How government makes disasters worse
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 апр 2024
- "It's unfortunate that the bridge collapsed. But it's also unfortunate that we have to wait until a bridge collapses to start talking about things like repealing the Foreign Dredge Act. These policies are bad and destructive all the time," argues Peter Suderman.
Watch the full episode: • Trump's and Biden's te...
---
Subscribe to the Reason Roundtable:
RUclips: • Politics Created the B...
RUclips Music: • The Reason Roundtable ...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/68EwVbY...
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
I remember when the Challenger exploded. Despite initial cover ups by NASA, there was a deep analysis of the root cause and it was shared on all of the news outlets. We all were told about the O- rings and how they shrink at low temperatures. They showed the flame shoot out of the joint in the booster.
None of that will happen in this case. We will never be told what failed on the ship, why it veered toward the bridge, what steering inputs were made and what backup systems failed. This is why everyone will believe what they are prone to believe instead of agreeing on even basic facts.
As a Libertarian I've long been aware of the absurdity of the Federal Government paying for stupid things, but is it just me that now it's MUCH MUCH worse? Like in the past there were more congress members maybe a little ashamed of the amounts being thrown around with no reasonable explanation?
I voted no on that California high speed rail because it was obvious it was a boondoggle and would never be what they said and certainly not for the price they said in the time they said (the latest pessimistic estimate has the original $30B at over $330B to get the rail from SF to LA, and instead of it being done essentially now it will be done 15 years late. It will not get you there as fast as they promised, a ticket will cost more than they promised, and it will lose money rather than make money like they promised.
I consider myself a libertarian. And I'm all for free trade, but the open borders thing has always ruffled my feathers. The only way that would ever remotely work is to cut entitlements to nil(which is NEVER going to happen).
I'm all for cutting entitlements, but I'm not sure it's relevant to open borders. I don't believe non-citizens are even eligible for such.
Immigrants (or even just migratory workers) are good for the economy. Immigrants, start businesses at higher rates and commit crimes at lower rates which would help delay the entitlement collapse.
Plus, punishing people by forcing them to continue living in horrendous conditions when they're perfectly willing to come here and earn a living doesn't strike me as particularly moral.
As Bernie Sanders once said regarding open borders... "It's a right-wing proposal which says, essentially, there is no United States." Basically, you can open the borders as the last step of dissolving the government. Not before.
Until we shed the government for an anarcho-capitalist paradise, open borders is a VERY bad idea.
@@noname-xo1bt
That's an assertion not an argument. I'm willing to entertain the idea if you'd like to back that up.
Why does nobody suggest that the perpetrator of the destruction pay? Isn't that the norm for all non-government owned property? If you accidentally crash into my property, you pay to replace it all, no? Is this not a think in the US military empire anymore, to hold the perpetrator accountable for their harm?
Yep, people have their heads in their specialized economic endeavors, and it costs them to divert attention. Few are paying attention to our growing government, which will eclipse the private economy, soon.
Those employed by government should be restricted from voting for their own raises.
The media always shows up to these types of things and politicians end up getting interviewed. Politicians are the absolutely least likely people to know anything. They should be interviewing engineers, maritime professionals, transportation experts. Why would anyone think a politician knows anything unless the question is about politics?
The Minnesota I 35w bridge is part of a federally maintained highway... it was the federal governments responsibility to replace that bridge... not sure that is the case for the Maryland bridge.
It is NOW federally maintained, but it was built, and the flawed design came from the state DOT not the feds. Over time more and more roads have become federally funded as part of various programs over the years. Had the federal government decided to not fund the replacement of the bridge do you believe the bridge would not have been replaced?
I don't think the issue is that the state got the Feds to pay for it, it's that the feds chose to pay for it. The blame lies in DC not in Saint Paul.
Great Moments in Unintended Circumstances
Who said the mayor was a DIE hire?
I know the mayor pretended that was relevant, but I think that was a single anonymous twitter account.
It seems this was to deflect from the shipping company that has DIE on their website.
I think they supposedly said something similar about our Maryland Governor. To be honest, he's more of a gerrymandered blue hire than a race-based hire.
Libertarian Robert Heinlein figured out how to solve the problem of illegal immigration. Heinleinian Franchise. Differentiate betwixt Resident and Citizens. Live here. Work here. But maybe not be "all in." And thats fine. They dont get all the good Citizen stuff. Too easy.
That bridge stood for 50 years. Why now? I don't buy the "accident" excuse.
That is one of the US's major ports with a large number of military bases nearby. Accident my ass.
Watch the RUclips vids of these: 1976 Teton Dam(ID)collapse. Check the guy jumping off the D9 CAT as it falls into the gorge; 1980 Sunshine Skyway falls into Tampa Bay at rush hour when hit by a ship; May 1983, Glen Canyon Dam(3rd largest) disemboweled & nearly destroyed by the Colorado river as all gates were opened full due to flash floods at full pool. It spat concrete chunks the size of cars into the river.
Uhh, not a barge, it was actually a ship…
Pro vs anti-immigration is the wrong divide. The bigger divide is immigration for victims vs immigration for US benefit.
Nah ... it's just controlled immigration. As a country we are significantly pro-immigration, what we are now, and have long been as a people, is uncontrolled immigration. Every President for the last 100 years up to Biden campaigned on getting control of the Southern Border. Literally every single one. Biden won, immigration exploded, and now there is push back against the current policies that are allowing record numbers in to the country.
My father crossed that border as a runaway teenager, and I know the stories, but it's VERY much worse and different now.
If you’re using other people’s money, their children’s future money, and printing whatever is still insufficient, it’s easy to make lavish promises.
The problem is not immigrants. Thats such a dumb thing to say. The problem is controlling the amount of people you let in. 2 million plus in year is a problem. When you have millions of your own homeless or poverty stricken, you need to prioritize. She also acts like everyone coming over is working. Many are families or children.
I cant get that Havel, as Slovak I dont like him quite strongly