The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

From: Lazarus Cooke

I don't understand why they still have free high-school education in
the States. If parents want an education for their children, why don't
they pay for it? Am I right in thinking you even have free school
buses?

No. Secondary education, bussing, etc, are paid for largely by the people who
use and benefit from them, i.e., the local taxpayer. Some funding does come
from state and federal sources, but the biggest share comes from local property
taxes.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message
om...


I must say I agree with Rdean on this one. I don't understand this
selective communism, which seems to be based on the fact that some
things used to be cheap in the us but aren't any more.

You have to pay for your food, for your healthcare, for your housing,
for your air travel: why should your fly-fishing, or Yellowstone Park
be free? ( I think there are quite a few people who would pay a lot of
money for Yellowstone, and probably manage the franchising much more
efficiently)

Why subsidize American farmers, who as far as I can see are totally
uneconomic when food and cotton could be imported much more cheaply?

I don't understand why they still have free high-school education in
the States. If parents want an education for their children, why don't
they pay for it? Am I right in thinking you even have free school
buses?

IF you want socialism in National Parks, fly fishing and school buses,
then why not extend it to other areas? If I was going to fight for
socialist something, I think it would be healthcare before fly-fishing.

We don't have free anything here......or have you been picking up the checks
and not telling us?

However, it IS true that we do some things differently. For example, our
national parks are not just for fly fishing. We let limited numbers of bait
fishers......and even some pedestrians in.

I can think of no reason to suppose that we must make a choice between a
rational health care policy and nation parks.

Even a cursory glance at American national parks will reveal that they are
different......and glaringly so.....than the areas surrounding them. This
is due only in part to the fact that many of them had some unique features
to begin with. At least as important is the undeniable fact that the
surrounding areas, left in the hands of the Dickie Deans of the world, have
been continuously and steadily raped for centuries. It will perhaps come as
a surprise to you that Devonshire didn't always look the way it does now.
Put Yellowstone in private hands and it will disappear quickly......and
forever. Forever, to put it mildly, is somewhat longer than your attention
span.

Wolfgang

"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message
om...


I must say I agree with Rdean on this one. I don't understand this
selective communism, which seems to be based on the fact that some
things used to be cheap in the us but aren't any more.

You have to pay for your food, for your healthcare, for your housing,
for your air travel: why should your fly-fishing, or Yellowstone Park
be free? ( I think there are quite a few people who would pay a lot of
money for Yellowstone, and probably manage the franchising much more
efficiently)

Why subsidize American farmers, who as far as I can see are totally
uneconomic when food and cotton could be imported much more cheaply?

I don't understand why they still have free high-school education in
the States. If parents want an education for their children, why don't
they pay for it? Am I right in thinking you even have free school
buses?

IF you want socialism in National Parks, fly fishing and school buses,
then why not extend it to other areas? If I was going to fight for
socialist something, I think it would be healthcare before fly-fishing.

We don't have free anything here......or have you been picking up the checks
and not telling us?

However, it IS true that we do some things differently. For example, our
national parks are not just for fly fishing. We let limited numbers of bait
fishers......and even some pedestrians in.

I can think of no reason to suppose that we must make a choice between a
rational health care policy and nation parks.

Even a cursory glance at American national parks will reveal that they are
different......and glaringly so.....than the areas surrounding them. This
is due only in part to the fact that many of them had some unique features
to begin with. At least as important is the undeniable fact that the
surrounding areas, left in the hands of the Dickie Deans of the world, have
been continuously and steadily raped for centuries. It will perhaps come as
a surprise to you that Devonshire didn't always look the way it does now.
Put Yellowstone in private hands and it will disappear quickly......and
forever. Forever, to put it mildly, is somewhat longer than your attention
span.

Wolfgang

Lazarus Cooke wrote:
In article . net, rw
wrote:


Lazarus Cooke wrote:

You have to pay for your food, for your healthcare, for your housing,
for your air travel: why should your fly-fishing, or Yellowstone Park
be free?

Yellowstone Park is not free.


Or publicly owned, or subsidized out of taxpayers' money.

Taking your libertarian position to its logical conclusion, we should
privatize all our roads so they could become private toll roads.

People pay for public lands and other public facilities through their
taxes and user fees. They do this willingly (or at least the vast
majority do), through a democratic political process, recognizing that
it is a public good. It's preposterous to call that "selective communism."

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Tim J. wrote:


Would you mind if I wrote that down and used it again in the future? You
never know when these things might come in handy.

No charge.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

In article , George Adams
wrote:

From: Lazarus Cooke

I don't understand why they still have free high-school education in
the States. If parents want an education for their children, why don't
they pay for it? Am I right in thinking you even have free school
buses?

No. Secondary education, bussing, etc, are paid for largely by the people who
use and benefit from them, i.e., the local taxpayer. Some funding does come
from state and federal sources, but the biggest share comes from local
property
taxes.

So they're paid for out of taxation. That's socialism. The free market
way of doing it is that the further you ride the bus, the more you pay.


Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

In article , George Adams
wrote:

From: Lazarus Cooke

I don't understand why they still have free high-school education in
the States. If parents want an education for their children, why don't
they pay for it? Am I right in thinking you even have free school
buses?

No. Secondary education, bussing, etc, are paid for largely by the people who
use and benefit from them, i.e., the local taxpayer. Some funding does come
from state and federal sources, but the biggest share comes from local
property
taxes.

So they're paid for out of taxation. That's socialism. The free market
way of doing it is that the further you ride the bus, the more you pay.


Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

In article , Wolfgang
wrote:

"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message
om...


I must say I agree with Rdean on this one. I don't understand this
selective communism, which seems to be based on the fact that some
things used to be cheap in the us but aren't any more.

You have to pay for your food, for your healthcare, for your housing,
for your air travel: why should your fly-fishing, or Yellowstone Park
be free? ( I think there are quite a few people who would pay a lot of
money for Yellowstone, and probably manage the franchising much more
efficiently)

Why subsidize American farmers, who as far as I can see are totally
uneconomic when food and cotton could be imported much more cheaply?

I don't understand why they still have free high-school education in
the States. If parents want an education for their children, why don't
they pay for it? Am I right in thinking you even have free school
buses?

IF you want socialism in National Parks, fly fishing and school buses,
then why not extend it to other areas? If I was going to fight for
socialist something, I think it would be healthcare before fly-fishing.

We don't have free anything here......or have you been picking up the checks
and not telling us?

However, it IS true that we do some things differently. For example, our
national parks are not just for fly fishing. We let limited numbers of bait
fishers......and even some pedestrians in.

I can think of no reason to suppose that we must make a choice between a
rational health care policy and nation parks.

Eh? I never said that you should. I only said that if I were going to
get exercised about the importance about the State paying for heavily
subsidized healthcare, or heavily subsidized fly fishing, I would
consider healthcare the more important thing. But it's a free world,
and different people have differetnt priorities.

Even a cursory glance at American national parks will reveal that they are
different......and glaringly so.....than the areas surrounding them. This
is due only in part to the fact that many of them had some unique features
to begin with. At least as important is the undeniable fact that the
surrounding areas, left in the hands of the Dickie Deans of the world, have
been continuously and steadily raped for centuries.

Are you suggesting that State control does it better? That IS communism!

It will perhaps come as
a surprise to you that Devonshire didn't always look the way it does now.

No. Why should it? It's changing all the time. Dartmoor, where I used
to fish, is owned by the Prince of Wales. You have to pay him a fee to
fish it.

Do you want a society where people are free to own land, or don't you?
The whole of the uSa is founded on the right to own private property.

Put Yellowstone in private hands and it will disappear quickly......and
forever. Forever, to put it mildly, is somewhat longer than your attention
span.

The world is changing. Manhattan was a unique wasteland once. It's
still unique. Do you want Manhattan to stay as a bird sanctuary?

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

In article . net, rw
wrote:

Lazarus Cooke wrote:
In article . net, rw
wrote:


Lazarus Cooke wrote:

You have to pay for your food, for your healthcare, for your housing,
for your air travel: why should your fly-fishing, or Yellowstone Park
be free?

Yellowstone Park is not free.


Or publicly owned, or subsidized out of taxpayers' money.

Taking your libertarian position to its logical conclusion, we should
privatize all our roads so they could become private toll roads.

Absolutely. I cannot figure out why people expect to get roads for
free. They're built on land. Why don't people pay for them?

People pay for public lands and other public facilities through their
taxes and user fees. They do this willingly (or at least the vast
majority do), through a democratic political process, recognizing that
it is a public good.

That's what communism and socilaism are . Paying for things through
taxes that could perfectly well be run more efficiently in the private
sector, just because some bleeding heart liberal schmuck thinks that it
will be for the good of some vague notion of "a public good."

I'm not saying it's wrong - if that's what you want, you're free to go
for it. You can vote for socialist roads, and State Parks, and Fly
fishing, and healthcare, and school buses, and state control of
farming, at the next election if you want.

It's preposterous to call that "selective communism."

Why?

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

Lazarus Cooke wrote:
George Adams wrote:

No. Secondary education, bussing, etc, are paid for largely by the people who
use and benefit from them, i.e., the local taxpayer. Some funding does come
from state and federal sources, but the biggest share comes from local
property
taxes.

So they're paid for out of taxation. That's socialism. The free market
way of doing it is that the further you ride the bus, the more you pay.

This is an elaborate bit of leg-pulling you're up to here?

JR
--
Reply to: jtprussellnotthis at hotmailetc