Medallions revisited

Activists List
1

Michael,

  I agree about no new taxes or new agencies, unless perhaps as
substitutions for existing taxes or agencies. Whatever we propose ought
to be aimed at achieving a net decrease in the size, cost, and/or power
of government. But I don't see how we can create any kind of plan to
allow limited jitney service, without creating some kind of regulatory
language to describe the limits of our proposal. Not all regulations
are bad. For example, in order to create a new tax credit for
homeschooling, one would need to add a regulation to the tax code
stating the size of the credit, defining who is eligible for it, etc.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

Excellent proposals from David!

I would add that the proposition does not create any new agencies,
committees, regulations, spending, or taxes.

Best, Michael
www.ThreeMinuteTherapy.com
DrEdelstein@ThreeMinuteTherapy.com

From: "David Rhodes" <dfrhodes@yahoo.com>
To: <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] Re: Medallions revisited

Marcy - I would vote for just about any proposition
proposal that meets either of the following criteria-

A. Promotes an incremental gain in liberty, however
small that may be yet has a high chance of actually
passing.

e.g. - decriminalization of prostitution or pot, fee
reversal of some sort, etc.

B. Promotes a large gain in liberty with minimal
compromise of Libertarian values. The primary
objective being one directed at creating PR for the LP
and/or provoking controversy and public discussion
rather than an honest attempt to win.

e.g. - curb ownership, anti-rent control motion,
smoking ban reversal

In either case, getting on the ballot is paramount. I
can't stress this enough. We're just wasting our time
otherwise.

So in other words, I wouldn't vote for one that
requires a massive effort to pass, highly compromised
on liberty with minimal chance of acquiring the 10,000
odd signatures we need due to high complexity.

I also want to say that I think this online discussion
is great, while we still have the time. I don't know
how many times at meetings someone has suggested we
'continue this discussion online' and it never seems
to happen. In addition, I agree with Starchild that
the ground rules seem a bit ambiguous on coming to
consensus. How do we confirm a quorum online for
instance?

thanks,

David

Justin,

You wrote: "I had gotten the sense at our last
meeting that touching
the medallion system was seen as entirely futile.
I'm curious why
that is." As I recall, reason number one was that
the medallion
system is way too powerful and entrenched for us to
bother with (I
still feel that way). Thus, the alternative was
proposed of leaving
the system as is, but providing an alternate system
of private
transportation.

I am not suggesting that was the only reason early
on to put forth
the "jitney" proposal, instead of a medallion
proposal. Other
reasons were the "green" angle, the possibility of
assisting the
poorer people who cannot afford cabs, the need to
encourage mini-mass
transit (oil, pollution, congestion, etc), the
possibility of working
with environmental groups, the possibility of
getting the Green Party
on board, avoiding immediate dismissal of our
proposal by the city
planning people who are responsible for the smooth
flow of traffic
(whether they should be or not is irrelevant here),
avoiding
immediate attack from environmentalists who are
working to get
polluting vehicles off the road.

But, again, I will go with either proposal at this
point. BTW, I
have not seen any votes yet, except Michael
Edelstein's.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Justin
Sampson <justin@k...>
wrote:

You ask "Why did we abandon the idea of taxi

medallion
deregulation?"

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but as I

recall the
transportation

proposal contained on the list of initiatives

presented for a
vote dealt

with curb rights, not medallions.

Yeah, they all dealt with variations on leasing,

selling, or zoning

portions of curbs for jitney pick-up and drop-off.

I wasn't clear on

whether "curb rights" referred to that notion

specifically
or "encouraging

free markets for urban transit" more generally, as

opposed to
unrelated

issues such as marijuana decriminalization --

which is what I had
in mind

when I voted for sending "curb rights" to

committee. At the same
time I

had gotten the sense at our last meeting that

touching the medallion

system was seen as entirely futile. I'm curious

why that is.

Justin

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Yahoo! Groups Links

    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yahoo! Groups Links

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn.
Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/