There's this thing called land ownership which is a right...the state can eminent domain them but they'd have to fight it in court.
Doubt they have that in China, if your home is in the way of a planned development...it won't be soon. You don't buy land from the government there, it's on a lease basis.
That and everyone in politics has to be aligned. If the top down order is to build a HSR, no cog in the system can just slow shit down for the hell of it. Doesn't work that way in the US, as witnessed by the myriad times that the government can never approve the budget before it's due.
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.
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.
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.
Oh I'll just tell the poor Americans I know whose homes were bulldozed for transportation infrastructure that it didn't happen because they could have fought it in court. Dumbass.
Well, shit for brains, if you'd read my post you'd know they were poor, so they didn't have money for all the attorney's fees that are necessary for that plan.
you could tell them that at least they had the right to fight it in court.
What liberal education does to a mf.
The liberal notion that you have the "right" to do something when some politician sign a paper that say you can do something even when you'll never be able to actually do it is dogshit.
What good is on paper having the "right" to do something if you don't have the material capability to exert that right? They could just be honnest and pass a law forbiding anyone worth bellow 1M$ to fight construction companies in court and litteraly almost nothing would be different.
Also, I'd like you to show to me proof that the chinese peoples are forbiden from fighting the HSR constuctors in court.
When some chud court tells them to go fuck themselves because building a boarder wall as a symbolic gesture of fascism is more important, at least they can remember China Bad
Damn, it feels like your hypothetical system is designed to protect the interests of the rich and screw over the poor masses, and over time, increase the power the rich already have and further screw over the poor. I have some notes.
Like can you imagine if such a system existed in the real world. If, say, they wanted to violate the "right" of land ownership for poor people to segregate cities by, idk, skin colour. They could separate them with massive, uncrossavle highways. The people that make cars and people who own oil fields will love that! The issue is that there may or may not be some poor people that live there. But even the ones that own land, well, they can be removed because of the system of eminent domain. Theoretically it'd also apply to the wealthy, so it looks like a fair system to the layman. But the rich can afford to take time off work and better lawyers. So on paper it sounds fair, but in practice, it favours those who are already wealthy!
And it would feedback into even more advantages for the wealthy. All those highways will require cars, which is good, but cars need fuel. The fuel will need to be moved vast distances, your need a line of pipes from the oil fields! But that would once again require you to build a... "Line of pipes" across vast distances. But there are natives living along where those lines would go! And they theoretically benefit from the right to own land as well! And they're disadvantaged due to being survivors of a genocide. Treaties or no, the lines will get out through their land, they can fight back but obviously they're unlikely to win.
This doesn't seem like a well thought out system. The only other thing the rich would have to do is to own media and education. Then they can pump out articles and curriculum one after the other saying this system is the only system that works! They can even tell people, over multiple generations, that this the only way, that the right to land is a human right (not food or water though, that would cut into the profits of some other rich people, obviously). And make it legal for the rich to have a stranglehold on the government, call it something other than corruption, make it sound less harmful. Eventually you can erode the political structure to consist only of 2 groups of people who both agree with your "right" to land ownership, so even if the masses wanted to (which they don't, thanks to media and education ;)), they literally can never change it
Yeah imagine if this system existed irl. It's a dystopia disguised as a normal country. And basically everyone in it would believe theres no other way, since any alternative has been demonized since before their grandparents were born.
You're almost there. The problem is not that power corrupts, by this logic there's nothing you can do and every country is doomed. The issue is not individual, but collective.
The problem is that the whole structure of the system is made for the interests of the wealthy that detain all the power and not for the hard working majority of people. Lobbying is the perfect example of that.
And it's not about good or bad, but simply colliding antagonic class interests where the class that holds the power always wins.
It's easy to get doomerish and think that people or power is the problem, that's precisely the position the ruling class wants you to take because it keeps then safe and keeps us under their capitalistic boots.
I invite you to read Marx. Once you understand the systemic root cause of the issues we see everyday, it's truly freeing. I suggest the Communist Manifesto since it is really short and can get you the general grasp, just be aware that it's language is very dated.
Unless there is someone to patiently walk them through it, they will not understand Marx trying to read it themselves. It's pretty clear from their lazy reading, sloppy replies and fall back on cliches they are either taking the piss or mildly literate at best.
No progress will be made from self-education on this one imo, particularly with something as not completely modern as Marx. Maybe ABC's of Socialism.
I get what you're saying but I don't think this person is just trying to take the piss on us, from what I read here they look like just another misinformed liberal.
You're completely right about the rest tho, I usually suggest easier entry points like some stuff by the Deprogram boys, I don't know why I didn't do that this time.
When I suggested Marx I was more thinking about the manifesto since, while it's language is very dated, it is still good enough to start and get a grasp while being extremely short, but I should have said that in the comment too.
Liberals trying not to essentialize political systems into supposed "common" human culture in order to retroactively justify their own decaying societies impossible challenge.
American exceptionalism brain mf (and that's me being nice).
Doesn’t work that way in the US, as witnessed by the myriad times that the government can never approve the budget before it’s due.
"Our government is slow and inefficient can't take decisions in a timely manner (especially if it's decisions that benefit everyone at the expence of a fingernail of the bottomline of some rich dickhead for some reason ), that's how you know it's truely democratic"
And everyone is free to fight you in court and sue the shit out of you if they find a flaw in your design.
Btw, don't you think that there are others that want to stay but didn't get a chance to? It's just the one dude who gets no water or electricity? No one else wanted to stay in the whole neighborhood?
don’t you think that there are others that want to stay but didn’t get a chance to?
Making a supposition that maybe there was doesn't make it true. If you think there is you need to prove it, a claim made without proof can be rejected without proof.
The point isn't "freedom of belief", you are "free" to be as delusional as you want. What they are saying is that good epistemic practice dictates that you have some sort of inference from evidence that actually supports your claim rather than "I made it the fuck up".
There's this thing called tribal sovereignty, which is a right. Doubt they have that in the US; if your tribe is in the way of a planned settlement... it won't be soon.
So...it's a good thing when someone can torpedo a massive infrastructure project that will benefit millions just because they don't feel like selling "their" land? Because they have a slip of paper that says they own a bunch of land, they can personally decide whether or not millions of people have access to public transport? Is that the argument you're making? That capitalism is a superior system because someone who is rich and powerful enough can inconvenience or even destroy the lives of millions just cause they can?
Yes, you're absolutely right, there's no such thing as a perfect system (and us communists aren't trying to pretend our system is perfect either, that's a common misunderstanding. The goal is "better" than what we currently have, not "perfect.")
But in the case of this example I would say the cons far outweigh the pros. A system that focuses on the people first and doesn't give the rich special priority and privileges would be a better society in general, wouldn't you?
Doubt they have that in China, if your home is in the way of a planned development…it won’t be soon.
[citation needed]
In fact there are many exemples of the opposite happening, China having to build around something because the person(s) refused to move and China didn't force them to.
Yeah, technically the state owns all land, including the land that holds both personal and private property, so they are free to use that ownership, but they are also required to compensate the people who own property on the land. This is basically just a rephrasing of Eminent Domain.
Yes I can flip a coin and half the time it lands on heads I can then claim that heads is always going to be the outcome of all coin flips.
I worked with a guy back in the day who was a dual citizen and owned homes back there. They were far ahead of us in terms of transportation, payments and conveniences. He went back every year for a month to party, even taking a few of us along.
All those nail houses you see are homes near roads, do you see one in the way of a HSR? You can't build a HSR around a home like you can with a road.
Yeah you can't get in the way of public development in China. If they want to run a rail through your house they'll give you a fat stack of cash and move you into a nice new apartment. The system works.
why are there those famous pictures from china of a huge construction site with one old house in the middle? must be because china can just force people to sell their homes when they want to develop something...
There's this thing called land ownership which is a right...the state can eminent domain them but they'd have to fight it in court.
Doubt they have that in China, if your home is in the way of a planned development...it won't be soon. You don't buy land from the government there, it's on a lease basis.
That and everyone in politics has to be aligned. If the top down order is to build a HSR, no cog in the system can just slow shit down for the hell of it. Doesn't work that way in the US, as witnessed by the myriad times that the government can never approve the budget before it's due.
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.
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.
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.
Oh I'll just tell the poor Americans I know whose homes were bulldozed for transportation infrastructure that it didn't happen because they could have fought it in court. Dumbass.
Nah, you could tell them that at least they had the right to fight it in court.
Well, shit for brains, if you'd read my post you'd know they were poor, so they didn't have money for all the attorney's fees that are necessary for that plan.
Cool cool cool cool cool. They can afford a home in California but they're dirt poor to afford an attorney?
trains only run through expensive urban areas? people living in rented apartments deserve no protections?
What the fuck are you talking about California for, eminent domain is done across the whole country
What liberal education does to a mf.
The liberal notion that you have the "right" to do something when some politician sign a paper that say you can do something even when you'll never be able to actually do it is dogshit.
What good is on paper having the "right" to do something if you don't have the material capability to exert that right? They could just be honnest and pass a law forbiding anyone worth bellow 1M$ to fight construction companies in court and litteraly almost nothing would be different.
Also, I'd like you to show to me proof that the chinese peoples are forbiden from fighting the HSR constuctors in court.
When some chud court tells them to go fuck themselves because building a boarder wall as a symbolic gesture of fascism is more important, at least they can remember China Bad
deleted by creator
Don't wanna dox myself with details, but no, significantly smaller city
deleted by creator
Damn, it feels like your hypothetical system is designed to protect the interests of the rich and screw over the poor masses, and over time, increase the power the rich already have and further screw over the poor. I have some notes.
Like can you imagine if such a system existed in the real world. If, say, they wanted to violate the "right" of land ownership for poor people to segregate cities by, idk, skin colour. They could separate them with massive, uncrossavle highways. The people that make cars and people who own oil fields will love that! The issue is that there may or may not be some poor people that live there. But even the ones that own land, well, they can be removed because of the system of eminent domain. Theoretically it'd also apply to the wealthy, so it looks like a fair system to the layman. But the rich can afford to take time off work and better lawyers. So on paper it sounds fair, but in practice, it favours those who are already wealthy!
And it would feedback into even more advantages for the wealthy. All those highways will require cars, which is good, but cars need fuel. The fuel will need to be moved vast distances, your need a line of pipes from the oil fields! But that would once again require you to build a... "Line of pipes" across vast distances. But there are natives living along where those lines would go! And they theoretically benefit from the right to own land as well! And they're disadvantaged due to being survivors of a genocide. Treaties or no, the lines will get out through their land, they can fight back but obviously they're unlikely to win.
This doesn't seem like a well thought out system. The only other thing the rich would have to do is to own media and education. Then they can pump out articles and curriculum one after the other saying this system is the only system that works! They can even tell people, over multiple generations, that this the only way, that the right to land is a human right (not food or water though, that would cut into the profits of some other rich people, obviously). And make it legal for the rich to have a stranglehold on the government, call it something other than corruption, make it sound less harmful. Eventually you can erode the political structure to consist only of 2 groups of people who both agree with your "right" to land ownership, so even if the masses wanted to (which they don't, thanks to media and education ;)), they literally can never change it
Yeah imagine if this system existed irl. It's a dystopia disguised as a normal country. And basically everyone in it would believe theres no other way, since any alternative has been demonized since before their grandparents were born.
Genius, and evil
You could have saved the wall of text and just said America is also bad...It is.
When someone has power, power corrupts. It's a tale as old as time.
You're almost there. The problem is not that power corrupts, by this logic there's nothing you can do and every country is doomed. The issue is not individual, but collective.
The problem is that the whole structure of the system is made for the interests of the wealthy that detain all the power and not for the hard working majority of people. Lobbying is the perfect example of that.
And it's not about good or bad, but simply colliding antagonic class interests where the class that holds the power always wins.
It's easy to get doomerish and think that people or power is the problem, that's precisely the position the ruling class wants you to take because it keeps then safe and keeps us under their capitalistic boots.
I invite you to read Marx. Once you understand the systemic root cause of the issues we see everyday, it's truly freeing. I suggest the Communist Manifesto since it is really short and can get you the general grasp, just be aware that it's language is very dated.
Here are other good entry points:
Why You Should be a Socialist in 2024 by Second Thought
Will Life be Better Under Socialism? by Hakim
How Capitalism sells poverty as modesty & why equality isn't a practical goal. by Yugopnik
Unless there is someone to patiently walk them through it, they will not understand Marx trying to read it themselves. It's pretty clear from their lazy reading, sloppy replies and fall back on cliches they are either taking the piss or mildly literate at best.
No progress will be made from self-education on this one imo, particularly with something as not completely modern as Marx. Maybe ABC's of Socialism.
I get what you're saying but I don't think this person is just trying to take the piss on us, from what I read here they look like just another misinformed liberal.
You're completely right about the rest tho, I usually suggest easier entry points like some stuff by the Deprogram boys, I don't know why I didn't do that this time.
When I suggested Marx I was more thinking about the manifesto since, while it's language is very dated, it is still good enough to start and get a grasp while being extremely short, but I should have said that in the comment too.
Power over others represents a problem, power with and through others (collective power) represents a solution.
Liberals trying not to essentialize political systems into supposed "common" human culture in order to retroactively justify their own decaying societies impossible challenge.
American exceptionalism brain mf (and that's me being nice).
"Our government is slow and inefficient can't take decisions in a timely manner (especially if it's decisions that benefit everyone at the expence of a fingernail of the bottomline of some rich dickhead for some reason
), that's how you know it's truely democratic" 
Unfortunately it's not democratic...It's a representative democracy where the representation is horrible. Yes, I'm no fan of the way the country is.
Well, glad you at least halfway recognise that the US is not a democracy
America: bulldozes entire neighborhoods to build highways, displacing everyone with minimal compensation.
China: Nail house.
And everyone is free to fight you in court and sue the shit out of you if they find a flaw in your design.
Btw, don't you think that there are others that want to stay but didn't get a chance to? It's just the one dude who gets no water or electricity? No one else wanted to stay in the whole neighborhood?
What do you think happened before nail houses?
Making a supposition that maybe there was doesn't make it true. If you think there is you need to prove it, a claim made without proof can be rejected without proof.
Nah, you can believe what you want to, I don't really care.
"I don't really care," states person who can't stop replying to comments.
"I don't really care anyway, I'm not trying to opt out of an argument I'm losing because I have no comeback and nothing to back what I'm saying"
The point isn't "freedom of belief", you are "free" to be as delusional as you want. What they are saying is that good epistemic practice dictates that you have some sort of inference from evidence that actually supports your claim rather than "I made it the fuck up".
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Wonder how wealth plays into the material reality of going to court.
How many of those lawsuits against eminent domain in the USA were successful btw?
There's this thing called tribal sovereignty, which is a right. Doubt they have that in the US; if your tribe is in the way of a planned settlement... it won't be soon.
So...it's a good thing when someone can torpedo a massive infrastructure project that will benefit millions just because they don't feel like selling "their" land? Because they have a slip of paper that says they own a bunch of land, they can personally decide whether or not millions of people have access to public transport? Is that the argument you're making? That capitalism is a superior system because someone who is rich and powerful enough can inconvenience or even destroy the lives of millions just cause they can?
It's not a good thing in the long run if someone can do that. I'd have loved the HSR from NCAL to SCAL, would have avoided all those hours on the 5.
There are pros and cons basically, there isn't a system that is perfect.
Yes, you're absolutely right, there's no such thing as a perfect system (and us communists aren't trying to pretend our system is perfect either, that's a common misunderstanding. The goal is "better" than what we currently have, not "perfect.")
But in the case of this example I would say the cons far outweigh the pros. A system that focuses on the people first and doesn't give the rich special priority and privileges would be a better society in general, wouldn't you?
For the greater good is definitely a good way to go. But I'd be careful about who decides what is good and what isn't.
In this case, I'd love HSR.
As opposed to what the US has now, which acts in the interest of the greater evil?
China has it's issues, but at least it represents the people (as evidenced by passing policies in the interests of the people over capital)?
hey genious, what's a nail house?
no investigation, no right to speak
Find a nail house in the way of a magalev.
deleted by creator
Find proof that someone was forcibly moved to make way for a maglev
Some landowners in Shanghai prevented the maglev from connecting all the way to the other Shanghai airport by just protesting and crying about their property values.
[citation needed]
In fact there are many exemples of the opposite happening, China having to build around something because the person(s) refused to move and China didn't force them to.
IIRC, you can say no to private development but not to the state. Either way you're well compensated if you give up your land.
Yeah, technically the state owns all land, including the land that holds both personal and private property, so they are free to use that ownership, but they are also required to compensate the people who own property on the land. This is basically just a rephrasing of Eminent Domain.
Yes I can flip a coin and half the time it lands on heads I can then claim that heads is always going to be the outcome of all coin flips.
I worked with a guy back in the day who was a dual citizen and owned homes back there. They were far ahead of us in terms of transportation, payments and conveniences. He went back every year for a month to party, even taking a few of us along.
All those nail houses you see are homes near roads, do you see one in the way of a HSR? You can't build a HSR around a home like you can with a road.
Yeah you can't get in the way of public development in China. If they want to run a rail through your house they'll give you a fat stack of cash and move you into a nice new apartment. The system works.
why are there those famous pictures from china of a huge construction site with one old house in the middle? must be because china can just force people to sell their homes when they want to develop something...