• 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!

Should the government be in charge of public transportation?

Was government takeover of transit a good idea?

  • Total voters
    30
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Jeepneys worked quite well in Subic Bay.

Why couldn't they work in Singapore?
Click to expand...

Jeepneys are for 3rd world countries. Comparing Subic Bay or Clark with Singapore is like comparing Boston with Afghanistan.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, they're not.

People have to get to work, they either move their own bodies or pay someone to move them.

But clearly the people that founded the United States figured that it wasn't the government's job to move people around.

You'll note they didn't create any government subsidized passenger runs from Baltimore to Liverpool in the 1790's. If some girl wanted to go see where the Beatles would be playing 170 years in the future, she had to buy her own ticket to ride.

(ahem)

So, the United States was founded in part on the assumption that people who wanted to travel could do so at their own expense....or STAY HOME.

That's a good idea, we should have stuck with it.
Click to expand...

In 1700's America, there wasn't often much reason to travel much. Most people worked at home or damned close. Most business was conducted in your own city if you were urban. If you were rural, you didn't travel further than the closest town very often. And when you showed up somewhere was much less important. You didn't have suburbs, you didn't have heavy freeway congestion, you didn't have a culture that is reliant on the automobile like we are now. In their day you could get anywhere you needed to go on foot. Such is not the case today. Now days the economy is much more interconnected and we have a system that reflects that.

Besides, limiting our policy to exactly to what the founding fathers would have passed is disingenuous. Time changes and the world changes with it. What changes do you think should be made to account for our vastly different economy and social structure?
 
the makeout hobo said:
In 1700's America, there wasn't often much reason to travel much. Most people worked at home or damned close. Most business was conducted in your own city if you were urban. If you were rural, you didn't travel further than the closest town very often. And when you showed up somewhere was much less important. You didn't have suburbs, you didn't have heavy freeway congestion, you didn't have a culture that is reliant on the automobile like we are now. In their day you could get anywhere you needed to go on foot. Such is not the case today. Now days the economy is much more interconnected and we have a system that reflects that.

Besides, limiting our policy to exactly to what the founding fathers would have passed is disingenuous. Time changes and the world changes with it. What changes do you think should be made to account for our vastly different economy and social structure?
Click to expand...

Amazing, yet, what you've failed to do is explain why the government has to run a transit system, and where the Constitution authorizes Amtrak, to name one.

For some reason, privately own transit was sufficient until the goonions showed up.

Post-goonion, no bus company could make a profit.

Goonionized destruction of private industry is not a reason for the government to take over goonionized industries. People ride government owned buses only because those are the only buses in town. What fools are going to buy Government Motors cars?
 
the makeout hobo said:
In 1700's America, there wasn't often much reason to travel much. Most people worked at home or damned close. Most business was conducted in your own city if you were urban. If you were rural, you didn't travel further than the closest town very often. And when you showed up somewhere was much less important. You didn't have suburbs, you didn't have heavy freeway congestion, you didn't have a culture that is reliant on the automobile like we are now. In their day you could get anywhere you needed to go on foot. Such is not the case today. Now days the economy is much more interconnected and we have a system that reflects that.

Besides, limiting our policy to exactly to what the founding fathers would have passed is disingenuous. Time changes and the world changes with it. What changes do you think should be made to account for our vastly different economy and social structure?
Click to expand...

Did you ever stop to think that maybe our cities are the way they are today because of that government intervention? Who build the roads? Who subsidizes suburban living?
 
How about other? There could be areas in which public transit would need to operate at a loss in order to operate (weird i know). There are multiple reasons for such instances: large spread out city, infrastructure debt, lower fuel cost (makes driving cheaper), dry counties, etc....

However, i believe private/public transportation could flourish in the majority of US cities. It should be noted that when you leave out the various subways, train systems, and taxis, public transportation, in the US, income is a heavy determinant in ones demand.
 
But the cities are spread out because of government planning, not because of some market force. We need a government solution because of a government created problem? I don't like it.
 
phattonez said:
But the cities are spread out because of government planning, not because of some market force. We need a government solution because of a government created problem? I don't like it.
Click to expand...

I am not saying a solution per say. I was thinking free public transportation for those living in poverty. You cannot expect someone to get a job if they cannot get to that job in the first place.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I am not saying a solution per say. I was thinking free public transportation for those living in poverty. You cannot expect someone to get a job if they cannot get to that job in the first place.
Click to expand...

If they're that poor then they should probably move closer to the job so that they don't have to pay so much. That's what you would get with a free market mechanism. Only the richest could live far away from the city because it's an expensive way of life.
 
It is not nearly as simple as "getting a job close to home". Or are you saying all poor people should live by their work, grocery store, etc...? Well doesn't that sound just swell:lol:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
It is not nearly as simple as "getting a job close to home". Or are you saying all poor people should live by their work, grocery store, etc...? Well doesn't that sound just swell:lol:
Click to expand...

I'm saying that we should live within our means, and that currently city planning and government monopolies does not allow that to happen.
 
phattonez said:
I'm saying that we should live within our means, and that currently city planning and government monopolies does not allow that to happen.
Click to expand...

People not living within their means has almost NOTHING to do with government monopolies etc.... You cannot blame government for everything man. I do agree that people should! But what they should do and what they actually do are not always equal.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
People not living within their means has almost NOTHING to do with government monopolies etc.... You cannot blame government for everything man. I do agree that people should! But what they should do and what they actually do are not always equal.
Click to expand...

In this case, yeah, it is the government. It was actually through urban planning that I gained my political beliefs. Government intervention leads to negative results via:

Zoning Laws
Subsidized roadways
Subsidized railways
Minimum parking requirements
Below market-rate on-street parking
Tax credits for home ownership
Affordable housing requirements

In this case more than any other government intervention is the culprit in our poor city form.
 
phattonez said:
But the cities are spread out because of government planning, not because of some market force. We need a government solution because of a government created problem? I don't like it.
Click to expand...

cities are spreadout because transportation technology makes it possible.

New York is densely populated because it developed when muscle powered transport. Los Angeles is spread out because it didn't begin growing until the advent of the automobile.

If someone were to plan a city for five million people starting from scratch using today's technology, it wouldn't look like any city on the planet, because cities evolve with technology but also try to keep their roots.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
cities are spreadout because transportation technology makes it possible.

New York is densely populated because it developed when muscle powered transport. Los Angeles is spread out because it didn't begin growing until the advent of the automobile.
Click to expand...

LA was already pretty big before the start of the growth of roads over here. LA already was hosting the 1932 Olympics. LA actually had the largest interurban rail system in the world before it was torn up because of government building the freeway system. Was LA still spread out back then? Yeah, but it would have been much more polycentric rather than the sprawl development of which LA typifies so well.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Amazing, yet, what you've failed to do is explain why the government has to run a transit system, and where the Constitution authorizes Amtrak, to name one.

For some reason, privately own transit was sufficient until the goonions showed up.

Post-goonion, no bus company could make a profit.

Goonionized destruction of private industry is not a reason for the government to take over goonionized industries. People ride government owned buses only because those are the only buses in town. What fools are going to buy Government Motors cars?
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't endorse any policy, except slavery, which was amended out. It's a very rough blueprint, not a document that goes into policy nitty gritty. Though one could argue that amtrak, which crosses state lines and is important for commerce, can be justified somewhere in the constitution... Now where could that be...

And you're welcome to buy a few buses and start your own bus line. No one is stopping you, if you think you can do it better.

Another reason for government
 
the makeout hobo said:
The Constitution doesn't endorse any policy, except slavery, which was amended out. It's a very rough blueprint, not a document that goes into policy nitty gritty. Though one could argue that amtrak, which crosses state lines and is important for commerce, can be justified somewhere in the constitution... Now where could that be...
Click to expand...

You're basically arguing that the LAW OF THE LAND is meaningless. Yeah, I'm not buying it.

And you're welcome to buy a few buses and start your own bus line. No one is stopping you, if you think you can do it better.
Click to expand...

Except that you can't offer prices that are lower than the government. It's what some would like to call "unfair competition," except when I use that phrase, I have a concrete definition.
 
phattonez said:
You're basically arguing that the LAW OF THE LAND is meaningless. Yeah, I'm not buying it.
Click to expand...
Please explain how I'm arguing that, since that was not my intent.

Except that you can't offer prices that are lower than the government. It's what some would like to call "unfair competition," except when I use that phrase, I have a concrete definition.
Click to expand...

Is there a law saying you can't run a bus system for cheaper than the government's?
 
the makeout hobo said:
Please explain how I'm arguing that, since that was not my intent.
Click to expand...

What does enumerated powers mean to you?

Is there a law saying you can't run a bus system for cheaper than the government's?
Click to expand...

It's called economics. Municipal bus systems are subsidized to the extent that there's no way that a private company can offer cheaper service.
 
phattonez said:
What does enumerated powers mean to you?
Click to expand...
The ability to pass laws regarding interstate commerce was en enumerated power. Amtrak definately effects interstate commerce.

It's called economics. Municipal bus systems are subsidized to the extent that there's no way that a private company can offer cheaper service.
Click to expand...

So then the government offers a service at a lower price that people use and that benefits the economy... whats the problem here?
 
the makeout hobo said:
The ability to pass laws regarding interstate commerce was en enumerated power. Amtrak definately effects interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

Is general welfare an enumerated power?

So then the government offers a service at a lower price that people use and that benefits the economy... whats the problem here?
Click to expand...

It's subsidized, it's a waste of resources, and what we get is a product that could be offered better by the private sector. The government won't go for automated trains because of unions. Stations would probably be nicer. NYC train stations haven't been renovated since they were opened.

So we get a waste of resources, and a product that's not as good. Great tradeoff!
 
phattonez said:
It's subsidized, it's a waste of resources, and what we get is a product that could be offered better by the private sector. The government won't go for automated trains because of unions. Stations would probably be nicer. NYC train stations haven't been renovated since they were opened.

So we get a waste of resources, and a product that's not as good. Great tradeoff!
Click to expand...

Back to micro principles: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss"]deadweight loss[/ame]
 
phattonez said:
Is general welfare an enumerated power?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. I'm talking about interstate commerce.

It's subsidized, it's a waste of resources, and what we get is a product that could be offered better by the private sector. The government won't go for automated trains because of unions. Stations would probably be nicer. NYC train stations haven't been renovated since they were opened.

So we get a waste of resources, and a product that's not as good. Great tradeoff!
Click to expand...

So the public bus system is cheaper in the end, which I'm sure consumers prefer over cleaner stations, but if you think people would prefer a cleaner station you can always try to have that be your marketing point.
 
Quick question; how competitive would this market be if left only in private hands?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Quick question; how competitive would this market be if left only in private hands?
Click to expand...

Under the current framework of roads that are paid by via a gas tax and not tolls, not very competitive outside of very dense areas (like Manhattan).
 
the makeout hobo said:
Irrelevant. I'm talking about interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

I just want to know how far you're willing to interpret things in the constitution.

So the public bus system is cheaper in the end, which I'm sure consumers prefer over cleaner stations, but if you think people would prefer a cleaner station you can always try to have that be your marketing point.
Click to expand...

Consumers would choose in a free market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom