This is what the author may wish was what was stopping big public works projects, but look at what blocks the real, physical, approved public works projects in the real world: It's lawsuits, permits, studies, protests being made by people who are very much not libertarians (environmentalists, rich NIMBYs, etc.) and government requirements made without regard to costs for things like unionization requirements, bid requirements, etc etc.
Proof: Look to the projects that are already approved, like, say, the California train. Look at why they're running over budget and past schedule. It's not because libertarians are running around, yelling and scaring the poor, hard-working train workers, who then have to take unexpected hazard pay. It isn't for lack of money, which gets generously ladled over many of these projects.
When I vote against these sorts of sweeping projects, I'm not really doing it as a libertarian, I'm just doing it as a pragmatist. If the voting public is reluctant to fund more of these things, they're quite possibly just being rational. Michigan, for instance, just voted down a big bill to raise taxes and fix up the roads, and believe me, Michiganders are almost uniformly of the opinion we need to do more for our roads... but we voted it down quite hard because really all it seemed to do was throw money at the problem, and not even all that competently. The sheer governmental incompetence at public works projects has reached a point where even Michigan, a state that is at least Blue-ish, is hardcore voting these things down because we simply do not think the projects are being done well.
You have some good points but one thing is for sure, less money means less and less ability to do a good job. This attitude also makes it when we do something like that, people are very critical and hoping for it to fail rather than helping to fix it, further exacerbating the problem. We have groups of people that want anything that benefits all to fail, and can't wait until they do.
Looking back, even when they did large projects in the past there were companies involved that did most of the projects. The government just funds it across all because it is beneficial to many or all and it may not be a market investment now but will be long term. Many people got rich determining where the roads, rails and projects got made and fortunes were made. That is when people started caring, many projects in when there were economic benefits. We also built up after WWI/WWII because the entire world was in ruin and we had an opportunity to get far ahead. I am convinced that if that happened today, with our extreme views, that we would have just not built up after those wars and we would be living in a much different place, with much less business and economic opportunity. Rarely does a big project like this cause economic issues other than the initial cost but the long term it adds many times more worth. We now have some of the worst rickety infrastructure and we still aren't doing anything now so why would we have then with this outlook. We use public fees and funds to build stadiums but not much else.
I'd be fine with us giving Tesla or Elon Musk funds to make the US have electric highways. Maybe even giving Google and others funds to build the fiber network that will always be upgradeable and on a schedule. But that is the flipside, lots of people wouldn't be fine with that without some oversight, America is a big team that isn't playing for the better of the whole team but tribes within it. It seems to be just black or white to most people when these things take time to get right. We are like working at an office with a really demoralized team, so why do anything for the team at all then right?
We have forgotten how to build and fund things for the common good that elevates everyone's quality of life and provides a better platform for business and economic development. That American attitude of betterment for all and strong base was left in the former century.
In the US we have taken advantage of all the great infrastructure systems of the past, thinking that it just happens like that while neglecting it for decades. We are like a friend that takes advantage while expecting it to just continue. It is almost like a company that gets too much funding, then builds off of a non reality thinking it just lasts forever.
I wonder after all these wars when we will finally get back to infrastructure and projects like better roads, high speed rail, water projects like Hoover Dam, the interstate system, bridges/tunnels, and more. What are we going to do when we need drone infrastructure? What about high speed internet and fiber in a constant upgrading capacity? Is our solution to continually fall behind waiting for the market to be right?
Why don't we have the same grand efforts to build an electric highway (highways with electric charging stations), or better high speed rail not 50 year old Amtrak trains, or that killer fiber network. These are quality of life improvements, that directly increase economic power for all, that we cannot get funding for but we can go to war.
We need a War on Infrastructure Aging and somehow tie it to War on Terror funding or War on Drugs funding and scare people into doing it as that seems to be our modus operandi this millennia.
"What we have, uniquely in America, is a political class, and an entire political party, devoted to the idea that any money spent on public goods is money misplaced, not because the state goods might not be good but because they would distract us from the larger principle that no ultimate good can be found in the state."
This is a very strong statement, but it is simply not true, and cannot be substantiated by any reference to public statements of the people Gopnik is criticizing. The best case he could make is that this is what they "really mean", or that it is some logical conclusion of their statements. But that ignores a lot of what they do say. Republicans have voted for all kinds of public spending, on all kinds of things, since Reagan was elected. In fact there is all sorts of criticism of some of that spending within the party, going all the way back to Stockman. And almost all spending "cuts" championed by those evil Republicans turn out to be refusals to increase spending.
If you want to know why our country is so divided, and our debate is so sterile, just look at the massive mischaracterizations of pieces like this. When you don't even listen to what the other side has to say, and can't bring yourself to an honest account of the opinions you criticize -- yeah, there won't be much dialogue.
Oh come on. The Republicans are gutting NASA's earth science budget and asking the NOAA to study weather, not climate, for purely ideological reasons. The author's claim that this is ideological don't need speculation, just read George Wills columns on how trains represent European socialism and cars represent freedom.
the american train system is particularly cronyist. It's an issue very well addressed in the (not libertarian) book "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense". Especially damning is how amtrak leases their right of way from freight carriers, who a) give freight trains the right of way - leading to frequent delays and b) lobby the NTSB to keep safety standards low.
The american train disaster is not a failure due to selfishness - it is a failure due to central planning in the worst fashion: corruption.
This. The NTSB has been trying to get safety systems that automatically enforce speed limits (which would've prevented the recent fatal crash) in place since 1970 (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2015/05/more-proof-of-americas-...). The freight operators have successfully lobbied Congress to push it off to (thus far) 2020.
Wait, what right of way does Amtrak lease from freight carriers? They outright own the Northeast Corridor and tracks as far west as Harrisburg, PA. I think they lease some bits of track from various state department of transportation and they obviously have trackage rights with the various freight carriers.
The NTSB seems to have higher standards for railroads than elsewhere in the world, that's one reason why we can't just import high speed trainsets, pretty much every other passenger rail car is much lighter and less sturdy than ours. I think much of that is due to our rail system handling both freight and passenger traffic.
Yes, the NTSB requires any passenger rail car that is on a train network that is somehow connected to rail that carries freight to be built to standards for collisions with freight traffic.
This is ridiculous, because it means we can't import those high speed trainsets, even in the northeast corridor, where the tracks are Amtrak-owned, and do not see freight traffic, just because the rails do link to the freight network.
> Wait, what right of way does Amtrak lease from freight carriers?
Well, everywhere west of Harrisburg and south of DC, Amtrak runs on the right of way of freight railroads. That isn't "lease" exactly, but Amtrak pays to use those tracks, which is essentially the same thing.
Right, that's called trackage rights and are given priority time slots over freight trains. However when the slot is missed then the trains are treated as any other freight.
I disagree Americans have a Plot against Public works. They have the biggest army in the world, the CIA, the NSA, the NASA, the NOAA... totally public.
I have lived in cities like Boston, Berlin, London and I believed I had seen crowded places. But living in big cities in China or Japan is another world.
Asia has an enormous population density, so trains(and bikes) make sense there. Now I live in Europe(already crowded place) and I feel a void of all this people everywhere.
Places like the US or Australia just have such low population density. They already need cars for everything they do so they are car centric, and distances are so big between cities that it makes sense to use planes instead of trains.
Yes but I believe it makes quite a bit of sense for some select areas. The problem is that trains seem to be a cultural shift, so building for those niches where it makes sense is going to be hard.
I doubt very many Americans are "against trains", but very many of us are against the State subsidizing and propping up failing businesses that can't survive without public dollars. Some of us simply believe that subsidizing businesses is not a proper role for government.
Personally I think trains are awesome, and I've love to see high-speed bullet trains criss-crossing America. But I don't want the government involved in it, and if that means we go without the trains, that's an outcome I find acceptable.
"Personally I think cars are awesome, and I'd love to see some high-speed highways criss-crossing America, but I don't want the government involved in it, and if that means we go without highways, that's an outcome I find acceptable."
Can you imagine the US without the Interstate? That's the sort of opportunity you're missing out on here.
The subsidy the government has given American businesses a huge competitive advantage, you can ship almost anything cross-continent within a few days. This has enabled companies like UPS to exist.
High-speed trains have the potential to dramatically shrink distances between major hubs, giving people an alternative to aviation for their mid-range transportation needs, and could allow people to live in more affordable neighborhoods without an unbelievably long commute.
There are people that live in northern France and commute to London and it takes them about an hour. Meanwhile getting from Buffalo to New York City takes a full day.
I agree with astrodust, and would like to point out to the GP that arranging the real estate necessary, plus getting all the zoning/easements/whatever (I'm not in property development), would easily be prohibitively expensive for a company trying to join any two major cities.
I am currently of the opinion that major logistical infrastructure can't feasibly be done by any non-governmental entity since such company can't force land acquisition and usage approval by their own fiat. A company could propose a project to legislators, but would have to invest significantly before that stage with no guarantee of return. If a company could feasibly be granted such power plenipotentiarily, it would be a huge bill of rights issue (that eminent domain is controversial is another discussion). Other than government, I don't see a feasible solution here.
I agree with astrodust, and would like to point out to the GP that arranging the real estate necessary, plus getting all the zoning/easements/whatever (I'm not in property development), would easily be prohibitively expensive for a company trying to join any two major cities.
Of course it would be easy. Private companies can easily take people's property - just point a gun at them. It worked well for the East India company.
If we can eliminate government, we can eliminate the people's protection racket. This will allow private companies to flourish, and the weak to be eliminated.
The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was effectively a government in its own right.
I find it amusing that you would cite that example as an argument FOR government, as I think it stands as a classic example of the worst of what government enables.
> The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was effectively a government in its own right.
Every company that exists as separate juridical entity (e.g., every corporation, for starters) does so with the explicit sanction of a government and is an exercise of government power.
The East India Company was a private company in exactly the same sense as any other "private" corporation.
The East India Company was a private company in exactly the same sense as any other "private" corporation.
That's just being pedantic. It was a "private company" yes, but a private company that was granted powers far beyond those given to pretty much any other private company. They were allowed to maintain their own private army and effectively rule large parts of India as though they were the government. That's a HUGE difference from the typical private company.
Not sure what you're getting at here.. are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands?
It seems like you didn't think your cunning plan all the way through, because you seem to be implying that you need more government regulation on what private corporations can do, correct?
Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army?
Do you think private armed militias, that are legal today in the US, be allowed to exist?
You're going to have to reconcile your position of "less government" with "leads to more private armies".
are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands?
Most likely. Of course it's all hypotheticals, but since we - for the most part - define government as that entity which has (mostly) a monopoly on the use of force, a private company would not generally be considered empowered to do that without the sanction of a government.
Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army?
Correct.
Do you think private armed militias, that are legal today in the US, be allowed to exist?
Of course they can exist. Now, of course, we're at the bottom of the stack, so to speak. What if one of these private militias "goes rogue" and commits unspeakable atrocities? Who's to stop that, right? And I guess your answer would be "the government"? I'd argue that the answer is "some other voluntarily assembled mutual defense entity, or no one". Anyway, all we've really shown here is that if you drill down deep enough, human conflict is inevitable and at some level we may never get away from "force vs force". But I argue against institutionalizing the idea of using force to compel people to do things, and keep the use of force reserved for self defense.
You're going to have to reconcile your position of "less government" with "leads to more private armies".
I'm not opposed to private armies in general. I'm opposed to private armies, operating with the sanction of the State, and essentially becoming one more arm of the government, and being used to violate people's rights. Or, you could even omit the "with the sanction of the State" bit, and the rest would still stand. The problem is, when we accept the presence and authority of something like a State, and then it endorses or sanctions "evil" (for lack of a better term) acts, it's that much harder to muster opposition to those acts, since they're nominally "legal".
>Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army?
>Correct.
This is why libertinism is often relegated to that of a sweet, innocent 12 year old idealists, because they do not know about the real world.
In the real world, what happens without government is that warlords form. This happens throughout history, such as colonial expansion into indian territory, or after the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc. And it's happening RIGHT NOW in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan.
You don't need a state to sanction violence for violence to happen. Violence will happen when there isn't a state to sanction it.
This is why the correct solution that adults agree on is a strong, centralized government with power. The whole point of a strong, centralized powerful government is to limit the rights and freedoms of individuals, so people AREN'T allowed to do what they want.
Because, when people are allowed to do what they want, they form violent armies. Government limits peoples rights and freedoms to do that.
To stop this, you need a) a strong, powerful government, and b) that government to say "no violence."
Government is the social contract you offer to other people. And only though a social contract can you prevent violence.
Are you implying that "warlords" are better than the US government?
Which system is better? A libertarian warlord system? Or the US government?
What exactly makes a warlord system more favorable than the US government?
If you want an example of a government, you don't need to bring up Stalin's Russia or Nazi Germany.. you have an example of government right here in the US!
Clearly you thought through your cunning "less government" libertarian plan, and have concluded that such a system, which results in warlords, would be better than the US government, right? Let's hear that rationale then.
It has not been demonstrated that a libertarian system necessarily results in warlords, so the entire premise of your argument is unsupported. How about you prove that assertion?
And please drop the silly "cunning plan" business, this is Hacker News, not reddit.
No, I'm stating (not implying) that the hazards of a too-strong central government (such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, or Germany under Hitler) are far worse than "warlords".
You're pretending that the only options are no central government at all, on the one hand, and an all-powerful central government on the other.
"Not sure what you're getting at here.. are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands?"
Can you give me a plausible scenario for how, without a government and its concomitant military power, a band of people from a small island in the Atlantic ocean could take over the entire Indian subcontinent?
Which other private companies have been given the authority to more or less declare war and occupy territory as they see fit? I guess you could argue Halliburton comes close, but the point is that most private companies aren't given those powers.
From the story: fifty years ago, the train from New York to Washington was much faster than it is now
50 years ago that railroad was private. Freight rail today in the USA is privately owned and doing really well.
I would fully support all interstate highways being private toll roads, but I don't think highways and rail travel are comparable any more than highways and air travel is. And airlines are privately owned (though heavily regulated).
Amtrak is a for-profit corporation too. But note who built those railroads: the government. I'm not sure trains in the US for passenger transport make sense, but either way they're going to need an initial infrastructure subsidy.
I read an argument about why Airplanes made more sense for the U.S (very large area, etc, etc). But somehow it could have been an opportunity to develop very high speed trains. Well now there's the hyperloop unicorn filling this daydream niche.
Yes, one could even argue evacuated tube trains with maglev are the most efficient for of transportation.
Believe it or not, this was known 5 years ago -- you can find it on old documentaries, where they talk about it with conviction this was the future of transportation. The problem is simply the early investment. The tech is here.
With our current pace of innovation, a pharaonic transportation project with recoup costs on the order of a century is hard to justify. The need to physically displace yourself is changing rapidly with the internet, and who knows what we'll need in 100 years!
It's been known for a lot longer than that. Larry Niven had them in his novel A World Out of Time (1976) and I think Heinlein had them in some of his novels from the 1960s.
High-speed trains have the potential to dramatically shrink distances between major hubs, giving people an alternative to aviation for their mid-range transportation needs, and could allow people to live in more affordable neighborhoods without an unbelievably long commute.
No question. Like I said, I'm pro-train. I just don't think that subsidizing trains is a proper role for government. If there is enough market demand to fund and support trains (or Interstate highways, or the Post Office, or whatever) then more power to them. If not, I don't believe in propping them up through taxpayer funded subsidies.
> Like I said, I'm pro-train. I just don't think that subsidizing trains is a proper role for government. If there is enough market demand to fund and support trains (or Interstate highways, or the Post Office, or whatever) then more power to them. If not, I don't believe in propping them up through taxpayer funded subsidies.
One idea behind taxpayer subsidies for these things is that they have external benefits (either directly, or in that they have less externalized costs than alternatives). With trains, particularly, the argument is that they have less externalized costs than other forms of transit.
(Of course, you could address this by imposing taxes on the more-externally-costly alternatives, but that's equivalent to subsidy to the alternative with less external costs, so it amounts to the same thing.)
I think the difference is -- the Interstate is heavily used, so it makes a good government subsidy (that is, you don't have a large number of people paying for a very small number of users). But passenger trains would end up being the opposite -- large number of people paying, and a small number benefiting.
Now you can have some routes (such as the Buffalo to NYC one that you mentioned), but again if it is paid for federally, then unless there are similar situations that the majority of the country could take advantage of, it doesn't make sense.
> The subsidy the government has given American businesses a huge competitive advantage
This is specious. It's the whole Bastiat "That which is seen and unseen" problem of economic manipulation. You don't know what would have happened if trillions in resources hadn't been diverted. I find it very easy to argue things would be better if Ike had never taken over the highway system and federally subsidized it. We've wasted massive amounts of public resources spreading thinly used infrastructure out all over the land and it's been largely enabled by the interstate system. Also consider the absurd highway fatility/injury rate in America and how much that costs.
The trucking industry (among many others) would be badly damaged if roads were not subsidized, and air travel would have similar issues if airports were not built and operated by local governments with the assistance of the FAA. However, trains are the only mode of transportation on this scale I've ever seen people suggest should be operated without subsidies. Can you explain why you believe train travel to be different?
The Great Northern was the only privately funded — and successfully built — transcontinental railroad in U.S. history. No federal land grants were used during its construction, unlike all other transcontinental railroads
And the Great Northern was quite successful throughout the booms and busts of the late 19th century, outlasted most of its 'competitors' that were propped up by the government, because they had a proven market.
> The trucking industry (among many others) would be badly damaged if roads were not subsidized, and air travel would have similar issues if airports were not built and operated by local governments with the assistance of the FAA.
Why would you assume a big problem? The funding just needs to be strictly derived from user fees. If truckers can't profitably transport goods when bearing the full cost of their activity, then what they were doing was an uneconomic waste of resources.
At the moment it's something like $2K USD per household that gets dumped into road infrastructure, from general tax revenue not user fees like the gas tax. This is ridiculous. Modern tech makes toll roads not a big problem anymore. Most roads should be separately incorporated toll roads. There shouldn't be a cent of general revenue public money going into the major roads.
Public funding for intercity passenger rail is equally ridiculous, at least in America. The financials simply don't work and almost any route you can name would inevitably be a boondoggle. Even the NE corridor is pretty dicey. Rail only works with greater urban density than currently exists in the USA. As it is there's no reason not to simply run buses rather than trains, or "light-rail".
Countries shouldn't exist if they aren't profitable.
Weak people should be eliminated. Government shouldn't be in the business of providing for their protection and safety. There is no inherent right to defense.
Countries shouldn't exist if they aren't profitable.
Well, personally I'd argue against the existence of "countries" as we know them today anyway. Voluntarily assembled, organized mutual defense entities, yes. But "nation states" with all these borders, and boundaries, and rules, and regulations, and controls? I say "give 'em the axe".
> Well, personally I'd argue against the existence of "countries" as we know them today anyway. Voluntarily assembled, organized mutual defense entities, yes.
Irony ? some things are better stable, even at loss. Private endeavors might fail and roads decline while some other company is trying to grab the pieces. This kind of waves are bad like hypertension, propagating damages around, businesses depending on roads are now endangered.
Government is just as unstable. Doesn't the OP say that trains were better funded in the past than now, and other posters have said the same about Federal interstates? The political climate changes so funding for projects change.
There are some interesting points to unpack here. First, Amtrak Northeast makes money, quite a lot in fact, but it is used to subsidize other regions that lose buckets of money. The economic impact of the popular lines is immense, its public money that has great ROI.
Do you also oppose highways? They are an (almost) entirely public endeavour, they aren't even funded solely by usage fees in the form of gas tax. In fact 42% of highway funding comes from general funds(like income tax). And, most of them are giant money pits.
This particular discussion was about trains in particular. I'm also opposed to government funding of roads, and well, pretty much everything. I think that valid government only exists as the collective extension of our innate right to self-defense, and do no support government involvement in anything else.
> I think that valid government only exists as the collective extension of our innate right to self-defense, and do no support government involvement in anything else.
I would note that this is expressly at odds with the model of government enshrined in the Constitution (and I mean, even the original text + bill of rights, not later amendments), which clearly envisions even the federal government as having a much larger role than as "the collective extension of our innate right to self-defense", at least as one would normally conceive that phrase.
And, I'd further note, that I can't see any government not empowered to take action to internalize external costs and benefits of economic transactions as being worthwhile, or in fact of such a minimal government as being anything but oppressive-in-effect. Of course, on the externalized cost side, one could view such costs as a form of violence (unconsented harm inflicted by others), and defending against them as part of the innate right of self-defense, and then the limitation on government you propose would still admit a government empowered to address economic externalities. At which point, defending government involvement in transit becomes a lot easier, even within the framework you set out.
I would note that this is expressly at odds with the model of government enshrined in the Constitution (and I mean, even the original text + bill of rights, not later amendments), which clearly envisions even the federal government as having a much larger role than as "the collective extension of our innate right to self-defense", at least as one would normally conceive that phrase.
Agreed. But I never said I thought the Constitution was a big deal, or the model for perfect government. As it happens, I have a LOT of issues with pretty much all aspects of our government as it exists today.
That said, I do wish they'd at least play by their own rules, as a federal government strictly bound by the Constitution would almost certainly be smaller and less corrupt than what we have now. But nobody really seems to give a shit about the Constitution these days.
Just because you want me to pay for your defense, doesn't mean I should. I don't particularly care if you live or die.
If you want me to pay for something for you, such as your defense, what are you going to offer me in return? Are you going to pay for my health care? Want to pay for a new plasma TV for me?
I'd be interested in hearing your rationale for that line of thinking. I believe there is, because I believe in self-ownership. I own my body, and I have the right to defend it (me) from harm.
Just because you want me to pay for your defense, doesn't mean I should. I don't particularly care if you live or die.
Where did I say anything about you paying for my defense? I'm a Voluntaryist[1], dude... I don't support any arrangements that aren't voluntary. When I say the State is "the collective extension to our innate right..." I mean to say that a group of people should voluntarily be able to create a State (or State-like entity) for mutual defense, if they want to. I don't propose anybody be forced to do so.
> I own my body, and I have the right to defend it (me) from harm.
That's not a "right". That's just an "action".
Rights are protected by a legal structure. There are no 'rights' without a higher-power legal structure to provide it.
Anyone can say they have any 'right' - defense, speech, a Plasma TV in the bathroom, etc.. doesn't mean you're given that 'right' without a higher power granting and enforcing that right.
Rights are protected by a legal structure. There are no 'rights' without a higher-power legal structure to provide it.
We are working with very different definitions of what a "right" is. A "right" in my book is "something you don't need anyone else's permission to do". So, defending myself, obviously is a right. Walking into your home, opening your refrigerator and taking a swig from the milk jug, is not a right I have.
Sounds like we basically come down on the different sides of the argument about "negative right" vs "positive rights". I don't believe in "positive rights", so the idea of "the right to a Plasma TV in the bathroom" is basically nonsense to me. All it means to me is, "of course you have the right to buy a Plasma TV and put it in your bathroom, if you want to and can afford it".
I don't need permission to install a plasma TV in my bathroom either. Does that mean it's a right? I don't get it.
And how do you resolve your 'don't need permission' with the fact that powers bigger than you can do what they wish with you. Do you have the right to defend yourself if government is trying to arrest you?
You basically redefined 'action' again. You don't need permission to do any action... you just do it.
I don't need permission to install a plasma TV in my bathroom either. Does that mean it's a right? I don't get it.
I can't tell if you're just trying to be provocative, or if you genuinely don't get the distinction here, but I'll err on the side of good faith. What I'm saying is that most of the time, when people talk about things like "the right to have a Plasma TV" what they are saying is that they are entitled to a Plasma TV and that someone else (can|must|should) be compelled to provide them said TV. That would be a "positive right" and I disagree that such rights exist. However, of course you have "the right to purchase a Plasma TV and install it in your bedroom". Because you don't need anyone's permission to do so.
Do you have the right to defend yourself if government is trying to arrest you?
Of course you do. The government may not recognize said right, and since they may employ more men with guns than you do, they may be able to compel you to go along with their dictates through force, but that doesn't mean it's right.
At the end of the day, there's probably no way to ever totally escape "might makes right" since a person (or persons) with sufficient power can over-power those who disagree with them. As far as I'm concerned though, that's a meaningless tautology. The issue that concerns me is to what extent we institutionalize the use of force, particularly in any offensive mode.
I cringe to bring up such a trivial example, but it would seem like it's this easy to expose how ludicrous this opinion is...in whose ambulance, on whose roads, and in whose building would you receive treatment for any kind of medical emergency?
I don't see how you think that question exposes anything. Unless you hold the unsubstantiated opinion that ambulances, road and buildings can't exist without being funded by the government.
And, even if they couldn't, my answer would only be to say that I don't hold that I'm entitled to a road, an ambulance, or a hospital.
Amtrak as a whole might be unprofitable, but Amtrak in the Northeast does okay. The problem is that the Senator from Utah, or Nevada or wherever wants Amtrak is in his or her state, so we have long, nonsensical lines that are expensive to maintain and have near-zero ridership.
You would think, but not really when you break down the numbers. They lose money there too once you properly factor in asset depreciation. They cannot compete with buses and airplanes anywhere in the country at all.
> I doubt very many Americans are "against trains", but very many of us are against the State subsidizing and propping up failing businesses that can't survive without public dollars. Some of us simply believe that subsidizing businesses is not a proper role for government.
Confusing then that the US spends so much on war.
EDIT: I'm not trying to make any political point. Parent post said that many Americans are agaisnt subsidizing industries. The military budget is an obvious counter to that point. Don't read anything else into this.
> Confusing then that the US spends so much on war.
I'm not sure if you bring that up because you think I'm in favor of that particular bit of spending, or what... but for the record, I'm opposed to almost everything we've done under the rubric of "war" (including the "War on Drugs", "War on Terror", "War on Poverty", etc.) since WWII.
Nothing about you personally. You said that Americans do not like subsidizing private industries. I pointed out one glaring couter-example that many, most(?), Americans seem happy enough to subsidize.
So, you think the US should have gone after Germany during WWII? And, not privately run militias?
I think that in a world where we have Nation-States like the US, Germany, etc., that those governments should at least "play by their own rules". That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a world without them. In the case of WWII, the point I'm making is that WWII was the last time there was an actual Congressional declaration of war, and perhaps the last time the US government was actually somewhat justified in invoking it's military - at least relative to more recent overseas military actions.
As for private militias... yeah, if a bunch of guys in the US in 1941 had said "Hey, we're going to organize and go help the French and Brits against Germany", I would have had no problem with that.
Probably because some people are in favor of subsidizing certain businesses and others are in favor of subsidizing others, while some are not in favor of subsidizing any.
These were published a few months after his premature death in 2010. Judt was a prominent American/European historian and intellectual who wrote a series of serious, elegant, and spirited essays for the NY Review, all of which can be recommended.
What plot? The US transports more by rail percentage wise than Europe and the percent of people using trains while significant still isn't a percentage for anyone to point "see over there".
Now public transportation, ie mass transit, is a financial mess whereby the riders don't have to pay the full cost as its been acknowledged they would use the service if they did; oddly some studies have found the percentage increase if fares were removed didn't increase significantly.
Dollars spent on mass transit have increased from 1.6b in 1970 to over 20 billion today. The twenty plus billion of subsidies doesn't include nearly ten billion to maintain it or almost eight billion for improvments.
The problem is light rail is super expensive, you could get more bang for your buck with dedicated bus lanes and double decker buses. Consider cities like Portland were expansion of the light rail is costing nearly a hundred million a mile.
The only plot against trains for mass transport is there exceptional cost to build and maintain versus ridership which even subsidized doesn't pay for it
As for the article, attempting to capitalize on a tragedy and then completely ignoring already know facts is not journalism and its tasteless and unprofessional
"American railroads accounted for just 17.2 billion passenger-kilometres in 2010, according to Amtrak, America's government-backed passenger rail corporation. In the European Union, railways accounted for nearly 400 billion ..."
As it is, Amtrak’s current fare on this route is about 15 cents per passenger mile and apparently it cannot go much higher if it wishes to remain competitive with air. Yet why in the world should bus drivers in Minneapolis pay Federal taxes in order to provide what amounts to a $600 subsidy per ticket on the 180,000 tickets that are sold annually on the Chicago-Los Angeles route? And the latter is only typical of most of the other routes outside the northeast corridor.
Obviously, there is no means test to get a $600 subsidy from Amtrak, or any other plausible criterion of public need. Like so much else which emanates from Washington, these Amtrak subsidies are distributed willy-nilly——in this case to retirees with enough time and money to see the country at leisure or to people with fear of flying who don’t wish to drive.
Proof: Look to the projects that are already approved, like, say, the California train. Look at why they're running over budget and past schedule. It's not because libertarians are running around, yelling and scaring the poor, hard-working train workers, who then have to take unexpected hazard pay. It isn't for lack of money, which gets generously ladled over many of these projects.
When I vote against these sorts of sweeping projects, I'm not really doing it as a libertarian, I'm just doing it as a pragmatist. If the voting public is reluctant to fund more of these things, they're quite possibly just being rational. Michigan, for instance, just voted down a big bill to raise taxes and fix up the roads, and believe me, Michiganders are almost uniformly of the opinion we need to do more for our roads... but we voted it down quite hard because really all it seemed to do was throw money at the problem, and not even all that competently. The sheer governmental incompetence at public works projects has reached a point where even Michigan, a state that is at least Blue-ish, is hardcore voting these things down because we simply do not think the projects are being done well.
Fix that, and I'll vote you money. Even me.