The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

Lazarus Cooke wrote:
In article . net, rw
wrote:


Lazarus Cooke wrote:

You pay for them through taxation. That's socialism.

Very well. It's socialism. That's what we've chosen. So what?


I'm puzzled by the inconsistency. Socialist systems of education,
school buses, fly-fishing; state subsidized agriculture, but free
market capitalism in healthcare.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Lazarus Cooke wrote:
In article . net, rw
wrote:


Lazarus Cooke wrote:

You pay for them through taxation. That's socialism.

Very well. It's socialism. That's what we've chosen. So what?


I'm puzzled by the inconsistency. Socialist systems of education,
school buses, fly-fishing; state subsidized agriculture, but free
market capitalism in healthcare.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:

Steve, do try to post something that might bolster your side of this OT
discussion next time.

Bush: 60,608,582 51%
Kerry: 57,288,974 48%
Nader: 406,924 1%

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:

Steve, do try to post something that might bolster your side of this OT
discussion next time.

Bush: 60,608,582 51%
Kerry: 57,288,974 48%
Nader: 406,924 1%

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Lazarus Cooke wrote:

I'm puzzled by the inconsistency. Socialist systems of education,
school buses, fly-fishing; state subsidized agriculture, but free
market capitalism in healthcare.

Yeah, it's an embarrassment. I know people who've worked hard
all their life who've had to sell their homes in late middle
age to afford a necessary operation. The richest country in
the world has an infant mortality rate closer to the third
world than to European Social Democracies. It's a disgusting
disgrace and the worst part of it is that those who would
most benefit from socialized medicine are the same monumentally
stupid, bible-thumping morons who vote Republican thereby
guaranteeing that it will never, ever happen.

(That was a hell of a segue into socialized medicine, BTW, had
me scratching the old noggin more than once. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Lazarus Cooke wrote:

I'm puzzled by the inconsistency. Socialist systems of education,
school buses, fly-fishing; state subsidized agriculture, but free
market capitalism in healthcare.

Yeah, it's an embarrassment. I know people who've worked hard
all their life who've had to sell their homes in late middle
age to afford a necessary operation. The richest country in
the world has an infant mortality rate closer to the third
world than to European Social Democracies. It's a disgusting
disgrace and the worst part of it is that those who would
most benefit from socialized medicine are the same monumentally
stupid, bible-thumping morons who vote Republican thereby
guaranteeing that it will never, ever happen.

(That was a hell of a segue into socialized medicine, BTW, had
me scratching the old noggin more than once. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

In article , Ken
Fortenberry wrote:

(That was a hell of a segue into socialized medicine, BTW, had
me scratching the old noggin more than once. ;-)

It *was* a bit of a segue...

The thread began with a number of people complaining that in the US one
might in the future have to pay for the right to fish in particular
waters, the way one does in, say, England. Everyone seemed to feel
that it is an innate right of any American citizen to fish in any water
he or she pleases: you should be able to march into any river and fish
for free.

But this is a very socialist argument: no-one seems to feel that you
should be able to march into any orchard and pick apples for free, or
into any field and make off with the horses that are grazing there
without paying. Why should rivers not be privately owned, as land is?
And why should the river-owner not charge people to take fish out of
his river the way a farmer would charge them to take apples out of his
trees?

I got the impression that those who were so passionately committed to
free fishing seemed to feel that it is a typical part of the American
way of life; I was just pointing out that it is in fact an anomaly.
It's a case where America has chosen to go against its own general
ethos, and to be more socialist than many other countries. Another
example is the American system of free high-school education, which is
much more socialist than, say, the English system, where state
education is only for those too poor to send their kids to a private
school.

I can understand Americans arguing passionately for their socialist
education system. I'd agree. I think the English system stinks.

And I can understand the Engish or the French arguing passionately for
their socialist healthcare systems. I'd agree. I think the American
set-up stinks.

But fly fishing? How can Americans argue that it's a basic human right
which, in a mixed (and largely free enterprise) economy, has to be run
on socialist principles - publicly owned, run on tax revenue, for the
general good?

I think it's just that people have gotten used to it, and don't realize
how socialist their thinking is in certain areas. (Wolfgang doesn't
even seem to know what socialism means, but that's another matter...)

Maybe George W or his successors could do what Margaret Thatcher did to
Britain. Until she came along, people took for granted their state-run
railways and dentistry. Mrs. T began a movement of selling everything
off to private companies, which gained her government a lot of revenue,
and enabled her to lower taxes. A really free enterprise American
Republican party would sell off the National Parks (I'm sure Disney
could run them much more profitably), roads and schools, and get rid
of the national debt at a stroke.

Remember, it's already done in other countries. England has private
schools, and Israel, in the occupied territories, has shown that you
can run two parallel road systems, one luxury class for the rich, one
wretched rocky one for the poor.

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

Lazarus Cooke wrote:


But fly fishing? How can Americans argue that it's a basic human right
which, in a mixed (and largely free enterprise) economy, has to be run
on socialist principles - publicly owned, run on tax revenue, for the
general good?

I think it's just that people have gotten used to it, and don't realize
how socialist their thinking is in certain areas. (Wolfgang doesn't
even seem to know what socialism means, but that's another matter...)


It's more than fishing. America still has huge tracts of public lands
that when put together are many times the size of England. Much of this
land is still very similar to what it was thousands of years ago. Most
Americans value and take pride in this and wish to keep these areas
wild. This is even supported by many people that never visit these
areas. This is one of the few things , lately at least, that seems to go
across party lines. There is strong public support for the preservation
of our public lands. Unfortunately, there are politicians that want to
get their hands on these lands for $$$$.

I've tried to find the costs involved in maintaining our public lands
versus the income that is generated from them. Partly because of
governmental bookkeeping, I've been unable to find those figures. Maybe
someone else?

Willi

Lazarus Cooke wrote:


But fly fishing? How can Americans argue that it's a basic human right
which, in a mixed (and largely free enterprise) economy, has to be run
on socialist principles - publicly owned, run on tax revenue, for the
general good?

I think it's just that people have gotten used to it, and don't realize
how socialist their thinking is in certain areas. (Wolfgang doesn't
even seem to know what socialism means, but that's another matter...)


It's more than fishing. America still has huge tracts of public lands
that when put together are many times the size of England. Much of this
land is still very similar to what it was thousands of years ago. Most
Americans value and take pride in this and wish to keep these areas
wild. This is even supported by many people that never visit these
areas. This is one of the few things , lately at least, that seems to go
across party lines. There is strong public support for the preservation
of our public lands. Unfortunately, there are politicians that want to
get their hands on these lands for $$$$.

I've tried to find the costs involved in maintaining our public lands
versus the income that is generated from them. Partly because of
governmental bookkeeping, I've been unable to find those figures. Maybe
someone else?

Willi

"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message
om...
In article , Ken
Fortenberry wrote:

(That was a hell of a segue into socialized medicine, BTW, had
me scratching the old noggin more than once. ;-)

It *was* a bit of a segue...

The thread began with a number of people complaining that in the US
one
might in the future have to pay for the right to fish in particular
waters, the way one does in, say, England. Everyone seemed to feel
that it is an innate right of any American citizen to fish in any
water
he or she pleases: you should be able to march into any river and
fish
for free.

But this is a very socialist argument: no-one seems to feel that you
should be able to march into any orchard and pick apples for free,
or
into any field and make off with the horses that are grazing there
without paying. Why should rivers not be privately owned, as land
is?
And why should the river-owner not charge people to take fish out of
his river the way a farmer would charge them to take apples out of
his
trees?

I got the impression that those who were so passionately committed
to
free fishing seemed to feel that it is a typical part of the
American
way of life; I was just pointing out that it is in fact an anomaly.
It's a case where America has chosen to go against its own general
ethos, and to be more socialist than many other countries. Another
example is the American system of free high-school education, which
is
much more socialist than, say, the English system, where state
education is only for those too poor to send their kids to a private
school.

I can understand Americans arguing passionately for their socialist
education system. I'd agree. I think the English system stinks.

And I can understand the Engish or the French arguing passionately
for
their socialist healthcare systems. I'd agree. I think the American
set-up stinks.

But fly fishing? How can Americans argue that it's a basic human
right
which, in a mixed (and largely free enterprise) economy, has to be
run
on socialist principles - publicly owned, run on tax revenue, for
the
general good?

I think it's just that people have gotten used to it, and don't
realize
how socialist their thinking is in certain areas. (Wolfgang doesn't
even seem to know what socialism means, but that's another
matter...)

Maybe George W or his successors could do what Margaret Thatcher did
to
Britain. Until she came along, people took for granted their
state-run
railways and dentistry. Mrs. T began a movement of selling
everything
off to private companies, which gained her government a lot of
revenue,
and enabled her to lower taxes. A really free enterprise American
Republican party would sell off the National Parks (I'm sure Disney
could run them much more profitably), roads and schools, and get
rid
of the national debt at a stroke.

Remember, it's already done in other countries. England has private
schools, and Israel, in the occupied territories, has shown that
you
can run two parallel road systems, one luxury class for the rich,
one
wretched rocky one for the poor.

Lazarus

Actually, Wolfgang doesn't know what much of anything means. He is
simply irresistibly drawn to shiny objects.......and things that make
funny noises.

Wolfgang