Was this really necessary, Fred? I was just putting an idea out there. I happen to think Smart Growth is an interesting movement. I invite people to state their opinion about why Smart Growth is a terrible idea, but personal attacks aren't really called for.

I have enough experience running my own life to state with confidence that you aren't smart enough to run my life. (And don't you just hate it when those proles get uppity)

Sounds like you prefer the libertarian way, where no one is forced to pay for somebody else's needs.

Right on.

But did you ever think about the numerous ways in which the automobile and oil industries have been subsidized by everybody, including people who don't own cars and don't drive them? Think about this:

The United States federal goverment has a highway department which is well funded by taxes, taken from the people - all the people - by gunpoint, if necessary. Billions of dollars a year (I don't know the exact figure, but you get the point), are taken from the people to fund this department alone. This money goes into road construction and repair. You only need road construction or repair if you intend to burn oil on those roads. If you aren't a direct oil consumer, it is not your concern how business gets products to your local stores. They pay a trucking company who burns oil to move stuff to your town. The trucking company, therefore, is receiving a subsidy from the non-driving taxpayer who is funding the highway department.

And of course every State in the US spends their tax money, taken at gunpoint, if necessary, on road and highway construction. So, the libertarian principle of eliminating force and fraud from human interaction has already been violated.

And what about the oil wars? Who pays for that? I think it's about $200 billion for just the latest war in Iraq. A whole lot of non-driving muthers are subsidizing the oil indistries by having their money taken, by gunpoint if necessary, in order to fund incredibly expensive 'police actions' in other people's countries.

So, an oil tax to pay for wars, protection of shipping on the open seas, and highway subsidies, is more than fair - it's much-needed justice for those who don't actually use so much oil!

Now, if you want to argue that we all benefit from this high oil consumption lifestyle, so we all should pay what is pathetically referred to as a 'fair share', then you might as well throw out the whole libertarian principle of each man paying his own way. Because the same argument can be made for education spending, socialized medicine, and even corporate welfare!

There's nothing wrong with making oil users pay for the services which the US Federal Government provides to the oil industry. Except that it's never made explicit, in which case, it's a flawed agreement anyway.