He does not consider that the only reason he can enjoy subsidies is because, in the end, he must pay for them, all of them.

Personally, I prefer to go to private RV site where we pay more, but I can get a hot shower and often WiFi as well. Their campgrounds also are better maintained…possibly because they don't have to wait for congress to allocate funds for such mundane purposes.

As for his dislike for 'private property' sign, there are also many wilderness areas that are posted off limits because the government is holding them for other purposes than the recreational entertainment of well paid professionals.

It is also true that many private interests actually invite the public to come an enjoy their facilities:
One of San Francisco's most popular tourist attractions is privately owned and goes to great lengths to get the public to enjoy its facility. There are many such places in the U.S.

Still fighting the bad, strawman fight.

You've posted here too long to give such inane answers. You'd think you'd at least discuss honestly and not with silly marginal arguments.

"I am pretty sure that number 15 to the list is lurking within the text somewhere.

Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Aug 25, 2008 5:44:31 AM"

As the official chronicler of muirpidity I am in accord with you, but only because we all know muirduck's religious belief in socialism.

So, we know that, to muirduck, "good governance" means collectivism aka Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Mao, Allende, Ho Chi Minh, FDR, LBJ, JC, and Billary style. Which of course makes his statement worthy of catalouging as #19.

But, in good conscience I can't do it, because the statement is correct in that "good governance" would indeed maximize liberty.

To me, "good governance" means a minimal government that deals basically on the contract level with individuals, and leaves us alone to organize and run our lives based upon natural law. I see that "good governance" as maximizing liberty.

I am sure that everyone on this cafe has their own idea of what "good governance" means, and how it would maximize liberty.

In fact this little paragraph is an excellent example of the way socialists learn to write and speak. Sounds good, if you don't listen and think.

I guess that is why the left hates people who are independent thinkers, and not mice following the socialist piper, like muirduck. (Hmm, would this make him a fowlmouse?)

Probably the reason the Red Dog Mine denied your group access was specifically because you were Sierra Club, a group of fanatics not above, nay, often eagar to commit acts of destruction and sabotage.

Here is a little lesson in economics:

I was talking to a friend of mine's little girl the other day. I asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up and she replied, "I want to be President!" Both of her parents are liberal Democrats, aka socialists, and were standing there. So then I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"

She replied, "I'd give houses to all the homeless people."

"Wow – what a worthy goal." I told her, "You don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where this homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house."

Since she is only 6, she thought that over for a few seconds. While her Mom glared at me, the daughter looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

And I said, "Welcome to conservatism."

Her folks still aren't talking to me.