Comments on: Don’t pave over that farm just yet! http://blog.onwardoregon.org/dont-pave-over-that-farm-just-yet/ Here are snippets from the three most-recent postings. Click an article title below to read more. Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:40:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ron l http://blog.onwardoregon.org/dont-pave-over-that-farm-just-yet/comment-page-1/#comment-54 ron l Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:46:34 +0000 http://blog.onwardoregon.org/?p=41#comment-54 I worked on the 1986 fruit tree variety survey for Oregon. It was not a mere sampling but 100 percent coverage. I saw every single survey and logged many miles, and had many, many personal visits. The mere numbers of farmers could be deceptive, in its' incomplete picture of qualitative details. The goal of supporting farmers would be a good thing to put on a resume if one was seeking a job as an extension agent. It is a bit more complex to extend that goal, that single goal, to a more wide ranging set of rules to govern society as a whole. The property rights stuff involves much more than merely the particular uses of land but involves the relationship between private citizens and government. The skepticism one would hold for the self-proclamations of the common good by a king must be retained against a panel of elected folks that divine their vision of the common good. Kings and elected folks share one thing in common, they are each mere humans. Which should be a sufficient argument all by it self. Consider the applicability of equal protection. If elected folks were always right, then there would be no need to insert an equal protection provision in a constitution. It is needed, in the interest of individuals, because of the known fallibility and special interest focus of elected folks. Suppose that you had a larger goal of supporting all Oregonian's, regardless of individual choice of occupation? If you are going to dream you might as well dream big, but compatible with equal protection and other basic rights. "Imagine 30,000 Oregonian's Each Getting ONE MILLION Dollars To Start A Business" <a href="http://pdxnag.com/drupal/node/307" rel="nofollow">old link</a> which points to this SOS link <a href="http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2004/089text.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2004/089text.pdf</a>. Read it and then see whether it is compatible with a more universal focus. You see, or should see, I am more radical (and yet conservative) than you might at first blush recognize. Another view is that I have maintained my dreams and idealism but used my legal and economics education to help cull out potential theoretical obstacles and to refine the focus. I worked on the 1986 fruit tree variety survey for Oregon. It was not a mere sampling but 100 percent coverage. I saw every single survey and logged many miles, and had many, many personal visits.

The mere numbers of farmers could be deceptive, in its’ incomplete picture of qualitative details.

The goal of supporting farmers would be a good thing to put on a resume if one was seeking a job as an extension agent. It is a bit more complex to extend that goal, that single goal, to a more wide ranging set of rules to govern society as a whole.

The property rights stuff involves much more than merely the particular uses of land but involves the relationship between private citizens and government. The skepticism one would hold for the self-proclamations of the common good by a king must be retained against a panel of elected folks that divine their vision of the common good. Kings and elected folks share one thing in common, they are each mere humans. Which should be a sufficient argument all by it self.

Consider the applicability of equal protection. If elected folks were always right, then there would be no need to insert an equal protection provision in a constitution. It is needed, in the interest of individuals, because of the known fallibility and special interest focus of elected folks.

Suppose that you had a larger goal of supporting all Oregonian’s, regardless of individual choice of occupation? If you are going to dream you might as well dream big, but compatible with equal protection and other basic rights.

“Imagine 30,000 Oregonian’s Each Getting ONE MILLION Dollars To Start A Business”
old link
which points to this SOS link
http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2004/089text.pdf.

Read it and then see whether it is compatible with a more universal focus. You see, or should see, I am more radical (and yet conservative) than you might at first blush recognize. Another view is that I have maintained my dreams and idealism but used my legal and economics education to help cull out potential theoretical obstacles and to refine the focus.

]]>