity the opposite of liberty. -- Ludwig von Mises

[warlock55]

Liberty is the "the freedom to think or act without being constrained by necessity or force". If any constraint by necessity or force exists, it is not liberty. By definition. However beneficial you may think your constraints are, however free people may still be under them, whatever you want to call the situation that exists under them, it is not liberty.

How about this definition of liberty, from Mr. Webster: "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control." This is exactly what we have in a democratic government, because each person influences the controls impacting him or her.

According to that definition, as a supporter of democratic government, I am a consistant and strong supporter of liberty.

People here can vote and campaign for who they want, say what they want, love who they want, learn what they want, etc. We have a lot of liberty, and I support that.

Liberty as you have it defined is impossible in the real world, regardless of government, simply because what is necessary frequently depends on circumstances and individual perspectives.

[warlock55]

TXU is very difficult to work with. I have had issues with them clearing vegetation along their power line right of ways. They find any excuse possible to get out of doing it, thus leaving the work up to the property owners or the city. I have had to spend quite a bit of money taking care of their responsibilities for them.

Now you know why their vegetation management office has no phone number listed anywhere in the phone book or on their website.

It seems like a lot of the time when they do clear vegetation themselves, they take a slash and burn approach and just maul the trees almost to death. :(

[mdunlap1]

According to that definition, as a supporter of democratic government, I am a consistant and strong supporter of liberty.

Instead of your selective sampling of the definition, let's look at the full, 5-part definition: (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberty)

1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

You (and democracy, by definition) support numerous state restrictions on a, b, d, and e. I oppose state restrictions on all of them.


This is exactly what we have in a democratic government, because each person influences the controls impacting him or her.

Influence over the people restricting your liberties is not the same thing as being at liberty.