• TreadOnMe [none/use name]
    hexbear
    46
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    What is hilarious about your argument is that it takes far more land to build and maintain a highway, and yet we somehow never had any problems with forcing land sales with eminent domain clauses doing that.

    It's almost as if the government is owned by a series of interests that are not actually interested in investing and maintaining efficient consumption minimum and economical modes of transportation, and instead focused on making a system that is efficient at creating profit for it's ownership class. It's almost as if, instead of a focus on the money to commodity cycle, there is a perverse incentive for a money to commodity to money cycle that means there is no real incentive to ever substantially invest to improve your commodity production.

    Weird. curious-marx

    • @hpca01@programming.dev
      hexbear
      1
      5 months ago

      How many new highways do you see being built?? I've lived in California all my life and I've never seen a brand new highway being built. I've seen lanes expanded a few feet...But never a new one built.

      Also, you can't just put rail tracks anywhere as you can with land.

      The politicians clearly work for reelection. Unfortunately, when a human being is placed in a position of power you usually get this kind of thing. Power corrupts.

      • TreadOnMe [none/use name]
        hexbear
        25
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        The highways weren't just magically placed there by the grace of God, they were built and expanded by the government using eminent domain. A highspeed rail system could be built using the same legal precedents, and would likely keep the highways from having to be expanded (ever).

        What you are saying is that we could never build a new system in the same way that we built the old system, which is patently false, which is still different from your claim that China can avoid red-tape when the U.S. does not which is also false. The U.S. picks and chooses when it decides to uphold 'private property' because it only cares about the private property of those that buy the political system, it demonstrably does not care about general private property rights of those that inconvenience whatever the agenda is. Which means that the agenda COULD be High Speed rail, and it is not 'the law' or 'the government' getting in the way but private companies.

        Also, for someone with a tenuous grasp on legal reality, I don't think you should be discussing the realities of rail-based civil engineering. Highways aren't particularly known for being good to work with on complex landscapes.

        I am saying that the literal incentives of a profit-driven capitalist economy will always inevitably degrade the commodity process, incentivizing profit generation and rent seeking over industrialization and economizing commodity processes. It has nothing to do with 'corruption', 'power' or 'politicians', nor did I ever indicate that is what we were talking about. It is the system working as intended.