Could Trump's proposed "Freedom Cities" (built on federal land) ever become Galt's gulches?
Posted by bubah1mau 3 weeks, 2 days ago to Technology
29 comments | Share | Flag
Things like this were tried at the dawn of the automobile age. Anyhow, it's thinking somewhat "outside the box." There might be some hope if it can be financed with private capital. If it's government (tax, printed currency) financed, it's a boondoggle.
It just another form of control and more like a prison.
And all the swamp must be tried for crimes against humanity and treason. The Fed must be bankrupted and the Dollar pegged to gold. The Eurodollars declared worthless unless proven they were not illegally obtained. That said we do need a vision for the future and talking about having competition to find the best designs is a novel approach.lol
Nothing said by Trump is a negative imo.
This sounds like an idea that could be similar to a homesteading of federal land with a twist. I can see
Many benefits of working from scratch to build a city.
We can afford to do this using what we have, NPR, C-SPAN,C_SPAN2, and allot equal air time on those services to address the public and debate.
The R's are the upside in the of a coin sitting in a shallow cesspool (swamp) puddle.Equally filthy only not quite a much as being submerged in the shit.
Today there is a strong case for no representation and no stewardship from state or federal officials
Why buy what we already own? Why be headed into large camps and require passports and permits to go to explore our own country.
The idea is absurd and insulting..
Where to begin? Morality of course. Everything about this proposal presupposes government planning, not free enterprise and individual choice. Government urban planning is not permitted by the United States Constitution, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the sole purpose for which governments are instituted among men in the first place, per the Declaration: "to secure rights." As Rand correctly pointed out, this means 1. The Armed Forces, to secure rights against foreign aggressors, 2. the Police, to secure rights against internal criminals (I was a crime victim just an hour and a half ago, as it happens,) and 3. the Courts, to secure rights via the arbitration of disputes and the enforcement of contracts. Nothing about "hold[ing] a contest to charter up to 10 new cities" in my copy of the Constitution. The fact that governments at levels Federal, State and Local do indeed engage in planning-by-force does not alter the fact, it just means government entities are flouting their Constitutional constraints. Trump ought to know this, but he either does not know or does not care.
Secondly is simple no-brainer logic: American cities and cities everywhere on Earth arose spontaneously by the free choices of individual people because their locations are central to trade, transportation and resources. Yes, the fact that government - again, extra-Constitutionally - has confiscated vast acreages of the people's land (not to mention truly mind-boggling areas of ocean,) is a factor in preventing development on those lands from the outset. But cities developed where they did - and failed to develop elsewhere - long before the government began its massive, repeated and multi-partisan land-thefts, and did so - or failed to do so - for a reason. Their locations make sense. Others don't.
Which brings us to number three: In proposing this idiotic scheme, using "a small portion of Federally-controlled land" - while utterly defaulting on the leadership needed to force government to divest of all such confiscated land (and ocean areas) - he only primes the collectivist crowd's backlash pump. If he keeps spouting this stuff it will provide the Left with a rallying cry for strengthening and solidifying the government's hold on these ill-gotten lands, not for releasing them back to the people to which they belong. It's almost as if that's his intent. "A small portion?" WTH
Fourth, and a related point, he apparently remains oblivious too to the United Nations' "Agenda 21 / Agenda 2030" plan, of which those land confiscations have been a key part and which massive land divestitures under a principled Republican leader would comprise a crippling blow against that UN "Agenda." But we've gotten pin-drop silence from him on the entire issue. His labeling his proposal as "Agenda 47" (whatever the "47" means,) is almost like thumbing his nose at us people who have been sounding the alarm on the UN's atrocious blueprint for global serfdom by the end of this century.
This idea is at once inexplicable and idiotic.
Trying to tinker with the current system and hope something beneficial happens is a waste of time and resources.
In the 20th Century the quantum-leap concept was popular. (Physicists now use other terms instead.) The amount of energy for a single quantum leap was perhaps one tenth of an attojoule. Wanna know how much that is? "Atto" means 10 to the negative 18th, and a joule is one watt-second. Still mystified? Physics homework beckons. Get out your dusty books that languish unread on that shelf in the basement.
So it's a term for something that's very, very tiny being misused to mean something rather huge. Yugely, perhaps.
It actually serves its purpose well, though, because anything Trump says is designed to create controversy. It's how he can live in your head, or nearly anybody's, almost totally rent free.
Therefore I'm skeptical about piecemeal privatization of federal assets. They should be kept as a last reserve in case the people ever see the light and demand the government quit the money/banking business. Unless people with paper dollars get something for them if the government quits, there will be a lot of extremely angry people who will know they've been cheated.
We know that we can design houses that use 70% less energy by design. This is well worth the investment. Next, we CAN design much much better environments to live in...
But from the guy who brought us the VAXX...
What's the difference between a Trump City, and a 15 Minute City?
The person selling it? The Price? Because I don't see a difference otherwise!
Think of it as punch and counterpunch.
I am wasting my time on this platform.
Anyone that would not vote for Trump again is aiding and abetting the enemy. Period.