Government And Collapsed Bridges

[Ares]

The recent collapse of a small commuter bridge in Washington has brought back memories of Minnesota. Back in August of 2007, the I-35W Mississippi bridge connecting the Downtown East and Marcy-Holmes neighborhoods plummeted to the river below like a Chinese-made sofa. Thirteen individuals lost their lives while 145 escaped with injury. The suddenness of the debacle was met with the blunt response system of the state. That is, politicians in Minnesota and elsewhere went before the public to decry the deteriorating condition of government infrastructure across the country. A flurry of taxpayer money dedicated to overhauling the nation’s bridges followed. Five years after millions in tax dollars were fleeced, allocated, and distributed to this new urgency, less than two dozen of the state’s 172 “structurally deficient” bridges have been made whole.

The total failure to provide safe infrastructure, especially in the aftermath of a tragedy, would be comical if it were not so representative of the ineptness of state action. If there is one thing government officials are good at, it’s going forth with failed plans while convincing themselves, and voters, that this time will be different. Following the Interstate 5 bridge collapse in Washington, the same calls to action are being issued in spite of a non-failure in the bridge design itself. Former yes-man and advisor to the President David Axelrod attempted to blame Republicans in Congress for a reluctance to spend on infrastructure investment – as if the second half of the statist party coin ever harbored a desire to tame the District’s portly appetite for wasting tax revenue. Axelrod, being a professional opportunist, was not going to let a good crisis go to political waste; a tactic he undoubtedly learned from his White House comrade in debauchery Rahm Emanuel.

Proponents of sprawling public work projects such as bridges have been apt to cite to latest scorecard from the American Society of Civilian Engineers – a report which always happens to portray the country’s infrastructure as nearing a communist-like collapse. The latest inspection in 2012 revealed the U.S. is home to least 150,000 structurally deficient bridges. In the few years I have followed the ASCE’s annual checkup, I have yet to see bright and optimistic grading. The diagnosis consistently falls somewhere between neglectful euthanasia and deliberate homicide. The string of bridge collapses plays right into the hand of the century old association. It’s never a point of suspicion for liberals that the professional body’s membership, who are predominantly employed constructing or fixing government infrastructure, would have a vested interest in wringing more money from susceptible politicians. The ASCE’s siren call is filled with everything repugnant to the Progressive mindset: profit motive, corruption, undermining of public trust. That’s all dismissed with contemplation of tangible benefits provided by government funding.

Talk of public infrastructure projects ignites the thoughts of state apologists who dedicate their career to advancing a creeping despotism. The effect on the rest of the public is much lesser. Bridges, roads, sewer systems, and the like are accepted functions of the state. But therein lies the rub: little praise is given for an expected service. The foundational elements of civilized and commercial society remain hidden, in a sense, to greater recognizability. In other words, we expect our toilets to remove waste and electricity to come with the flick of a switch. Except in the absence of function, attention is diverted elsewhere. The core component of democracy that` makes it workable political philosophy is wrong – voters are not considerate or far-thinking. They demand instant gratification. That helps explain why politicians, in their capacity as crowd charmers, dedicate little time and even fewer resources to keeping government infrastructure in pristine shape. As former New York City mayor Ed Koch liked to say, “It’s hard to hold a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new sewer line.”

Even with the less-than-glorifying esteem that comes with respooling electrical wire, the state maintains an iron-tight grip on commercial infrastructure for a reason. Monopoly control equates to societal power – nothing more or less. The free, voluntary transactions of individuals is without a doubt the best means to ensure an efficient use of resources. Ports, roadways, drainage systems, and bridges have all been provided for by the private economy. In government form, they provide a benefit; one which comes at the expense of an undetermined number of wrongs. As essayist Frank Chodorov wrote, “If we get any*thing for the taxes we pay it is not because we want it; it is forced on us.”

It can’t be said for sure if the I-35W Mississippi bridge was left in private hands, maintenance and upkeep would have been performed more regularly. I would wager my money on the profit spell, acting as a driving force to preserve quality. The theory of collectivism relies on the unsteady moral conscience of leadership. Capitalism rests only on the material desire for more. The former requiring more virtue than the latter, it would be wiser to put one’s faith in that which does not demand the all-knowing hubris of central planners.

In any service, the government has achieved the perfect deal. When a private entity fails at meeting consumer desire (or its negligence results in death), a drop in income and market share follows. When the faultiness of a state product is revealed, more money is requested to atone for the deficiency. Success for failure is a perverse incentive – all the more fitting for the government’s wheelhouse of inconsistencies such as “destroy to save” or “fascism to save the free market.”

Being the state iconoclast that I am, I find myself split between admiration for industrial feats and loathing for the dank, unscrupulous actions which cemented the wonder on fertile ground. It can be captivating to gaze upon a bridge spanning the length of a tumultuous river – a demonstration of man’s capacity to overcome the Earth’s obstacles and create his own future. Witnessing mammoths of concrete, steel, and calculated texture is humbling. The intricacies of meticulously crafted metal enveloped among stalactitic, concrete protrusions make for a web of human engineering that cannot begin to be understood by the layman. The knowledge necessary to erect such a structure has been kept and passed down for centuries. Its dissemination is a human achievement ranking among the great architectural undertakings.

The bridge is really a connector of civilization. Without it, the flourishing of the division of labor would be heavily constrained. The wilderness in remote parts of the Earth would remain untamed. It is certainly true that industrial structures that cultivate mobility have been used for campaigns of aggression and invasion, namely by militaries. But I have never been a fan of laying blame on technological innovation for enrapturing the destructive tendencies of man. Responsibility flows from human free will. The objects created by the employment of mind and labor are incapable of volition, and thus outside the bounds of being moral agents.

Indispensability is all the more reason to remove the state’s unprofitable hand from infrastructure investment such as bridge building. Enough economists have brought attention to the inability of government bureaucrats to utilize pricing signals in an effective manner. Public works projects often serve to enrich well-connected interest groups, with actual serviceability being a secondary concern. Here’s hoping to the quick rehabilitating of the Interstate 5 bridge in Washington, and to the broadspread realization of the perversion government has on such endeavors.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-28/guest-post-government-and-collapsed-bridges

[Cebu_4_2]

Infrastructure, regulated by the State. Where I used to live infrastructure really sucked, by time they finished any project it needed to be redone. Now things are MUCH different. Actually I found it almost unbelievable in comparison.

[Bigjon]

http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/NWO%20Plans%20Exposed%20By%20Insider%20In%201969.p df

There has been much written, and much said, by some people who have
looked at all the changes that have occurred in American society in the past
20 years or so, and who have looked retrospectively to earlier history of the
United States, and indeed, of the world, and come to the conclusion that
there is a conspiracy of sorts which influences, indeed controls. major
historical events, not only in the United States, but also around the world.
This conspiratorial interpretation of history is based on people making
observations from the outside, gathering evidence and concluding that from
the outside they see a conspiracy. Their evidence and conclusions are based
on evidence gathered in retrospect. I want to now describe what I heard
from a speaker in 1969, which in several weeks will now be 20 years ago.
The speaker did not speak in terms of retrospect, but rather predicting
changes that would be brought about in the future. The speaker was not
looking from the outside in, thinking that he saw conspiracy, rather, he was
on the inside, admitting that, indeed, there was an organised power, force,
group of men, who wielded enough influence to determine major events
involving countries around the world. In addition, he predicted, or rather
expounded on, changes that were planned for the remainder of this century.
As you listen, if you can recall the situation, at least in the United States in
1969 and the few years there after, and then recall the kinds of changes
which have occurred between then and now, almost 20 years later, I believe
you will be impressed with the degree to which the things that were planned
to be brought about have already been accomplished. Some of the things that
were discussed were not intended to be accomplished yet by 1988. [Note:
the year of this recording] but are intended to be accomplished before the
end of this century. There is a timetable; and it was during this session that
some of the elements of the timetable were brought out. Anyone who recalls
early in the days of the Kennedy campaign when he spoke of progress in the
decade of the 60's": That was kind of a cliché in those days - "the decade of
the 60's." Well, by 1969 our speaker was talking about the decade of the
70's, the decade of the 80's, and the decade of the 90's. Prior to that time, I
don't remember anybody saying "the decade of the 40's and the decade of
the 50's. So I think this overall plan and timetable had taken important shape
with more predictability to those who control it, sometime in the late 50's.
That's speculation on my part. In any event, the speaker said that his
purpose was to tell us about changes which would be brought about in the
next 30 years or so, so that an entirely new world-wide system would be in
operation before the turn of the century. As he put it, "We plan to enter the
21st Century with a running start." [emphasis supplied]
EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE AND NOBODY CAN STOP US NOW
He said, as we listened to what he was about to present, "Some of you will
think I'm talking about Communism. Well, what I'm talking about is much
bigger than Communism!" At that time he indicated that there is much more
co-operation between East and West than most people realise. In his
introductory remarks, he commented that he was free to speak at this time.
He would not have been able to say what he was about to say, even a few
years earlier. But he was free to speak at this time because now, and I'm
quoting here, "everything is in place and nobody can stop us now." He went
on to say that most people don't understand how governments operate and
even people in high positions in governments, including our own, don't really
understand how and where decisions are made. He went on to say that
people who really influence decisions are names that for the most part would
be familiar to most of us, but he would not use individuals' names or names
of any specific organisation. But that, if he did, most of the people would be
names that were recognised by most of his audience. He went on to say that
they were not primarily people in public office, but people of prominence
who were primarily known in their private occupations or private positions.
The speaker was Dr. Richard Day, a doctor of medicine and a former
professor at a large Eastern university, and he was addressing a group of
doctors of medicine, about 80 in number. His name would not be widely
recognised by anybody likely to hear this. The only purpose in recording this
is that it may give a perspective to those who hear it regarding the changes
which have already been accomplished in the past 20 years or so, and a bit
of a preview to what at least some people are planning for the remainder of
this century, so that they would enter the 21st Century with a flying start.
Some of us may not enter that Century. His purpose in telling our group
about these changes that were to be brought about was to make it easier for
us to adapt to these changes. Indeed, as he quite accurately said, "they
would be changes that would be very surprising, and in some ways difficult
for people to accept," and he hoped that we, as sort of his friends, would
make the adaptation more easily if we knew somewhat beforehand what to
expect.
PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO CHANGE
Somewhere in the introductory remarks he insisted that nobody have a tape
recorder and that nobody take notes, which for a professor was a very
remarkable kind of thing to expect from an audience. Something in his
remarks suggested that there could be negative repercussions against him if it
became widely known that indeed he had spilled the beans, so to speak.
When I first heard that, I thought maybe that was sort of an ego trip,
somebody enhancing his own importance. But as the revelations unfolded, I
began to understand why he might have had some concern about not having
it widely known what was said although this was a fairly public forum where
he was speaking. Nonetheless, he asked that no notes be taken, no tape
recording be used. This was suggesting there might be some personal danger
to himself if these revelations were widely publicised. Again, as the remarks
began to unfold, and heard the rather outrageous things that were said, I
made it a point to try to remember as much of what he said as I could and to
connect my recollections to simple events around me to aid my memory for
the future, in case I wanted to do what I'm doing now - recording this. I also
wanted to try to maintain a perspective on what would be developing, if
indeed, it followed the predicted pattern - which it has! At this point, so that
I don't forget to include it later, I'll just include some statements that were
made from time to time throughout the presentation. One of the statements
was having to do with change. The statement was, "People will have to get
used to the idea of change, so used to change, that they'll be expecting
change. Nothing will be permanent." This often came out in the context of a
society where people seemed to have no roots or moorings, but would be
passively willing to accept change simply because it was all they had ever
known. This was sort of in contrast to generations of people up until this
time where certain things you expected to be, and remain in place as
reference points for your life. So change was to be brought about, change
was to be anticipated and expected, and accepted, no questions asked.
Another comment that was made from time to time during the presentation
was. "People are too trusting, people don't ask the right questions."
Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb. But
sometimes when he would say that "People don't ask the right questions," it
was almost with a sense of regret as if he were uneasy with what he was part
of, and wished that people would challenge it and maybe not be so trusting.

~cut~

NO MORE SECURITY
Nothing is permanent. Streets would be re-routed and renamed. Areas you
had not seen in a while would become unfamiliar. Among other things, this
would contribute to older people feeling that it was time to move on, they
feel they couldn't even keep up with the changes in areas that were once
familiar. Buildings would be allowed to stand empty and deteriorate, and
streets would be allowed to deteriorate in certain localities. The purpose of
this was to provide the jungle, the depressed atmosphere for the unfit.
Somewhere in this same connection he mentioned that buildings and bridges
would be made so that they would collapse after a while, there would be
more accidents involving aeroplanes and railroads and automobiles. All of
this to contribute to the feeling of insecurity, that nothing was safe. Not too
long after this presentation, and I think one or two even before in the area
where I live, we had a newly constructed bridge break. Another newly
constructed bridge defect was discovered before it too broke. I remember
reading just scattered incidents around the country where shopping malls
would fall in right where they were filled with shoppers. I also remember that
one of the shopping malls in our area, the first building I'd ever been in
where you could feel this vibration throughout the entire building when there
were a lot of people in there. I remember wondering at that time whether this
shopping mall was one of the buildings he was talking about. Talking to
construction people and architects about it they would say, "Oh no, that's
good when the building vibrates like that, that means it's flexible not rigid."
Well, maybe so, we'll wait and see. Other areas there would be well
maintained. Not every part of the city would be slums.
CRIME USED TO MANAGE SOCIETY
There would be the created slums and other areas well maintained. Those
people able to leave the slums for better areas then would learn to better
appreciate the importance of human accomplishment. This meant that if they
left the jungle and came to civilisation, so to speak, they could be proud of
their own accomplishments that they made it. There was no related
sympathy for those who were left behind in the jungle of drugs and
deteriorating neighbourhoods. Then a statement that was kind of surprising,
"We think we can effectively limit crime to the slum areas, so it won't be
spread heavily into better areas". I should maybe point out here that these
are obviously not word for word quotations after 20 years, but where I say
that I am quoting, I am giving the general drift of what was said close to
word for word, perhaps not precisely so. I remember wondering, how can he
be so confident that the criminal element is going to stay where he wants it to
stay? But he went on to say that increased security would be needed in the
better areas. That would mean more police, better co-ordinated police
efforts. He did not say so, but I wondered at that time about the moves that
were afoot to consolidate all the police departments of suburbs around the
major cities. I think the John Birch Society was one that was saying
"Support your local police, don't let them be consolidated." I remember
wondering if that was one of the things he had in mind about security. It was
not explicitly stated. Anyhow he went on to say there would be a whole new
industry of residential security systems to develop with alarms and locks and
alarms going into the police department so that people could protect their
wealth and their well being. Because some of the criminal activity would spill
out of the slums into better, more affluent looking areas that looked like they
would be worth burglarizing. And again it was stated like it was a redeeming
quality: See we're generating all this more crime but look how good we are -
we're also generating the means for you to protect yourself against the crime.
A sort of repeated thing throughout this presentation was the recognised evil
and then the self forgiveness thing, "See we've given you a way out."
CURTAILMENT OF AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL PRE-EMINENCE
American industry came under discussion - it was the first that I'd heard the
term global interdependence or that notion. The stated plan was that
different parts of the world would be assigned different roles of industry and
commerce in a unified global system. The continued pre-eminence of the
United States and the relative independence and self-sufficiency of the
United States would have to be changed. This was one of the several times
that he said in order to create a new structure, you first have to tear down
the old, and American industry was one example of that. Our system would
have to be curtailed in order to give other countries a chance to build their
industries, because otherwise they would not be able to compete against the
United States. This was especially true of our heavy industries that would be
cut back while the same industries were being developed in other countries,
notably Japan. At this point there was some discussion of steel and
particularly automobiles - I remember saying that automobiles would be
imported from Japan on an equal footing with our own domestically
produced automobiles, but the Japanese product would be better. Things
would be made so they would break and fall apart, that is in the United
States. so that people would tend to prefer the imported variety and this
would give a bit of a boost to foreign competitors.
One example was the Japanese. In 1969 Japanese automobiles, if they were
sold here at all I don't remember, but they certainly weren't very popular.
But the idea was you could get a little bit disgusted with your Ford, GM or
Chrysler product or whatever because little things like window handles
would fall off more and plastic parts would break which had they been made
of metal

[brosil]

I've saved the pdf but I think I would have preferred to see it in 1969. It's hard to decide whether it dates from that era or has been more recently generated.