AUSTIN | Photos & Videos Thread

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Oh how rational of you.

It is quite rational to lose respect for someone because of their beliefs.

Originally Posted by Syndic

Just because I like development doesn't mean I like the system that we're using to facilitate it right now (at a pace that's a little too slow for me, personally). Development would take place under socialism, too. Only, regular people would get to enjoy it instead of being KICKED OUT OF THE CITY.

It's cute that you think that development would happen in an evenhanded way with regular people not being kicked out of the area under socialism. Is that what happened in any country where socialism has been utilized as a system? No. In every single country that has adopted or tried to adopt socialism, the masses have faired much worse and have been forcibly relocated to ensure "development" and "progress" and if they didn't leave they were mass murdered.

Originally Posted by Syndic

That being said, I also HATE a lot of development. I hate over-development that's destroying the environment. Private property rights turn the natural world into fenced parcels, completely jeopardizing animals' natural habitats. Name one ecological natural wonder that's not IN DECLINE because of capitalism and I'll be impressed.

It wasn't my intention to start a debate on economic philosophy. For that, I apologize. I just think people are insane if they think there's nothing negative about capitalism. I respect personal property rights but not private. I consider it to be theft. I wouldn't have respect for capitalists if I didn't think they were just asleep and ignorant of the truth. Evidence of that is the fact that much of what I'm saying here is likely completely going over your head.

As for ecological repercussions of capitalism that you mention: there are ways you can structure the system to avoid, mitigate, or militate against these problems (e.g. using the law to require individuals to take certain precautions on their property - we do this all the time in the form of zoning laws).

Furthermore, because of development patterns in socialist countries never has to do with supply and demand, areas are much more likely to be overdeveloped than they are in capitalist systems. There's academic evidence and research that supports this idea. Supply and demand pressures present only in capitalist systems prevent overdevelopment, while democratic governments can be used to prevent underdevelopment as well and to ensure development in a fair way. Unfortunately, because poor people in this country don't bother to vote we haven't been seeing the kind of push back we'd need to ensure that development be better tailored to the needs of that community.

[wwmiv]

Also, I want to point out that you said two mutually exclusive things in your comment: that you hate both over-development and that you think development is happening too slow.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It is quite rational to lose respect for someone because of their beliefs.

Not when their beliefs are humanistic and in the spirit of peace and equality.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It's cute that you think that development would happen in an evenhanded way with regular people not being kicked out of the area under socialism. Is that what happened in any country where socialism has been utilized as a system? No. In every single country that has adopted or tried to adopt socialism, the masses have faired much worse and have been forcibly relocated to ensure "development" and "progress" and if they didn't leave they were mass murdered.

Like Sweden and Norway, right? Those brutal, totalitarian regimes where cops walk around without guns, no one serves a prison sentence greater than 21 years, and everyone has free health care, college education, and even massages! Sounds terrifying! Someone should fight back against these oppressors in the name of true liberty and justice. Oh wait.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

As for ecological repercussions of capitalism that you mention: there are ways you can structure the system to avoid, mitigate, or militate against these problems (e.g. using the law to require individuals to take certain precautions on their property - we do this all the time in the form of zoning laws).

Do you really not understand that the problem is the division of land into individually-owed parcels? How can a herd of elk or elephants freely migrate the land when they're constantly running into fences?

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Supply and demand pressures present only in capitalist systems prevent overdevelopment, while democratic governments can be used to prevent underdevelopment as well and to ensure development in a fair way. Unfortunately, because poor people in this country don't bother to vote we haven't been seeing the kind of push back we'd need to ensure that development be better tailored to the needs of that community.

Is that why so much of Cuba is such pristine ecology? Because of socialist overdevelopment? Gimme a break. It's only government action that can designate vast areas of the Earth off limits to development. Look at Google Maps. The only undeveloped fertile parts are national parks and reserves.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Also, I want to point out that you said two mutually exclusive things in your comment: that you hate both over-development and that you think development is happening too slow.

I'm not surprised that went over your head. I'm in favor of development in the right places and no development in the wrong places.

In hierarchical industrial civilization (of which capitalism is a predominant feature), cities require the importation of resources from rural areas. It causes cities to become more expensive, thus leading poorer citizens to move to the outskirts. Supply and demand coupled with privatized land ensures that housing will be built out there. Short of economic collapse or widespread crime, it's impossible for these citizens to move back into the city. So, it's never-ending. Cities just sprawl and sprawl under capitalism. It's unsustainable. Unregulated capitalism is unsustainable on this planet. It just doesn't work. It's not a coherent system.

People like you get scared when someone utters the word 'socialism'. But it's not scary. You just don't know the definition. You're thinking of communism. Socialism is just the general principle that all people should be protected from the deleterious effects of the market and that wage labor is fundamentally unfair. The poor stay poor and the rich get richer. They bleed us dry then throw us out with the waste.

This isn't a debate you can win. I've debated thousand of capitalists and, from what I can tell, you've never even encountered a real socialist before.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Not when their beliefs are humanistic and in the spirit of peace and equality.

Sorry, but I do not believe that your beliefs serve humanistic goals, nor do they best serve peace and equality. Empirically, this is shown by experience and the facts.

Originally Posted by Syndic

Like Sweden and Norway, right? Those brutal, totalitarian regimes where cops walk around without guns, no one serves a prison sentence greater than 21 years, and everyone has free health care, college education, and even massages! Sounds terrifying! Someone should fight back against these oppressors in the name of true liberty and justice. Oh wait.

Sweden and Norway are social democracies which use capitalize systems heavily regulated by governments. They are NOT socialist. In fact, both countries are currently led by center right governments... but ofcourse you wouldn't know that, would you, because you're so blinded by your ideological rose colored glasses.

Originally Posted by Syndic

Do you really not understand that the problem is the division of land into individually-owed parcels? How can a herd of elk or elephants freely migrate the land when they're constantly running into fences?

Have you seen what capitalist countries such as Canada have done? The answer to this is quite easy: require low lying fences, make sure that roads are not an encumbrance to wild-life movement through various techniques, and expansion of wildlife preserves. Private property can easily coexist with environmentalism.

But you obviously don't see the need to try.

Originally Posted by Syndic

Is that why so much of Cuba is such pristine ecology? Because of socialist overdevelopment? Gimme a break. It's only government action that can designate vast areas of the Earth off limits to development. Look at Google Maps. The only undeveloped fertile parts are national parks and reserves.

Cuba's situation is quite different than most other socialist economies given the embargoes placed against that country by western democracies for perfectly valid geopolitical reasons. Look, instead, to the development patterns in Russia before perestroika or China prior to the opening of their economy. Ofcourse, you lack the historical knowledge to even bother doing so. But even if you do include Cuba, not that mass genocide and exodus of its people into a capitalist country (the United States) speaks volumes about the relative success of economic systems.

Originally Posted by Syndic

I'm not surprised that went over your head. I'm in favor of development in the right places and no development in the wrong places.

Over my head? You are so way out of your depth here it isn't even funny.

Originally Posted by Syndic

In hierarchical industrial civilization (of which capitalism is a predominant feature), cities require the importation of resources from rural areas. It causes cities to become more expensive, thus leading poorer citizens to move to the outskirts. Supply and demand coupled with privatized land ensures that housing will be built out there. Short of economic collapse or widespread crime, it's impossible for these citizens to move back into the city. So, it's never-ending. Cities just sprawl and sprawl under capitalism. It's unsustainable. Unregulated capitalism is unsustainable on this planet. It just doesn't work. It's not a coherent system.

I am not advocating for unrelated capitalism. In fact, I have been quite clear that I believe that a strong capitalism requires frequent and strong governmental regulation. But, ofcourse, you choose to ignore that in favor of construing my argument in the best possible way for you to argue against (e.g. you are trying to create a straw man).

Originally Posted by Syndic

People like you get scared when someone utters the word 'socialism'. But it's not scary. You just don't know the definition. You're thinking of communism. Socialism is just the general principle that all people should be protected from the deleterious effects of the market and that wage labor is fundamentally unfair. The poor stay poor and the rich get richer. They bleed us dry then throw us out with the waste.

This isn't a debate you can win. I've debated thousand of capitalists and, from what I can tell, you've never even encountered a real socialist before.

You are so absolutely wrong. Socialism is the political system that leads directly to communism, in the words themselves of the great communist thinkers. Therefore, socialism and communism are by definition inseparable ideas. But, ofcourse, you aren't exactly up to speed on these things, so I'll take pity on your poor self and just say:

Move on, you're wrong, give it up, and drop it.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Sorry, but I do not believe that your beliefs serve humanistic goals, nor do they best serve peace and equality.

Socialism is a direct outgrowth of The Enlightenment and The Renaissance. So, yeah, you couldn't be more wrong. It is deeply rooted in humanism.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Sweden and Norway are social democracies which use capitalize systems heavily regulated by governments. They are NOT socialist.

I consider social democracy to be socialist. As do most intellectuals. It's just gradualist instead of revolutionary, which is fine by me. You just can't accept that socialism is something incredibly benign. Europeans would laugh hysterically at you for being so ignorantly American. France is run by a socialist government. It's not a big deal. Are they really on their way toward communism? Of course not. No rational person would make that argument. Your mind is just intoxicated with right-wing propaganda.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Have you seen what capitalist countries such as Canada have done? The answer to this is quite easy: require low lying fences, make sure that roads are not an encumbrance to wild-life movement through various techniques, and expansion of wildlife preserves. Private property can easily coexist with environmentalism.

But you obviously don't see the need to try.

Do you have any evidence that Canada has done this on a large scale?

By the way, wildlife preserves are nationalization, which is basically socialist.

But why would anyone care to coexist with theft, which is what private property is? Or, really, private monarchy. A person uses their labor and capital to start a company and, no matter how large it gets, they think their initial investment gives them eternal dominion over it and that they have no fiduciary duty to any other stakeholders (like workers). You say you are an atheist but that is magical thinking. No one earns the right to sit back, collecting money from the labor of others forever.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Over my head? You are so way out of your depth here it isn't even funny.

Yeah, right. It's obvious you don't even know the difference between private property and personal property or socialism and communism.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I am not advocating for unrelated capitalism.

And I am not against markets, but that doesn't stop you from practically equating me with Kim Jong-Un. In fact, I think my brand of socialism perfects markets by correcting a few key errors. There are many different types of socialism but all you seem to know is Stalinism. Socialism is a vast branch of economic theory which has borne many fruits and aided humanity in endless ways. In fact, many of your ideas are socialist without you even realizing it.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Socialism is the political system that leads directly to communism, in the words themselves of the great communist thinkers.

And didn't Marx say that capitalism is the system that leads directly to socialism? True humanist and Enlightenment thinker he was, he lauded capitalism as being a progressive economic step (away from feudalism) on the road to communism. You obviously disagree with that. You think capitalism can be a sustainable stand-alone economic system. How is that any different than what I think about socialism? I think socialism can (and will) be a sustainable stand-alone economic system. We tried going the revolutionary route and that failed (because revolutions always take place in dysfunctional, high poverty countries), so now we're trying the gradualist/reformist route (starting in the wealthier countries). Whether you realize it or not, we're all socialists now. I just support a few different socialistic regulations than you do, like the end of wage slavery, which you shamefully seem to support.

There's nothing left-wing about you. If you represent the Democratic Party, then we have no left-wing party in America. But you're probably happy about that.

[Syndic]

Back on topic of this thread (Kevin, I'd be glad to take this conversation to PMs if it's becoming a distraction), there are some photo updates on BuildingATX: http://buildingatx.com/2014/08/downtown-construction-update-part-1-photos/

[LoneStarMike]

Allright you two!

[KevinFromTexas]

Yes, please take it to your private messages.

[Slappy]

I'm more amazed someone here hasn't seen Pulp Fiction.

[KevinFromTexas]

(Photo by JTpics.com) - https://www.facebook.com/theAustinot/pho...50575289/832348693457056/?type=1&theater

[migol24]

Syndic and wwmiv sitting on a tree. Kay aye es es aye an gee...

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

(Photo by JTpics.com) - https://www.facebook.com/theAustinot/pho...50575289/832348693457056/?type=1&theater

I wonder how much longer that railroad bridge is good for. It had been in place for a while when I was a kid. Used to be used by the Missouri Pacific and the Katy; now, it's Amtrak. I'd guess it's going to need replacing before too much longer.

[AustinYIMBY]

From the little research I have done, it looks like the railroad bridge in the picture was originally constructed in 1936.
Also, I think it would be more accurate to say that the specific rail line carries heavy Union Pacific traffic, along with a couple Amtrak trains a day.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by kadingpa

From the little research I have done, it looks like the railroad bridge in the picture was originally constructed in 1936.
Also, I think it would be more accurate to say that the specific rail line carries heavy Union Pacific traffic, along with a couple Amtrak trains a day.

There are railroad bridges still in service over 100 years old, so it would be easy to state this bridge built in 1936 should last until 2036, if not longer.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by electricron

There are railroad bridges still in service over 100 years old, so it would be easy to state this bridge built in 1936 should last until 2036, if not longer.

As long as it's properly maintained. That's the problem... we don't pay enough attention to our infrastructure until bridges collapse, then they get repaired. Plus, Amtrak is a favorite target of those who want "smaller government." Come to think of it... if that bridge was built in 1936 was it a WPA project?

On a positive note though, I could see a future bridge using those two islands as span supports which would leave more space for people in boats to float by.

[KevinFromTexas]

William Brunton - Via KVUE - https://www.facebook.com/KVUEinsider/pho...951177/10152704088286178/?type=1&theater

I spotted "a" Jurassic Park Jeep yesterday.

[JoninATX]

Very nice Kevin. I'll down there that same day and spotted the Austin Double Decker Bus driving along S. Congress. Though I can't believe that I missed the Jurassic Park Jeep. Must have been this nice blonde walking past me smiling.

[corvairkeith]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I spotted "a" Jurassic Park Jeep yesterday.

Nice that they went period correct and used a first generation (1986-1995) Wrangler. Those are pretty much universally hated among the Jeep community because of the square headlights.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

As long as it's properly maintained. That's the problem... we don't pay enough attention to our infrastructure until bridges collapse, then they get repaired. Plus, Amtrak is a favorite target of those who want "smaller government." Come to think of it... if that bridge was built in 1936 was it a WPA project?

On a positive note though, I could see a future bridge using those two islands as span supports which would leave more space for people in boats to float by.

1. The bridge spans date from 1903.

2. The bridge replaced an earlier bridge built in the 1870s. Every second bridge pier is granite, topped with concrete. Those piers are from the original bridge.

3. The bridge is owned by Union Pacific, a private corporation, not Amtrak.

4. The bridge decking was upgraded just a couple years ago.

5. The City is replacing the northernmost bridge span over 2nd Street as part of the Bowie Underpass project.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

1. The bridge spans date from 1903.

2. The bridge replaced an earlier bridge built in the 1870s. Every second bridge pier is granite, topped with concrete. Those piers are from the original bridge.

3. The bridge is owned by Union Pacific, a private corporation, not Amtrak.

4. The bridge decking was upgraded just a couple years ago.

5. The City is replacing the northernmost bridge span over 2nd Street as part of the Bowie Underpass project.

Thank you for this info.... !!