That's a question and a remark, not a logical reply. The answer to the question is yes:
Statism is a term that is used in a variety of disciplines (economics, sociology, education policy etc) to describe a system that involves a significant interventionist role for the state in economic or social affairs.
A statist believes that the state should intervene and control X. For some statists, X includes everything. For others, X includes only certain things. The author may be more or less statist, but his position that the state should intervene and control the roads is perfectly clear.
Well izzy, when we formed the United States we took over claimed & unclaimed lands and reserved to our governments the power to establish needed roads, bridges, etc. - with the understanding that such 'takings' would be for just public uses with just compensation.
We? Who's this "we", white man? I wasn't born at the time, so "we" doesn't include me.
However, you put your finger on exactly the problem! Such "takings" must be for a "just" public use, with "just" compensation. Who decides what uses are "just", or what compensation is "just"? Answer: the same one doing the taking. Kelo v New London has made it perfectly clear what that means.
As for "claiming unclaimed lands," that was a statist intervention of the worst sort. "Unclaimed" resources belong to whoever homesteads them; in violation of this, the state pre-empted any and all homesteading claims by declaring itself the owner of all unclaimed lands.
Let's say you claim the 'right' to ban arms in your company parking lot. As an employee forced to park in your lot, I claim the right to have a gun in my car trunk. --
You have no such right, so you can claim all you want. It's my property, and I can dictate the terms under which I will allow you to use it. Thus there is no "rights" conflict: my "right" is conflicting with your "wrong".
Ownership of the crowded space has nothing to do with yelling & starting a panic that can cost lives. -- Apparently you cannot 'get' that distinction. Catch 22?
No, you are again failing to take property rights and contractual obligations into account. When I allow you on my land, there is an implied contract that I won't, for example, shoot you or run you over with my SUV. It may be my land, but I can't invite you onto it and then kill you. Similarly, I can't engage in reckless behavior that threatens you with great harm, because there is an implied contract that I will act with due regard for your health and safety.
What you didn't notice is that right next door to my movie theater is my dance club. Every night people crowd into the mosh pit, where they experience exactly what you would in my theater if someone yelled "Fire!" Sometimes people are injured, or even killed, in that mosh pit. Yet I've never been arrested for it. Why not? Simple: in the theater, there's an implied contract that I won't subject you to a frenzied stampede--but in the mosh pit, there's an implied contract that you expect to be subjected to a frenzied stampede.
Ollie Holmes, by contrast, would have upheld statutes banning mosh pits, on precisely the same grounds that he believed it illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The two cases are different precisely because of the relevant contracts--but Mr. Holmes didn't believe in the liberty of contract.
The answer to the question is yes: The author may be more or less statist, but his position that the state should intervene and control the roads is perfectly clear.
Our Constitution is perfectly clear on the subject, and the author & I support it on that issue.. You, quite irrationally, - do not.
Well izzy, when 'we the people' formed the United States we took over claimed & unclaimed lands and reserved to our governments the power to establish needed roads, bridges, etc. - with the understanding that such 'takings' would be for just public uses with just compensation.
We? Who's this "we", white man? I wasn't born at the time, so "we" doesn't include me.
You've renounced your citizenship Izzy, and left?
As long as you live in this country, you are subject to our 'Law of the Land'.
However, you put your finger on exactly the problem! Such "takings" must be for a "just" public use, with "just" compensation. Who decides what uses are "just", or what compensation is "just"? Answer: the same one doing the taking. Kelo v New London has made it perfectly clear what that means.
Kelo will be reversed. 'We the people' are still in charge izzy.
As for "claiming unclaimed lands," that was a statist intervention of the worst sort. "Unclaimed" resources belong to whoever homesteads them; in violation of this, the state pre-empted any and all homesteading claims by declaring itself the owner of all unclaimed lands.
Again, -- 'we the people' will prevail over statism izzy. Calm yourself.
Can you give an example of a lawsuit in which two parties' "rights" come "into conflict".
Let's say you claim the 'right' to ban arms in your company parking lot. As an employee forced to park in your lot, I claim the right to have a gun in my car trunk. --
You have no such right, so you can claim all you want.
Izzy, - you're denying my right to carry a gun in my car trunk, - the car trunk is my property.
It's my property,
"-- Yo' momma reaction --".. My car trunk is my property.
and I can dictate the terms under which I will allow you to use it.
Nope, your property right cannot trump my property right, nor my right to carry a gun in my trunk.
Thus there is no "rights" conflict: my "right" is conflicting with your "wrong".
Another "Yo mamma" reaction izzy. I'm not "wrong" in keeping a gun in my trunk; - hell, it's an American tradition.
Ownership of the crowded space has nothing to do with yelling & starting a panic that can cost lives. --
Apparently you cannot 'get' that distinction. Catch 22?
No, you are again failing to take property rights and contractual obligations into account. When I allow you on my land, there is an implied contract that I won't, for example, shoot you or run you over with my SUV.
An "implied contract" izzy?
An "implied social contract" izzy?
Shot yourself in the foot izzy?
It may be my land, but I can't invite you onto it and then kill you. Similarly, I can't engage in reckless behavior that threatens you with great harm, because there is an implied contract that I will act with due regard for your health and safety. What you didn't notice is that right next door to my movie theater is my dance club. Every night people crowd into the mosh pit, where they experience exactly what you would in my theater if someone yelled "Fire!" Sometimes people are injured, or even killed, in that mosh pit. Yet I've never been arrested for it. Why not? Simple: in the theater, there's an implied contract that I won't subject you to a frenzied stampede--but in the mosh pit, there's an implied contract that you expect to be subjected to a frenzied stampede. Ollie Holmes, by contrast, would have upheld statutes banning mosh pits, on precisely the same grounds that he believed it illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The two cases are different precisely because of the relevant contracts--but Mr. Holmes didn't believe in the liberty of contract.
Rave on of your mosh pit kiddo. -- You've made yourself look foolish. -- Yo momma too...