"Republicans" in my city want the govt to spend $1B on a convention center

[Matt Collins]

Yes, can you believe this!??! :confused:


There are Republicans in my city that actually WANT the metro government to embark on a pork-laden, tax-heavy, budget overrunning , convention center in Nashville!!!!

[forsmant]

Convention centers need to be put to a public vote. If convention centers were at all profitable in the short term the Government would have no interest in building them. I see no problem with them when the city votes to approve the project.

[dr. hfn]

Convention centers need to be put to a public vote. If convention centers were at all profitable in the short term the Government would have no interest in building them. I see no problem with them when the city votes to approve the project.

agreed

[satchelmcqueen]

hey i believe it. here in my small town that is broke, we are spending millions on a new high school football stadium, and the commissioner wants to spend 2.5 million for a recreation building to sit in an 8 acre park in the middle of nowhere in a town of just over 20k and most of them are very old and dont go to parks...nor does anyone else here.

[Matt Collins]

Message to me:

"Matt,
We need to get all our facts straight before we incite the masses. To use
terms such as eminent domain is to strike fear into individuals. We are
responsible, educated and conservative voters that should refrain from scare
tactics (this is for Democrats). We should educate individuals on the pros
and cons of the new Convention Center and not spread deceit. You, now are
one the executive members of the local Republican party, anything
you say will be as if it is from the Republican party. Go and learn more
about the convention center and make your own mind up. If you are for or
against this project, contact your council person and voice your opinion.
At this time I am supporting this project, but this is not to say I will not
change my mind as I become more informed and ask questions."

[Matt Collins]

MY RESPONSE:
______________________

This isn't a question of learning the details and making up one's mind. Fundamentally the government shouldn't be embarking on projects such as this prima facie because the government will be intervening in the marketplace. That's means by default it is no longer a free market!


How can you be conservative and advocate big-government?
What is conservative about the government spending a billion dollars (or more) for a political pet project?

It must be paid for somehow and that either means debt or taxes; conservatives advocate neither. Debt and taxes are the purview of big-government / liberal / Democrat types; not the GOP!


And of course the government will use eminent domain. It hasn't threatened it yet, but it will if the land owners don't "voluntarily" comply. I have no doubt that the government will use every tool at it's disposal (including eminent domain) to acquire that land if it should so desire; it has attempted such socialistic shenanigans in the past. Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.....in case you forget: http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8245315


The threshold on whether the government should take action on a project is not if the project is a "good idea vs bad idea". If the convention center does something good, then why do people who support it feel they must force others to pay for it? If it was such a wonderful idea, wouldn't people voluntarily support it with their personal money? Nor is the threshold for governmental action even "benefiting the community" which is indeed the basis for communism. The government's only job is to secure individual rights, anything else only tramples individual rights. When government undertakes projects such as this it actually deprives us of rights by stealing our money, our property, and adversely affecting the free market.


Government overhead will probably be twice what the free market would incur during the same project. Why? Because political influence discourages good management and encourages inefficiency. As a result consumers, or taxpayers, pay more for less. And if there is truly a demand for this convention center, then the free market will work and someone will invest to get it up and running because there is a potential for profit. We should not be taxing residents or tourists, or anyone else for something that is essentially outside of the function of government. The government has zero authority to steal my money, or the money of others, in order to "invest" in the "community". If the convention center is such a good investment, then why is only the government willing to invest in it?


Even more fundamentally, as long as the government isn't limited in what it can spend taxpayers money on, there will always be those who find a way to coax politicians to spend other peoples' money on themselves and this is a prime example! Every government program is based upon who has the most political influence including this convention center. Anytime anything is run by the government it is in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. Do you really want our tourism industry to be a political issue? I'd rather it remain in the hands of free and open commerce as opposed to government control.

And government clearly doesn't work. It doesn't deliver the mail on time, it doesn't keep the roads repaired, it doesn't manage it's own budget, it doesn't keep our kids educated, it doesn't keep us safe. Government makes a mess of almost everything it touches, and you expect the convention center to be any different? The current anticipated cost overruns should be an indicator. This is why government should be as minimal as possible; government will only end up disappointing us as it has done many times in the past.



If we want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, more freedom, we cannot attain those goals by fighting for new government projects!





.

[BenIsForRon]

Before I ask this question, know that I agree with you on this specific issue, but...

Matt, is there anything you think local government should do, that national government doesn't do? Like besides law enforcement and courts? You think water and sewer should be private? Sidewalks, etc?

I just ask this because you are at the local level, but taking an incredibly ideological stance. I gotta tell you, most citizens at the local level are just trying to improve their lives, from a practical perspective. They're not really worried about their city council becoming a gulag. And they shouldn't be, because it's unrealistic.

I think you could be wanting to apply the same framework to the local government that you do for the federal government. I think many Americans disagree with that, and that's why the founders put in the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[purplechoe]

If we want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, more freedom, we cannot attain those goals by fighting for new government projects!


"Yes we can"

http://thumbingthrough.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/obama.jpg

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/helicopter_ben.jpg

[axiomata]

How do they propose paying for it?

[Imperial]

And of course the government will use eminent domain. It hasn't threatened it yet, but it will if the land owners don't "voluntarily" comply. I have no doubt that the government will use every tool at it's disposal (including eminent domain) to acquire that land if it should so desire; it has attempted such socialistic shenanigans in the past. Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.....in case you forget:

I have to say that this seems like a slippery slope fallacy. Local governments avoid using eminent domain because it is obviously unpopular for the masses. They can purchase the land and develop the project. Often things like this are built in new developing areas for this reason I think.


The government's only job is to secure individual rights, anything else only tramples individual rights

This is an either-or fallacy. You can trample the right of one group by not acting on their behalf, like with slavery in the US.

I think the biggest thing you need to look out for though is burning your own bridges. You need some support from the people within the establishment. Compromise a little bit instead of sparking a fierce debate on every issue you can. Like here, when this guy gets this message he will see the passion of the message. And while I know it is because you believe in these ideals whole-heartedly, he could take it as you getting aggressive. He won't feel like he should go out on a limb for you if he feels you can't work with others. That could hurt any move for Davidson County GOP chair or higher up in the future.

[Bman]

This is a good time to be creative. Think about the new slogan from the left "Republicans are the party of No, not of ideas."

I'd be thinking of ways the local Government could entice investors to build in my area. Maybe tax-exemptions or such.

I'd certainly be saying what you are saying but I'd be thinking of alternative plans.

Worst case I would try to force them to put it to a popular vote that instantly flat taxed the entire population for the cost of the construction. It would probably be the first 100% no vote ever in a city the size of Nashville.

[Matt Collins]

Matt, is there anything you think local government should do, that national government doesn't do? Like besides law enforcement and courts? You think water and sewer should be private? Sidewalks, etc?No, services are best handed by non-governmental entities. Why? Freedom of choice in a free market.


I just ask this because you are at the local level, but taking an incredibly ideological stance. I gotta tell you, most citizens at the local level are just trying to improve their lives, from a practical perspective.And government is the best way to accomplish this? :confused:



I think you could be wanting to apply the same framework to the local government that you do for the federal government. I think many Americans disagree with that, and that's why the founders put in the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."And this is where Constitutionalism and libertarianism differ. I am both, but on the local level I am more libertarian.

[Matt Collins]

How do they propose paying for it?Well, it's currently unknown right now because the supporters either haven't figured it out, or they have muddled it.

It's going to ne one or a combination of both:
1- Bonds
2- Tourist tax
3- Playing with the local "property" tax rate (without raising taxes but adjusting the appraised value of property)

[Kraig]

No, services are best handed by non-governmental entities. Why? Freedom of choice in a free market.

By what reason are law enforcement and courts exempt from this?

[Matt Collins]

I have to say that this seems like a slippery slope fallacy. Government IS a slippery slope, or have you not been paying attention to things? Ever hear the camel's nose in the tent analogy? :confused:



Local governments avoid using eminent domain because it is obviously unpopular for the masses.Again, refer to the link in my response post. The City of Nashville tried to claim eminent domain on widow's recording studio on Music Row in downtown in order to build a "high rise" condo/office building.





This is an either-or fallacy. You can trample the right of one group by not acting on their behalf, like with slavery in the US.Uhh.... I think we agree but you have misunderstood. Government's job is to secure our rights. When it does anything other than securing our rights, then it infringes on our rights by its very nature. Slavery was where the government actually trampled the rights of others because it allowed slavery to be institutionalized.


CompromiseThat is a VERY dangerous word you have just used. :eek:

[Matt Collins]

I'd be thinking of ways the local Government could entice investors to build in my area. Maybe tax-exemptions or such.That's real simple: cut taxes, cut regulation. But right now before the freight train can head in that direction it must be slowed, stopped, and reversed. We're a LOOOOOONG way from that happening at the moment.


Worst case I would try to force them to put it to a popular vote that instantly flat taxed the entire population for the cost of the construction. It would probably be the first 100% no vote ever in a city the size of Nashville.No, that's an even worse idea. That's called democracy and if you recall we don't live in one. I don't want people voting on whether or not to take my property.

[BenIsForRon]

Damn Matt, we're talking about the city government, not the federal government. You really think private institutions should build sidewalks? So they have to buy the deed to every 5 foot wide piece of land in downtown?

You need to understand, you are taking an incredibly hard line stance for such an, and let's be honest, insignificant position. I know more of us need to become members of our local GOP, but we don't need to go on these kind of rants every time the local gov starts a new project. It's a good way to lose friends and marginalize your own influence. Hell, if you're annoying enough, you'll just get voted out the next year.

Like I said, I agree with your stance on the stadium, I just don't agree on how you're arguing against it. Because, as I said before, most people don't agree with you on the role of local government, and they never will. I would be one of those people, because I don't see how any entity could "own" a water source that a whole population depends on for LIFE.

So I think you should continue to fight this stadium, but not from the perspective that the local government should do nothing and regulate nothing, because that will get you nowhere.

[Matt Collins]

we're talking about the city government, not the federal government. You really think private institutions should build sidewalks? So they have to buy the deed to every 5 foot wide piece of land in downtown?Does the government do a good job of maintaining the side walks? Are there even sidewalks everywhere there should be?

You miss the fact that it's all about property rights. If someone owns property, they probably want a side walk in front of it. Private property owners will more than likely in most cases maintain their sidewalks better than the government will.

Also, neighborhood associations are better than government mandates because one is free to move in / out of a neighborhood with an association, deeds, etc. In other words that's a contract with freedom.... freedom of choice. Government is force.






we don't need to go on these kind of rants every time the local gov starts a new project.Really? I think it's time we begin to educate those who call themselves conservatives but don't understand that advocating big government isn't conservative. Someone needs to be a leader and stand up and say that the GOP should advocate limited government conservative positions.



It's a good way to lose friends and marginalize your own influence.I'm not here to make friends, I'm here to get the government back into it's place: out of my life and out of the lives of every other peaceful non-aggression-initiating, non-rights-abridging individual. If I happen to make friends in the process, and I have, then that's great. If the whole world wants to take me on, then that's the way it is. Either way I'm here fighting for liberty for myself and others regardless.



most people don't agree with you on the role of local government, and they never will. That's because they've never lived in a world where the government didn't nanny them from cradle to grave. And sadly they don't have the creative imagination to consider free market solutions instead of government mandates.


[quote=BenisforRon;2130304 I don't see how any entity could "own" a water source that a whole population depends on for LIFE.[/quote]So you are a socialist or communist? You can't fathom private property, supply, demand, and the law of economics!? :confused: You have a lot to learn.......






.

[sratiug]

Matt is right. They'll build the convention center, raise hotel taxes and restaurant taxes and fewer people will be able to afford to travel to Nashville. Not to mention the negative impact of government funded competition with existing hotels. Hell, there is already a hotel there big as a convention center, last time I was there.

[Bman]

No, that's an even worse idea. That's called democracy and if you recall we don't live in one. I don't want people voting on whether or not to take my property.

Yeah that wasn't the best way to put it. The meaning I was going after was that under no circumstance would I let them candy coat the topic to try and sway public opinion.

[BenIsForRon]

I don't have time to go down the piece by piece argument road, so I'll just say you're going to end up banging your head against a wall with this stubborn stance you're taking. I really hope you don't react like this next time somebody on town council wants to extend a sewer line or fix a pot hole.

[Matt Collins]

I don't have time to go down the piece by piece argument road, Actually I'd appreciate it if you did because open debate, discussion, dialog, and the exchange of ideas is not only healthy, but it's a necessity



so I'll just say you're going to end up banging your head against a wall with this stubborn stance you're taking. I really hope you don't react like this next time somebody on town council wants to extend a sewer line or fix a pot hole.Millions of people told Ron Paul the same thing. :rolleyes:

[andrewh817]

Does the government do a good job of maintaining the side walks? Are there even sidewalks everywhere there should be?

You miss the fact that it's all about property rights. If someone owns property, they probably want a side walk in front of it. Private property owners will more than likely in most cases maintain their sidewalks better than the government will.

Also, neighborhood associations are better than government mandates because one is free to move in / out of a neighborhood with an association, deeds, etc. In other words that's a contract with freedom.... freedom of choice. Government is force.

I'm not here to make friends, I'm here to get the government back into it's place: out of my life and out of the lives of every other peaceful non-aggression-initiating, non-rights-abridging individual. If I happen to make friends in the process, and I have, then that's great. If the whole world wants to take me on, then that's the way it is. Either way I'm here fighting for liberty for myself and others regardless.


That's because they've never lived in a world where the government didn't nanny them from cradle to grave. And sadly they don't have the creative imagination to consider free market solutions instead of government mandates.
.

Ever noticed that government buildings always use the highest quality of craftsmanship and often the most expensive materials? (Brick, marble, stone, etc) Is it really necessary to spend the most amount possible on every building used by the government?

The average citizen doesn't know what their taxes go towards, they just know the government has their money and will basically do what they want with it. I have a feeling if taxes were transparent and on your tax return their expenditures were listed then MANY more people would be saying the same thing as you. Your last paragraph makes a very good point, when has the free market ever been truly tested? I'd be willing to try it out, considering the alternative has been disastrous.

All this being said, none of this is possible without our society COMPLETELY changing directions which you said in an earlier post.

[Ozwest]

I got some bad news. The U.S. dollar is going to dive. I would buy gold/silver now.

[Ozwest]

Actually I'd appreciate it if you did because open debate, discussion, dialog, and the exchange of ideas is not only healthy, but it's a necessity


Millions of people told Ron Paul the same thing. :rolleyes:

It doesn't look good, when people are rioting on the streets in Europe, and you piss-ants in America are doing DIDDLY SQUAT!

[Matt Collins]

It doesn't look good, when people are rioting on the streets in Europe, and you piss-ants in America are doing DIDDLY SQUAT!
All this being said, none of this is possible without our society COMPLETELY changing directions which you said in an earlier post.

I saw a quote recently, and I don't remember it exactly, but it was something to the effect 'that every revolution is the result of a prior intellectual / social revolution'.


In other words until we spread ideas we can't have any real "change".

[Ozwest]

Fricking A !

I back you a 100% Matt.