• 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

What's wrong with "pure profit driven private ownership of transportation links"?

There are some things the government can simply do better than private industry. Like eminent domain. And there are down sides to competition. What if a giant corporation that owns the freeways in Southern California also operates the port of Los Angeles. Might the access roads to the port of San Diego begin to crumble before anything else? Or maybe a few key ramps will be eliminated to "save money." I'm in favor of government ownership for these types of reasons.
 
Are you telling me that govt coercion means liberty? :doh

When government coercion is used to combat corporate coercion, leading to a net gain for liberty, then yes. It's pretty simple really. Did it go over your head?
 
When government coercion is used to combat corporate coercion, leading to a net gain for liberty, then yes. It's pretty simple really. Did it go over your head?

Coercion is the opposite of liberty, so American has a point. Coercion to combat coercion is still coercion. If your moral code is anti-coercion, then you have a problem.
 
There are some things the government can simply do better than private industry. Like eminent domain.

There are ways around eminent domain, such as paying people what they want or going around a property that is demanding too much, or going above or below said property.

And there are down sides to competition. What if a giant corporation that owns the freeways in Southern California also operates the port of Los Angeles. Might the access roads to the port of San Diego begin to crumble before anything else? Or maybe a few key ramps will be eliminated to "save money." I'm in favor of government ownership for these types of reasons.

Probably not, because if that started happening then another road would be built to bypass that or the San Diego port would have rules stipulated in a contract with that road company demanding well-maintained roads.
 
Coercion is the opposite of liberty, so American has a point. Coercion to combat coercion is still coercion. If your moral code is anti-coercion, then you have a problem.

How then do you reconcile the government coercion (conscription) used to obtain our liberty in the first place?
 
How then do you reconcile the government coercion (conscription) used to obtain our liberty in the first place?

Are you talking about conscrption during the Rev War?
 
How then do you reconcile the government coercion (conscription) used to obtain our liberty in the first place?

I guess that would make the state an immoral institution, eh? ;)
 
I guess that would make the state an immoral institution, eh? ;)


You tell me? You are the one in a moral quandry over government coercion.
 
That's what happens when you get your history from an online dictionary vice a history book. There was no national conscription in the United States until the Civil War.

Actually in many of the early colonies, the local militias required men of the right age and fitness to join. This practice continued after the US became a nation. It just didn't happen at a national level for a while.
 
Last edited:
Actually in many of the early colonies, the local militias required men of the right age and fitness to join. This practice continued after the US became a nation. It just didn't happen at a national level for a while.

Yeah, during the Civil War, when the first national conscription took place. The Conscription Act of 1792, allowed for states to organize militias, to be under command of the president.
 
Yeah, during the Civil War, when the first national conscription took place. The Conscription Act of 1792, allowed for states to organize militias, to be under command of the president.

:shrug:

I see no fundamental difference between someone forcing me to join a militia or a different military outfit. Conscription is still conscription.
 
That's what happens when you get your history from an online dictionary vice a history book. There was no national conscription in the United States until the Civil War.

I did not say national conscription, I said government conscription.



"The only U.S. war fought without conscripts before the Civil War was
the Mexican War. American governments, state or national, drafted
men not only to fight the Revolution and the War of 1812, but also to
wage Indian wars and to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. Because
they employed decentralized militia drafts, however, this fact has of*
ten escaped notice. Military experts privy to the compulsory nature
of the militia and the implications of such arcane phrases as “calling
forth the militia” have failed to communicate their knowledge to out*
siders. Indeed, the militia’s coercive elements lasted until they were
discontinued during the Jacksonian era."
Powered by Google Docs
 
:shrug:

I see no fundamental difference between someone forcing me to join a militia or a different military outfit. Conscription is still conscription.

Then, obviously you don't understand the difference between the two.
 
Then, obviously you don't understand the difference between the two.

Why don't you explain the difference to us between government conscription to serve the nation and national conscription?
 
Why don't you explain the difference to us between government conscription to serve the nation and national conscription?

During that time period, serving in the militia wasn't much different than jury duty is, today. Very few of the state militias during the Rev War even saw action.
 
During that time period, serving in the militia wasn't much different than jury duty is, today. Very few of the state militias during the Rev War even saw action.

You got a percentage or are you just blowing smoke?
 
There are ways around eminent domain, such as paying people what they want or going around a property that is demanding too much, or going above or below said property.

Who says that people will sell at reasonable prices? What if someone's property has sentimental value and won't sell for less than 5x its value? What if a person simply wants the project dead? The proposed line between San Francisco and San Jose is 99% on government land, but occasionally it will need to take a few feet of backyard or straighten a curve. Without eminent domain, one person could force the route to attempt to purchase land from dozens of people on the oppose side of the corridor. If two people on opposite sides oppose this, the project is dead, as the required curves are so large it would decimate whatever neighborhood it passes through while circumventing the troublesome properties. I'm not willing to give veto power over a project like this to every Dick and Jane along the route. It would have as disastrous an effect as giving veto power to every representative in congress.

Air rights would still require consent. Subterranean easements would be easier to obtain, but for one above-ground hold out, it would require subterranean construction for great distances in either direction (more if a creek or river is nearby). And earth movement is ridiculously expensive. For one 1.8 mile alignment of the SF-SJ route, a 20' aerial viaduct would cost $265M. A tunnel would cost $894M.

What sane businessman would want to get involved in this? The businessman should find an easier field to make money in.

Probably not, because if that started happening then another road would be built to bypass that or the San Diego port would have rules stipulated in a contract with that road company demanding well-maintained roads.

Another road gets built? At what cost to the San Diego port? And you think the government is inefficient? Two roads for the demand of one?

Why does the port get to have a contract with the road operator? Does everyone get a contract?

My point is that transportation, like defense, is so important to the continued success of this nation, that it mustn't be allowed to fall into hostile/disinterested hands, lest we see how damaging the transportation equivalent of an Enron/WorldCom scam is. If that means a little inefficiency here and there I'm okay with it. I view it as the cost of stability.
 
During that time period, serving in the militia wasn't much different than jury duty is, today. Very few of the state militias during the Rev War even saw action.


Is jury duty voluntary or mandatory?
 
Ever heard of the Transcontinental Railroad? What about the whole railroad system built before the Civil War?

Yes, I have heard of it... just not sure how you can say the government was not involved in constructing it
 
Last edited:
Who's going to protect us when there is too much government coercion? Net loss for liberty.

This is a funny question...

You're only concerned about too much government coercion, but not government coercion in general... The same person will protect you in both cases, you. The government won't and corporations won't either...
 
Coercion is the opposite of liberty, so American has a point. Coercion to combat coercion is still coercion. If your moral code is anti-coercion, then you have a problem.

so are you an anarchist?
 
Back
Top Bottom