 |
Re: Why don't Americans ride trains? - An oldie but goodie
Author: David Smith
Date: 01-10-2015 - 16:28
Edward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aside from the name calling, what in particular do
> you disagree with?
Not sure where you see any "name calling", but we'll ignore that for now.
Probably the biggest laugh comes from use of the term "externalities" as a rationale for trying to guilt-trip Americans into abandoning their private vehicles for mass transit. This is one of those straw man arguments used by leftists to justify using punitive taxation/regulation against individualism. Even if one grants legitimacy to the concept, it is absurd to assign a quantitative cost to something that is so subjective and indefinable. Aside from capture basins like LA, the function of nature tends to absorb these externalities, eliminating any social costs one might try to associate with it.
On the larger argument, most here probably get it. Passenger rail in it's current configuration just isn't useful for 99% of the American population, and no one in the government has any grass-roots ideas for making it more useful.
Don't mistake me for being "anti-Passenger rail" - I am just against having government agencies run things that are best left to the private sector.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aside from the name calling, what in particular do
> you disagree with?
Not sure where you see any "name calling", but we'll ignore that for now.
Probably the biggest laugh comes from use of the term "externalities" as a rationale for trying to guilt-trip Americans into abandoning their private vehicles for mass transit. This is one of those straw man arguments used by leftists to justify using punitive taxation/regulation against individualism. Even if one grants legitimacy to the concept, it is absurd to assign a quantitative cost to something that is so subjective and indefinable. Aside from capture basins like LA, the function of nature tends to absorb these externalities, eliminating any social costs one might try to associate with it.
On the larger argument, most here probably get it. Passenger rail in it's current configuration just isn't useful for 99% of the American population, and no one in the government has any grass-roots ideas for making it more useful.
Don't mistake me for being "anti-Passenger rail" - I am just against having government agencies run things that are best left to the private sector.
