The Federal Gov't purchased the property for a federal courthouse. Probably, $1M to demolish the old building should have been added to the previous deal, but it wasn't. If it had, the cost would have increased by $1M at the time.

The construction was planned to begin in 2005 for the federal courthouse. They would have demolished the building prior to the construction. Now, due to budget constraints, the construction is delayed. So what is wrong with spending just $1M now to clear out the site until then, and make downtown more attractive for economic development? This would add a federal tax base in addition to the local benefits.

Why should people in CA, NH, HI, MT pay for this? Well, why should we pay for their courthouses and other federal services? We do now. Because we are not just separate states, we are all under the same federal umbrella, too.

There's some loopy reasoning: we should force other people around the country to pay for messes made by others...because we are forced to pay for *their* messes.

What is loopy about it? The Federal Government acquired the land so they can build a courthouse there. This is one of the most prized pieces of land in Austin due to its downtown location. They were planning on demolishing the old skeleton building (at a cost of $1M) all along so they can build their courthouse. They were just planning on doing it right before they built the new building. Now, there are delays in the project due to budget constraints. So all the congressmen are asking for is for the demolition to occur earlier as it is only 2% of the cost of the entire project.

There are 42 courthouse projects going on right now across the US. The development costs vary from site to site. In many cases the land is very expensive (New York, LA, San Francisco), and also old buildings are cleared away to make room for the new site.

Locating a Federal Courthouse in a downtown area makes a lot of sense, because that's where the center of the population is that it serves. The Courts maintain order and common law across the nation. The federal tax base of Austin alone is enough to take care of the cost of the federal courthouse located there.

Do we take care of their messes so they take care of our messes? Well, yes. That's why it's called the United States, emphasize United. We are one country. In some areas it makes sense to have a common pool of money to address needs, it in fact saves money in many cases. Should Austin have it's own local Army, Navy, and Air Force? Or should it pay into a pool with the other cities to have a common one to protect us all. Having a separate military is quite inefficient and would waste money since there is no common training if we have to go to war as a country.

How about the freeways? Should each city and state make their own roads and not be obligated to connect them across state lines to each other? That would result in lot of gaps in the travel routes and restrict trade. Hence it makes sense to pay into a pool and have a central authority administer and plan the interstate freeway system.

Lastly, how about the Court system? Should every state have their own full jurisdiction with no further appeal? Well, in 1861 they wanted that, but didn't get it. Good thing too, because slavery would have continued. How about in the 1960s? Should Alabama have been allowed to keep their schools segregated? The nation as a whole said no, and the Fed enforced the law upon this state.

Hence, it makes sense to have a common Court system, and a common pool of money nationwide to fund the Courts.

Sir, you understand my political orientation, right? Look at the top right of this webpage. I don't want government at all and I certainly don't want the abstract and absolutely false notion of a "united country" imposed upon myself and others.

You speak briefly of the "federal tax base of Austin" but do you know what that really means? It means the population of people living here that are coerced into giving the Feds some arbitrary chunk of their wealth in order to avoid crippling jail time, fines, and legal hassles. It means stealing from a whole bunch of people in order to pay for the services and goodies other use. It means the government sees the income of that "tax base" as it's own to take as it wishes, leaving behind just enough so just enough voters so they won't vote the bastards out of office. When I hear "tax base" I think of people who, for the most part, hand over their money out of FEAR.

Ditto for all taxes.

It may make sense to pool resources to solve some problems but that doesn't give anyone the right to take something from me without my permission. It doesn't grant anyone the right to order me around under threat of incarceration. It doesn't reveal to us that politicans and bureaucrats automatically become the owners of my property when put into power.

I wrote a paper on nationalized defense here ( http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/001144.html ) and I encourage you to read it. Walter Block wrote a paper on why it is not necessary to have the state built, plan, or operate the roadway system ( http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf ). There are a number of theories that have explored stateless courts and court systems. You don't need the government to have law:

Murray N. Rothbard, "The Ethics of Liberty" chapter 12, Self-Defense http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twelve.asp

Bob Murphy, "Private Law" http://anti-state.com/murphy/murphy5.html

John D. Sneed, "Order without Law: Where will Anarchists Keep the Madmen?" http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_7.pdf

David D. Friedman, "POLICE, COURTS, AND LAWS---ON THE MARKET" http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

Slavery and forced segregation are absolutely immoral and criminal, I agree. But can you explain WHY?