[ExI] vaccines again
john at ziaspace.com
Wed Jan 4 22:29:57 UTC 2023
>> ...and simply imagine that capitalism == good, government == bad...
> Capitalism and government can both be good. Government should not compete
> against capital. It isn't authorized to do that.
Government isn't authorized to do that by whom? Who authorizes government?
I'd counter by saying that capitalism isn't authorized to destroy my
planet and poison my air and water. But nobody cares about authorization.
They care about consequences, and so far capitalism hasn't faced any real
consequences for their destruction of my planet.
>> ...and therefore high speed rail is bad because capitalism in the US
> couldn't make it work?
>> ...(that's a yes or no question)...
> John your question fails to deal with nuance, which makes it naïve and
> oversimplified, for it isn't a yes or no question. The answer is that high
> speed rail is neither good nor bad. In this case it isn't needed. There
> are existing sufficient means in place to make that run. This doesn't make
> high speed rail either good or bad.
Do you wish us to pretend that high speed rail is bad because capitalism
in the US couldn't make it work? (you answered a different question)
Before you said what you said without acknowledging nuance, and now you
want to? I don't get your intent.
> People with capital make things happen. Government is here to support them,
> not compete against them.
Yes, we know you value business more than you value people. Good for you,
but that's not how the rest of us feel. You're trying to make a point by
suggesting that your opinion should be how the world works.
>> ...You completely dismiss yourself here: The only level of understanding of
> capitalism that matters is: "people with capital to invest"? That doesn't
> even make sense...
> It does to me. People with capital are those who understand business. They
> collectively chose to not invest in high speed rail, because they
> collectively felt it wouldn't pay. I think they were right.
It doesn't make sense grammatically. "people with capital to invest" isn't
a level of understanding.
> I do. Both SF and Los Angeles are huge homeless areas. It is easily
> foreseen some would get aboard with a backpack full of food, then kite back
> and forth until that food was exhausted. Everyone must be somewhere.
So they're going to pay $100 for a ticket to get on and stay on a train,
and then they're going to magically stay on, and there are no methods for
getting them off. Are they protected by squatting laws or something like
> BART doesn't work that way. High speed rail might use a ticket check
Might? You're really, really stretching to try to make your point. You
REALLY want to suggest that there's a possibility they MIGHT NOT use
>> ...Right, but the people want it...
> OK so start a company, sell the stock, raise 100 billion dollars, build it.
> OK. I assert that billionaire's spending their money on these kinds of
> projects is a good thing. But billionaires didn't. They are crazy rich for
> a reason: they see what is likely to make money and what isn't. I struggle
> to see how high speed rail can compete. That looks like a huge money loser
> to me, and the vote to approve it was a bait and switch. Notice the price
> tag doubled soon after Prop 1A passed. So where's the do over?
> Regarding do-overs, the people view public transit differently now than
> before the pandemic. We now see that public transit is a disease
> vector, and we see that there are good alternatives to moving humans.
> In many cases, more work can be done faster, safter, cheaper using
> communication rather than transportation. spike
Disease vector is a real concern, but it's a bit rich coming from someone
who seems anti-vaccine and does research shopping.
Suggesting communicating instead of traveling is a completely orthogonal
discussion. The same could be said for airplanes. It's not relevant to
You want us to believe that mass transit and high speed rail is a failure
even though it works all throughout the world. You want us to believe that
it can and should only work and only be the result of capitalism, not
You really do sound like a brand new libertarian who thinks they've
figured everything out and thinks that everyone is agreeing with them
because they're tired of arguing and are just not saying anything.
Really, you lack understanding of one fundamental idea: governments exist
for the people. Ours doesn't as much as it should, as it has been
corrupted by capitalism, but obviously the world would absolutely suck if
literally everything were capitalism with no regulation.
Or explain to me how the world would be a better place if we privatized
armies, privatized sewers, privatized water systems, allowe monopolies, et
cetera. Are there examples in the history of humankind that shows this to
If you're going to assert that governments should stay out of
transportation, and that stuff like high speed rail doesn't exist because
"capitalism", you're going to be reminded that one part of that is purely
opinion and the other has plenty of evidence that shows that your
conclusion, with the assumptions you suggest, is wrong.
More information about the extropy-chat