I guess the Mayor thinks UL is a government agency. More of the "only government can save us" crowd.

/john

bump

I would take it that the Mayor is so gullible that he is totally blind to as why the government creates the need to have insurance, performance bonds, licenses, inspections and the like.

The reason is very clear----it's to force the free public to utilize the services and products of private enterprises!  That's why we have lobbyists.  It's big business and holds power to the government parties to gain both wealth, votes and power through mutual "back washing" of private enterprises that will thrive off any governmental regulations. Safety is of no concern nor is compensation of victims---it only about prostituting themselves to their personal and career interests.

It should be against the law for any government to force or require any private citizen or entity utilize, purchase or obtain ANY services or product from a private enterprise.  In only that way will the government be restricted to actually governing under the original intent of our founders.

I was going to join the Libertarian Party until I read this from their 2000 party platform:

We repudiate the principles contained in the U.N. Moon Treaty.

As I don't have the foggiest idea what is in the U.N. Moon Treaty nor do I care, I reluctantly decided the party is far too detailed oriented for me.

--the sour grapes Mayor of Leadville-my home for 17 years-has been eloquently rebutted by several writers in recent issues of the Leadville Herald-Democrat. He is sore at having the first all (l)Libertarian City Council in history--

I have found more and more lately to be leaning towards the Libertarain Party myself. I think I'll check out that link.

You are from New York, aren't you? Be careful about joining the Libertarian Party. You might end up on the Howard Stern Show.

I am not positive but I think the UN moon treaty calls for the moon and all asteroids to belong to all mankind. If a private enterprise figures out a profitable means of mining an asteroid any one else can simply copy it and claim the same asteroid. If you want to guarantee that mankind never leaves the earth guarantee that no one can make a profit in outer space.

Hey, that might be okay - depends on who else is on that morning ;)

Howard Stern????????? Oh my gawwwwwd, perish da thawwwt!!!!

Mr. Ferris has not lived up to the Libertarian's view of his personal responsibility and society has been harmed.

By that single sentence, the Mayor of Leadville reveals the fatal flaw in his reasoning.

"Society" has no rights; individuals do. "Society" wasn't harmed by the hypothetical Ferris wheel failure; 100 children were.

The only conclusion one can reach from the mayor's "analysis" is that his views on government and society are at odds with the concept of individual rights and the nature and role of government in a free society.

I've often argued with a Green friend (yes, still) that rather than waste time and money on a quixotic presidential campaign every four years they should win some local races and show how they would do things. (Yes, in the case of the Greens this is a very scary thought ... though in Portland, OR it would probably be indistinguishable from the current crowd).

Now the Libertarians have gone and done just that! Good for them. Any idea what they plan to accomplish in Leadville? Could be interesting.

If everyone's actions are already limited by a common view of personal responsibility, societal interests are being served and the role of government can be limited. However, in a diverse society where there are many different ideas as to what constitutes personal responsibility, government naturally expands to protect overall societal interests.

Sounds nice, but how does government protect "societal interests"? By enacting expansive laws designed to mollify enough special interest groups that government officials can stay in power. The end result is a restriction of the liberties of all, and the accomplishment of virtually nothing.

Any idea what they plan to accomplish in Leadville?

No, I have no specific info on what they plan to do in Leadville, though I would hope it is in the vein of reducing the size, scope, cost, and intrusiveness of local government.

There has been much to do, locally and statewide, about the fact that, starting in January, the majority of the Leadville City Council will be members of the Libertarian Party. Since it is important to me as mayor to understand what the council thinks, I have done some research and thinking about the Libertarian Party.
Like most parties, the Libertarian platform contains some planks I totally agree with, some I totally disagree with and some that just don't matter to me. Some planks are based on concepts totally in opposition to the ideas behind other planks. This is not a criticism of the Libertarian Party but rather an observation of what happens when any group of people - Republicans, Democrats or Libertarians - gets together and tries to make a one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of government.
So instead of concentrating on the individual planks of the party, I looked at basic Libertarian philosophy.
The first thing you see when you open the state Libertarian website (www.lpcolorado.org) is the slogan: "Limited Government. Individual Liberty. Personal Responsibility." While this slogan may be a slick motherhood-and-apple-pie sound bite, it is rather mundane as a political philosophy.

--- Just above, he says he looked at basic philosophy, then he next attacks a slogan as mundane. Clever? - Not very.

It simply reflects the age-old struggle to balance societal and individual interests. It does not offer any new ideas for a solution.
There is a natural tension between government and individual liberty. Governments exist and create laws for the good of the many. Each and every law created limits the liberty of certain individuals.

--- Bsssst - Not true, under a constitution dedicated to equal treatment.

To interject the idea of personal responsibility into this mix assumes there is a common cultural idea of what people are responsible for.

--- Clever digression. What is its purpose?

If everyone's actions are already limited by a common view of personal responsibility, societal interests are being served and the role of government can be limited.

Yep, if a constitution is agreed upon, and followed, government can be limited.

However, in a diverse society where there are many different ideas as to what constitutes personal responsibility, government naturally expands to protect overall societal interests.

--- Ah yes! We finally get to the message! We need more government because the constitution isn't being followed! --- Naturally yet! - A brillant absurdity too.

The Libertarian slogan would be much more profound if the first phrase was "Personal Responsibility," because, if there was a common idea of how people should act, then limited government and individual "liberty" could follow naturally. However, to impose a single cultural norm of responsibility on everyone would be a greater threat to individual liberty than any action taken by our government to date.

--- This is bizarre thinking: -- 'We must limit liberty to avoid imposing constitutional law'. A weird upside down view, imo.

The key to good government is to balance these three aspects in a manner that best serves the community as a whole. Let me give you a hypothetical example. Mr. Ferris builds a huge wheel with chairs mounted on it and offers to sell rides to children. The children are excited and all want to ride. From a strictly Libertarian point of view this enterprise should not be regulated by government. The wheel is Mr. Ferris' property and selling rides is his business. Any restrictions would be limitations on his individual liberty. (Property rights and free enterprise are huge planks in the Libertarian platform.)

-- Yep, but so is the power of a state or local government to set constitutional standards to regulate public activities.

Libertarians also would probably say that it is Mr. Ferris' personal responsibility to ensure the ride is safe and to compensate society for any harm done by his business. One day the wheel collapses because it was not built well and 100 children are killed or seriously injured. The wheel was Mr. Ferris' only asset and he cannot pay for any of the bills incurred by the families.
Mr. Ferris has not lived up to the Libertarian's view of his personal responsibility and society has been harmed.
Currently, government regulations would require Mr. Ferris to build his wheel to certain specifications and to carry insurance. The specifications would diminish the possibility of the wheel collapsing and the insurance would ensure payment for any harm caused. Mr. Ferris can still conduct business, but he is required to do so in a responsible manner because of government regulation.

-- Basic government regulations for insurance & for structural safety are not unconstitutional.

Another Libertarian point of view in this matter might be that it was the personal responsibility of the parents to ensure the ride was safe and that Mr. Ferris had insurance. Can you imagine in this day and age if every person was required to have the knowledge, expertise and time to check out everything they purchase instead of being able to assume a certain quality? In the case at hand, only an engineer, after hours of inspecting the wheel, would be qualified to make a responsible decision as to whether or not to allow his child to ride the wheel.

---- And, another tar baby argument for government over-regulation. Can we imagine? Yes, we can imagine a society where individuals are responsible for their own actions, and self insure for lifes uncertainties.

My hope is that the Libertarians will not get so enamored with a single aspect of their philosophy, such as the recent campaign slogan "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," that they forget the other aspects of the Libertarian point of view.
Good municipal government requires creating a balance between government, individual liberty and personal responsibility as it applies to specific issues. Those who have been elected to govern have the personal responsibility to ensure this balance regardless of their political party.
Chet Gaede is the mayor of Leadville and not affiliated with any political party.

He may not be affliated, but he sure writes the demo-rino line. -- Or his mouthpiece does.

He may not be affliated, but he sure writes the demo-rino line. -- Or his mouthpiece does.

Given his assertion that government passes laws "for the good of the many" it is a safe bet he's a socialist, regardless of party affiliation (or lack thereof).