Talk about inflation here in the US ,
In THE UK the fee for using londons congested roads has increased over 50% in just 2 and a half years ....
poor buggers...
http//www.bbc.co.uk/london/congestion/intro.shtml
Maybe living out in cattle ranch land you don't have pay roads but a lot places in the US they do. The cost of driving from DC to NYC is really expensive, with a number of tolls including $6.00 to cross the George Washington Bridge.
And the same sort of budget issues arise here, poor buggers.
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/cgi-bin/a.c...EIJ61nsxIA
Talk about inflation here in the US ,
In THE UK the fee for using londons congested roads has increased over 50% in just 2 and a half years ....
poor buggers...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/congestion/intro.shtml
Isn't paying to use roads, and private - not government - ownership of roads one of the darlings of the JohnA libertanians? :D
Talk about inflation here in the US ,
In THE UK the fee for using londons congested roads has increased over 50% in just 2 and a half years ....
poor buggers...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/congestion/intro.shtml
Isn't paying to use roads, and private - not government - ownership of roads one of the darlings of the JohnA libertanians? :D
Roads are shared by others so have no objections to the govt having control . same with military , police ,emergency services ,defence ,and such Its personal behavour ,choice , and lifestyles that govt needs to keep out of
I love the way governments charge the people to use what is already theirs.
still, I am sure the Tories would have privatised the roads and sold back to a select few what the people already own.
a la British Gas
CEGB
BR
BA
BT
Roads are shared by others so have no objections to the govt having control . same with military , police ,emergency services ,defence ,and such Its personal behavour ,choice , and lifestyles that govt needs to keep out of
Well, some common sense! I've argued with libertanians who think that all the roads should be privately owned and government should stay out of it!
Roads are shared by others so have no objections to the govt having control . same with military , police ,emergency services ,defence ,and such Its personal behavour ,choice , and lifestyles that govt needs to keep out of
Well, some common sense! I've argued with libertanians who think that all the roads should be privately owned and government should stay out of it!
Same with dems and reps:-) not everybody is like you me middle of the road , once we get the extreme looneys from either side hushed and restrained the country will start to move foreword .
Talk about inflation here in the US ,
In THE UK the fee for using londons congested roads has increased over 50% in just 2 and a half years ....
poor buggers...
Given that they are trying to keep cars out of central London, a fiver obviously wasn't a big enough deterrant.
Same with dems and reps:-) not everybody is like you me middle of the road , once we get the extreme looneys from either side hushed and restrained the country will start to move foreword .
Agreed! :D
The idea of using a linear political spectrum for understanding politics is simply useless for any meaningful debate. I understand the appeal of reducing complex phenomena to a simplistic formula, but it only really serves to continue to confuse issues of politics and economics.
The problem is that we end up with totalitarians at each end of the line, and thus your average punter who understandably opposes such systems will by definition be left in the middle. But herein lies the problem, the so-called middle then becomes the only worthwhile contested space, and it gets very cramped. By using the linear approach you end up with ridiculous bedfellows, anarchists and libertarians, nazi's and religious authoritarians, British and American conservatism etc etc. Not a very explanatory model.
The issue is that people tend to lump, political power and economic issues together, so we need to use more of a three dimensional model, and or define our ideological labels with more precision and established theory.
Or people confirm to and are given views(which they might not agree with ) that traditionally conform to people on the part of the spectrum which they're supposed to be.
For instance someone who is traditionally a conservative Republican might be defined as having pro-life views, or pro-war views because the rest of his views are conservative, when in actual fact he might be pro-choice or against the war.
At the same time, anybody could have an extremist view about any particular thing.
The idea of using a linear political spectrum for understanding politics is simply useless for any meaningful debate. I understand the appeal of reducing complex phenomena to a simplistic formula, but it only really serves to continue to confuse issues of politics and economics.
The problem is that we end up with totalitarians at each end of the line, and thus your average punter who understandably opposes such systems will by definition be left in the middle. But herein lies the problem, the so-called middle then becomes the only worthwhile contested space, and it gets very cramped. By using the linear approach you end up with ridiculous bedfellows, anarchists and libertarians, nazi's and religious authoritarians, British and American conservatism etc etc. Not a very explanatory model.
The issue is that people tend to lump, political power and economic issues together, so we need to use more of a three dimensional model, and or define our ideological labels with more precision and established theory.
I love the way governments charge the people to use what is already theirs.
still, I am sure the Tories would have privatised the roads and sold back to a select few what the people already own.
a la British Gas
CEGB
BR
BA
BT
I'm sure BS is next.... ;)