Summary of how conservative Catholics made sure the leftists were stopped

Given its length, it may be more useful to me and others if you could summarize your ‘proposal’ in a couple of paragraphs,

The problem with that is that the application takes many forms. Each time, when presented with simplicity, one expects backup. Then you're back to complexity. I've chased my tail and wasted many hours with posters educating them one at a time. I've got too much work these days to do that. So I suggest you go to the book out of which that patent came and take a look at the material there. The PCT application in particular is a better summary than the original disclosure.

It strikes me as much like cap and trade without the bad science surrounding the impact of CO2 emissions, with the proviso that I have only read a portion.

Trade but with no cap. This application actually predated the Bartels patent that became cap and raid. If anybody wanted to rub a couple of nickels toward it, it could at least cut off the licensing cash now going to Fannie Mae as prior art.

At the risk of being presumptuous, may I suggest that you start a thread on your system. It would cover every improvement enabled by information technology, not merely environmental issues. The text would be a summary of a thousand words or so, with hotlinks throughout so that readers could obtain clarification and better understanding. There would be room for brief examples and the text would be spare, clear and free of jargon. The process alone of preparing this could be valuable to you. You might be surprised how much useful feedback you obtain.

At the risk of being presumptuous, may I suggest that you start a thread on your system.

Yup, that's presumptuous all right. Been there, done that, many times. The bulk of reaction is similar to yours, "show me how you make regulating something enormously complicated simple," when what they really want is liberty without accountability. They'd rather work 40% of their lives supporting the beast than spend the time to learn how to kill it. I gave up a career and four years of my life to write that book. You won't give a few hours to read what's already there. So, why should I waste more time on you?

"Readers" (and like you, they're not) don't want deeper understanding. What they also want is to "go back" to something that was not what they recall. We have had political land use control for so long that people cannot recognize the contrary. Nor with a population as large as we have today can they go back to land use without consequences for others.

So for me to spend time to show that what I'm proposing is both capable and simple, when the principles fit on one page and are already there for you to read on the site, when you won't even read the reviews and realize who those people are, I'm not going to bother, not when this has all been discussed at great length here more than ten years ago.

That they know a lot about me I don’t dispute.

The point is that Google solves a different problem that LA transit:

Google: How can we retain employees? Answer: Among other perks, make their commute easy.

Mass transit: How can we get anyone with three bucks between any two given stations in the coverage area?

Different economics entirely. Also, a company does not have to be into information technology at all to run buses; all it needs is enough profit and an employee sign-up sheet.

The point is that Google solves a different problem that LA transit:

That was not the point of the Google bus example. Here was the point:

Needless to say, roads are a tangled mess in most of those Democrat-controlled cities.

I mentioned mass transit (I will get to why) but that was not the main goal. The goal was to unclog roads, save time for workers to spend more of it with their families, save energy, and reduce the wasted real estate for parking. In terms of congestion and wasted time commuting, services such as Google bus work toward solving those problems.

Also mentioned in the post was ride-sharing sites. A rider willing to allow a third party with a proven record of maintaining privacy while compiling and qualifying their data (as validated by their insurers) then reduces trip miles and numbers of cars on the road, parking demands, etc. ALL of that builds wealth by making better use of capital at less expense of time and money. Those services exist. They are under attack by Democrats. In my opinion, they have the combined potential to reduce trip miles by one third. Add more intelligent integrated material delivery systems and the roads would run like they haven't in forty years and without need for expensive infrastructure projects to enlarge the system. No more union and developer payoffs.

You probably noted that I did not mention fixed rail, despite the fact that the entire New York subway system was built by private rail companies. Well, the Internet and the bus have basically eliminated much of the reason to go back to that. As bandwidth capacity grows and real time online meetings improve, the demand for commuting will drop.

I regard ridding ourselves of public transit as at least a tertiary goal but the mechanics are related to the first two (which is why I mentioned it). There are several types of public transit riders. Those who don't own cars but have a safe record (including minors), the infirm, those avoiding traffic or the time to drive, and those too hazardous to have on a private bus or car. Travel vouchers could handle the first two, ranging in price from bidding by drivers to the Outreach program we have here in the Bay Area. The travel vouchers could use both of those first two levels of service.

As to the third level, well, now they have a real reason for good behavior but even there a voucher system would work for those cabs with sufficient internal barriers that somebody would insure them but one would obviously not get far on their travel voucher at a price like that. Public transit exclusively for the criminal class (beyond Air Force One) is not a big political seller. We constructivists do believe in behavior modification, but primarily by allowing the market to work.

Thanks for clarifying it; makes sense. Certainly large companies subsidizing their employees’ commute are a part of free-market solution to local government-run transportation.

Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI proscribed Liberation Theology as a beachhead of Marxists into the Catholic Church. As soon as Pope Francis took power, he wide open the doors of the Church to the leaders of the Marxist Liberation Theology. QUO O VADIS, FRANCIS?