• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida scraps high-speed rail plan pushed by Obama

phattonez said:
Still going on with this nonsense even though I already disproved it when I explained about the railroads that were built by private enterprise?
Click to expand...

What is the specific example?
 
SheWolf said:
What is the specific example?
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the Transcontinental Railroad? What about the whole railroad system built before the Civil War?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Except for minorities, women, homosexuals.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that before the turn of that century that everything was better, but in terms of economic policies, but 1800s were.
 
Guy Incognito said:
It's only outlived it's usefulness to you, buddy. It makes my point quite clearly. Corporatist corruption is running our economy into the ground, and some of its grotesque manifestations can be seen in its manipulation of government to favor obsolete technology like gas. As a result truly efficient technology like solar, wind and high speed rail fall by the wayside. Once again, this is not the result of a free market, or a semi-free market, but a totally corrupt market. That's the fire.

Now, it is a compromise on libertarian principles to use tax money for a high speed rail system, but minarchy itself is a compromise. If you are not willing to compromise on the noncoercion principle then you are an anarcho-capitalist, not a minarchist. If you are are minarchist, then you are necessarily a compromiser. Now that that's out of the way, we can see that rationally, a 10 billion or so investment in high speed rail is nothing compared to the trillions that corporatists thugs loot every year from us. If we can fight back using the fire of government to get high speed rail, it is a net gain for liberty.
Click to expand...

I'm not willing to compromise because by compromising I gain nothing. The fact is that such a project cannot be run well without a profit motive. Even if the free market would have built it long ago, it doesn't matter, because it will not be run well. There will be padded projects, budgetary excesses, and in the future a lack of maintenance. I just cannot support such a project because the government has proven time and time again that you cannot run something well unless you have profit in mind.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Right, but that isn't your choice. This is a binary decision. Either support corporatist corruption by denying high-speed rail, or oppose it.
Click to expand...

That's a false dilemma. It's like you're saying I have to agree with the government, or that in effect I am agreeing with the government. I choose neither of those options. I choose to support a free transportation industry and nothing that hurts progress toward that end.
 
apdst said:
Your job wasn't created by the government. It was created by the private sector's demand.
Click to expand...

Well not really, but that's a separate discussion.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Government coercion is of the same moral weight as corporate coercion. Like I said, slightly more government coercion will mean significant reduction in corporate coercion. Net gain for liberty.
Click to expand...

Corporate coercion, as we have seen it, still is government coercion. This is no net gain for liberty because even if it is a good idea it will be a waste of resources because it will be run into the ground like all government projects.
 
SheWolf said:
I pretty much support the rail system. I used to live in Germany, and high speed rails are nice. I really miss getting my work done on my way to work, or relaxing and taking a nap on the way... It seems a lot easier to get things done when you have a rail. You can pay bills and be on the way to work or a friends. :)

A high speed rail system isn't big government IMO, and the rails in Germany are really nice and efficient. I am sure the government makes some money off them by charging fare too..

Every time the price of fuel increases I groan and want that rail system...
Click to expand...

If it's such a good idea then the private sector would built it provided that government stops subsidizing the competition.
 
phattonez said:
Still going on with this nonsense even though I already disproved it when I explained about the railroads that were built by private enterprise?
Click to expand...

I already told you why it won't work today. The old robber barrens have been disbanded, there are no more monopolies by which one can build the necessary resources and control of market to allow private industry to go about it. It's not the 19th century anymore, you would do well to remember that.
 
Ikari said:
I already told you why it won't work today. The old robber barrens have been disbanded, there are no more monopolies by which one can build the necessary resources and control of market to allow private industry to go about it. It's not the 19th century anymore, you would do well to remember that.
Click to expand...

That's hilarious. The amount of capital that so-called "robber barons" had in yesteryear doesn't compare to what we can gather today. I've already shown you that we regularly buy bonds that won't mature for 30 years sometimes (actually there was more confidence in these long-term bonds in the 19th century because there was significantly less inflation). Gathering enough capital to build such a project would be an endeavor, but by no means would it be impossible.

I'm just waiting for you to have a serious argument to the contrary.
 
phattonez said:
Ever heard of the Transcontinental Railroad? What about the whole railroad system built before the Civil War?
Click to expand...

I don't think the Transcontinental RR is an example that supports your cause. A Congressional Act founded the two companies to construct the railroad, funded by government bonds (thus risk-free for investors) and free land.

And in reference to the other railroads, nearly every time a pre-Civil War railroad was built, it essentially created a monopoly on fast travel to or between locations with the added bonuses of year-round operation and greater safety. Even this was not enough sometimes.

The first real exertion of substantial federal power under the interstate commerce clause came with the advent of the railroads in the mid-1800's. The government assumed complete dominion over the early railroads, going so far as to grant regional railroad monopolies through Acts of Congress, as well as owning a large percentage of stock in various early railroad corporations.
Click to expand...

Original Intent Treatise - Issues of Federal Jurisdiction

We have since grown to the point that there is nowhere you could build a HSR line and have demand be price inelastic. The incentive to construct railroads in the 19th century far exceeds that of today for this reason.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
Corporate coercion, as we have seen it, still is government coercion.
Click to expand...

And corporate coercion, as we have seen it, far outstrips government coercion.

phattonez said:
This is no net gain for liberty because even if it is a good idea it will be a waste of resources because it will be run into the ground like all government projects.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. This sort of mindless distrust for government is not helpful. Japan is a model that shows high speed rail can be run effectively by government. If this is your best argument, sir, you have failed miserably. I happily accept your de facto concession.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
That's hilarious. The amount of capital that so-called "robber barons" had in yesteryear doesn't compare to what we can gather today.
Click to expand...

"So-called" robber barons? Now that's hilarious.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Government coercion is of the same moral weight as corporate coercion. Like I said, slightly more government coercion will mean significant reduction in corporate coercion. Net gain for liberty.
Click to expand...

Who's going to protect us when there is too much government coercion? Net loss for liberty.
 
apdst said:
Who's going to protect us when there is too much government coercion? Net loss for liberty.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to tell me that corporations protect us from government coercion? Net fail for your argument.
 
TitusAndronicus said:
I don't think the Transcontinental RR is an example that supports your cause. A Congressional Act founded the two companies to construct the railroad, funded by government bonds (thus risk-free for investors) and free land.
Click to expand...

I'll concede that it was a bad example, but there were plenty of other examples I provided.

And in reference to the other railroads, nearly every time a pre-Civil War railroad was built, it essentially created a monopoly on fast travel to or between locations with the added bonuses of year-round operation and greater safety. Even this was not enough sometimes.
Click to expand...

What do you mean this was not enough? A very large system was built entirely from private enterprise. Competition today would be multiple times greater what it was back then.

Original Intent Treatise - Issues of Federal Jurisdiction

We have since grown to the point that there is nowhere you could build a HSR line and have demand be price inelastic. The incentive to construct railroads in the 19th century far exceeds that of today for this reason.
Click to expand...

Because of government subsidizing the competition!
 
Guy Incognito said:
"So-called" robber barons? Now that's hilarious.
Click to expand...

Few and far between, except of course for those who were granted small monopolies from the government.
 
phattonez said:
Few and far between, except of course for those who were granted small monopolies from the government.
Click to expand...

All elite are, by definition, "few and far between." Try again.
 
Guy Incognito said:
And corporate coercion, as we have seen it, far outstrips government coercion.
Click to expand...

It's the same thing.

Nonsense. This sort of mindless distrust for government is not helpful. Japan is a model that shows high speed rail can be run effectively by government. If this is your best argument, sir, you have failed miserably. I happily accept your de facto concession.
Click to expand...

And the rest of their economy is in the tank, so what? The point is that economic calculation cannot be done when you take price and profit out of the equation, which is what any system run by government does. For instance, you say Japan is a model of success, but maybe they should have more roads as they would be more profitable. But you can't prove it either way because there is government control. We should not support more government control because it is what the market would do anyway. We should always strive toward less government as it will always be the more ideal situation. Anything in the opposite direction hurts our ultimate goals.
 
Guy Incognito said:
All elite are, by definition, "few and far between." Try again.
Click to expand...

No, a robber baron is a completely subjective term. You tell me how companies can monopolize anything without government aid and why I should support government breaking up these monopolies if they exist.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Are you trying to tell me that corporations protect us from government coercion? Net fail for your argument.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. That's my point: "Who's going to protect us from the government?".
 
phattonez said:
What do you mean this was not enough? A very large system was built entirely from private enterprise. Competition today would be multiple times greater what it was back then.
Click to expand...

To clarify, by "Even that was not enough sometimes." (I should have used a colon at the end) I meant to point to the quote indicating that often the railroads prospered (not that a many of them didn't find ways to go broke) as a result of state and federal sponsored monopolies.

phattonez said:
Because of government subsidizing the competition!
Click to expand...

I agree. Where you and I differ is that I don't have a problem with subsidizing HSR construction in addition to (or better yet, in place of), existing transportation alternatives. Given complete control I would phase in gas tax increases, change it to a VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) tax, toll the interstates, and build HSR between high volume air markets. HSR would be run by a government owned railway company, provided it could make an operating profit. If not it would be sold to a private company. I don't think the ideal transportation subsidization situation is what we have today or pure profit driven private ownership of transportation links. It's somewhere in between. That's where I would like for us to move.
 
Last edited:
TitusAndronicus said:
To clarify, by "Even that was not enough sometimes." (I should have used a colon at the end) I meant to point to the quote indicating that often the railroads prospered (not that a many of them didn't find ways to go broke) as a result of state and federal sponsored monopolies.



I agree. Where you and I differ is that I don't have a problem with subsidizing HSR construction in addition to (or better yet, in place of), existing transportation alternatives. Given complete control I would phase in gas tax increases, change it to a VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) tax, toll the interstates, and build HSR between high volume air markets. HSR would be run by a government owned railway company, provided it could make an operating profit. If not it would be sold to a private company. I don't think the ideal transportation subsidization situation is what we have today or pure profit driven private ownership of transportation links. It's somewhere in between. That's where I would like for us to move.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with "pure profit driven private ownership of transportation links"?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Are you trying to tell me that corporations protect us from government coercion? Net fail for your argument.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that govt coercion means liberty? :doh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom