Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Sustainable Racine No Longer Sustainable

The Journal Times ran a story today announcing the closing of Sustainable Racine. Here is one guy who will not be shedding any tears. Though the staff were friendly and well intentioned, their philosophy was harmful to Racine. Lets just say thet they never seemed to encounter a problem that didn't have a government solution. More power in the hands of government means less in the hands of individuals. The closing of Sustainable Racine is one step in the direction of a free Racine.


Anonymous said...

i know that as a conservative, you believe in small government. But isn't government supposed to help the people they serve? Also, i'm interested in knowing what your definition of a "free racine" is?
I agree with you about giving power to individuals, but historically, that philosophy has been disasterous (sp?)

They're should be an even mix of both.

Denis Navratil said...

No, the government should not be there to help. Government should be there to preserve the conditions (freedom, constitutional law, checks and balances)that allow people to help themselves or help others as they see fit. Perhaps that is a bit of a knee-jerk response about the role of government, but I do think that the mix that you speak of is presently unbalanced, and that the government has power that should be reserved for individuals. If you want to know what a definition of a free Racine is, I suggest that you keep reading my blog, and you will see which ideas advance freedom and which curtail it.

You say freedom for individuals has been historically disasterous? We have been reading different history books. Do you care to expand on that opinion? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

let me clarify, i didn't say freedom for individuals has been disastrous, relying on the people to perform what should be government functions has been disastrous. I'm sure you (as most americans) have learned history from school textbooks. These same textbooks, are the wrong source for real history. People have historically failed in remedying situations, hence the need for government to step in, monitor and set standards and accountability.

If government had not had stepped in, we'd still have:

human bondage and slavery
mass lynchings
ethnic & racial mass murders
poll taxes
numerous other ways to prevent people from voting
in a depression from the 1920's
no right to vote for anyone except white males
seperate and UN-equal public facilities
no interstate highway system

need i go on? I'm not saying that government is always the answer, but i do think they have a responsibility to the people they govern to provide a system of equal opportunity because it has been shown throughout history that when left up to our own devices, we cant create these systems ourselves.

Wade said...

I have to disagree. For one thing you sight U.S. history, but a look at world history will show us the horrible effects of unchecked governments. I belive Denis will argue this in the same vein, but better than I can, that the market would have sovled these problems. Government can often solve problems quicker than the market, but with unintended consequeneces. Reverend King was able to solve racial problems without the government doing it for him. He did however have the help of the Government in providing the conditions for him to do this. The Goverment did step in and do a whole lot for civil rights in the 1950's and 60's because the civil rights movement was not progressing fast enough. I find it hard to sit here and say the gov't should not have done this knowing about some of the redneck, rebel yell B.S. that went on back then and to some extent still does. However, if we are debating theory, the problem of civil rights was being fixed through other means than gov't regulation at the time and would have been fixed without Gov't help. When I here people speak of "Gov't helping" I think of lesgislation and regulation rather than the judicial system. I view the judicial system as one the ways the Gov't preserves conditions for people to be free.

We would not still be in the Depression, that is just ridiculous.
I am fine with the interstate highway system, Republican President by the way. (not that I am a Republican) Environmentalists might not be so keen on this type of Gov't help.

Denis Navratil said...

anon you can't be serious. You say that government stepped in to end slavery. True enough, but it was also government that permitted the injustice in the first place. But market forces intervened anyway. It is difficult to get production from people when you pay them nothing. Slavery is not an efficient way of increasing production. If it was, the south might have won the civil war.

The depression was caused by government mismanagement of the money supply. Milton Friedman has written extensively on this subject. Yet we still suffer today because of the bogus idea that government stimulus (New Deal) got us out of the depression.

Interstate railway systems were private enterprises initially until government corruption coupled with equally corrupt businessmen mucked it up. The Interstate system could be sold to the private sector and we would probably be better off.

The voting restrictions that you cite were all obviously supported by law, ie government, so I am not sure how pointing this out supports your position.

Anonymous said...

government has always been a double-edged sword and they are usually in reactionary mode when in general operation, but to say that government should not be involved in helping people is absurd.

...."Reverend King was able to solve racial problems without the government doing it for him" that really true?. I wouldn't say the problem of civil rights was "being fixed" by Martin Luther King as you mentioned in your post, his efforts were the catalyst that eventually led to government intervening, be accountable for their own laws, and do the only thing that could be done and that only they had power to do to "fix" the problem, and that's put it into law.
What market would have fixed this? How long would would the civil rights movement have taken? another 100 years?

Denis, you state that it was government that permitted the injustice of slavery in the first place, that is correct, on the local level, and that's the other edge of the sword, but the US constitution and Declaration of Independence never made it legal to enslave people and keep them in bondage. It was people who interpreted their own laws in a way to benefit themselves (own devices, market) on the local level that contributed to these problems...The federal law was in place then, just extremely selective in its enforcement.

...."Slavery is not an efficient way of increasing production. If it was, the south might have won the civil war."..... It takes over 100 years to realize this basic principle? Is that acceptable?

Privatized highways and roads?....scary.

Wade said...

Didn't King rise to prominence over a boycott of busing that he help organize. What about "sit in" and marches. I guess I think it is better for the power of the people to make things right than a Government bureaucrat. Perhaps the civil rights movement was not the best example of this because in many cases they were fighting against the Government itself.

Wade said...

Oh yeah, I for one did not write that the Government should not help people, it for the most part, should not help people when they can help themselves.