Public Transportation

[Kalis]

ITT: "Compassionate" people who want to coerce productive people through the strong arm of the government to pay for things they have no desire to fund. That's sure easier than just mailing the government extra money, giving poor people rides, donating a car, etc.

Privatize it all. If it's efficient and in demand, it'll be available without that whole theft thing.

Then the OP would be fucked, as nobody would build or maintain those roads in the middle of nowhere.

[Tokru]

ITT: "Compassionate" people who want to coerce productive people through the strong arm of the government to pay for things they have no desire to fund. That's sure easier than just mailing the government extra money, giving poor people rides, donating a car, etc.

Privatize it all. If it's efficient and in demand, it'll be available without that whole theft thing.

Yeah privatize it all and see people in rural areas beeing unable to reach the next outpost of civilization because no roads exist.

[Stir]

In that case, if public transportation is unsustainable without subsidization from people who dont even have the option of using it, then perhaps it should be scrapped and not offered at all. Its simply not fair to burden the shoulders of those of us who are already struggling just so someone else can get a cheap ride to work. Im sorry if it makes things inconvenient for people who dont have/cant afford a car. There are plenty of Taxis they can call.

No; see, the idea is not just that they want money to subsidize public transportation... It's also that they want to discourage automobile traffic because it clogs up the roads in major cities, making infrastructure difficult and getting to work in time hard. They also want to lessen pollution. Basically: The main reason they're making driving a car more expensive is simple: They don't WANT you to drive a car at all (unless you really need one for your work or something like that). At the same time, transportation is important, so they're hoping you'll take public transportation instead.

The main goal is to make people who don't strictly need a car not have one.

[Elegiac]

ITT: "Compassionate" people who want to coerce productive people through the strong arm of the government to pay for things they have no desire to fund. That's sure easier than just mailing the government extra money, giving poor people rides, donating a car, etc.

Privatize it all. If it's efficient and in demand, it'll be available without that whole theft thing.

Because privatization could -never- result in a spike in prices or reduction in quality for consumers, right?

To correct your statement, if it is profitable and in sufficient demand, it'll be available. Which of course defeats the purpose of public transportation being a public good.

---------- Post added 2013-06-17 at 03:00 PM ----------

In that case, if public transportation is unsustainable without subsidization from people who dont even have the option of using it, then perhaps it should be scrapped and not offered at all. Its simply not fair to burden the shoulders of those of us who are already struggling just so someone else can get a cheap ride to work. Im sorry if it makes things inconvenient for people who dont have/cant afford a car. There are plenty of Taxis they can call.

Very droll. And no; profitability is not and should not be a concern of public transportation or any public good for that matter, because the entire point of it is that the social and economic benefits it provides over the long term outweigh the expense. Government is not a business, nor should it be treated as such.

Furthermore, handing public goods over to the private sector is a shit idea in itself. Private business does not exist to promote welfare, or improve quality of living, or any of those things. Nor are they answerable to the general public.

The bare bones of the argument is this: you want to live off the benefits and prosperity that public infrastructure provides, you just don't want to have to pay for it. A fine example of the "me, me, me" attitude that is driving the United States into the least developed of the developed countries.

[Orlong]

Because privatization could -never- result in a spike in prices or reduction in quality for consumers, right?

To correct your statement, if it is profitable and in sufficient demand, it'll be available. Which of course defeats the purpose of public transportation being a public good.[COLOR="red"]

---------- Post added 2013-06-17 at 03:00 PM ----------



Furthermore, handing public goods over to the private sector is a shit idea in itself. Private business does not exist to promote welfare, or improve quality of living, or any of those things. Nor are they answerable to the general public.

The bare bones of the argument is this: you want to live off the benefits and prosperity that public infrastructure provides, you just don't want to have to pay for it. A fine example of the "me, me, me" attitude that is driving the United States into the least developed of the developed countries.

I dont want to promote welfare or improve the quality of ANYONEs life other than my own. Also I dont benefit at all from public transportation (I.E. I dont benefit or prosper from having city busses exist 225 miles away from me that Ill never use.

[Kalis]

I dont want to promote welfare or improve the quality of ANYONEs life other than my own. Also I dont benefit at all from public transportation (I.E. I dont benefit or prosper from having city busses exist 225 miles away from me that Ill never use.

Yet you don't have any problems sponging off the state for the roads that other tax payers have paid for.

[Elegiac]

I dont want to promote welfare or improve the quality of ANYONEs life other than my own. Also I dont benefit at all from public transportation (I.E. I dont benefit or prosper from having city busses exist 225 miles away from me that Ill never use.

Why do you bother living in a society, then?

Because you want to, as Kalis said, sponge off its benefits without having to contribute.

And you have the gall to complain about "welfare queens".

[JohnBrown1917]

I dont want to promote welfare or improve the quality of ANYONEs life other than my own. Also I dont benefit at all from public transportation (I.E. I dont benefit or prosper from having city busses exist 225 miles away from me that Ill never use.

Yet to you don't have any problems with others paying for the road you need to use.

[Itisamuh]

It's the same mentality as making people who work pay for people who don't work instead of making the people who don't work get off their butts.

In other words, it's stupid, but that's the trend in an increasingly liberal nation.

[Elegiac]

It's the same mentality as making people who work pay for people who don't work instead of making the people who don't work get off their butts.

In other words, it's stupid, but that's the trend in an increasingly liberal nation.

Funny, considering that the anti-public transport crowd's major complaint is they don't want to pay for others' services when in fact they benefit significantly off public funding themselves.

Hypocrite, much?

[Kalis]

It's the same mentality as making people who work pay for people who don't work instead of making the people who don't work get off their butts.

In other words, it's stupid, but that's the trend in an increasingly liberal nation.

It's improving the infrastructure, and that benefits everybody in the long (and often short) run.

[Orlong]

Yet you don't have any problems sponging off the state for the roads that other tax payers have paid for.

Sorry but you dont ge to say that. I paid plenty for the right to use those roads through gas taxes, registrations, license fees, and speeding tickets

---------- Post added 2013-06-17 at 06:47 PM ----------

Funny, considering that the anti-public transport crowd's major complaint is they don't want to pay for others' services when in fact they benefit significantly off public funding themselves.

Hypocrite, much?

I pay my fair share of road taxes, registrations, license fees, tickets, sales taxes, and income taxes to chip in for the roads I use like I mentioned in my previous post.

[Elegiac]

I pay my fair share of road taxes, registrations, license fees, tickets, sales taxes, and income taxes to chip in for the roads I use like I mentioned in my previous post.

If you think that's sufficient to cover the cost of the infrastructure you have used thus far and will continue to use, you're sadly mistaken.

[Kalis]

Sorry but you dont ge to say that. I paid plenty for the right to use those roads through gas taxes, registrations, license fees, and speeding tickets

Not enough to build them though, and if you are out in the sticks, then even adding up the income from the rest of the community it is unlikely that you paid enough to build them.

You may not like being dependent on the welfare of others, but us city dwellers aren't too keen on paying for your infrastructure needs either...but we understand that you can't afford to do it for yourselves, so we don't mind being charitable to those in need for the overall benefit of the community. We're nice like that.

[Reeve]

Sorry but you dont ge to say that. I paid plenty for the right to use those roads through gas taxes, registrations, license fees, and speeding tickets

---------- Post added 2013-06-17 at 06:47 PM ----------



I pay my fair share of road taxes, registrations, license fees, tickets, sales taxes, and income taxes to chip in for the roads I use like I mentioned in my previous post.

I'll give you some credit. You paid road taxes, registrations, license fees, tickets, sales taxes, and income taxes, all of which gets you maybe an eighth of a mile, if that. The rest of those roads you use are paid for by those gosh darned city folk trying to suck you dry. So you're welcome to stop chipping in for some people using buses, but that means the urban people can stop pitching in for your roads, police, fire protection, etc. We'll use the money we saved not subsidizing your life by making more city buses.

[Rifter]

I know people who work for me who take a bus and a train to hours to get to my place, work 8 hours, then turn around and ride home for 2 hours - they pay about 5 bucks a day, 80 bucks a month if they use a pass.

Most of these people are working two jobs, trying hard to make ends meet without going onto welfare. I have no problem personally paying for a portion of that ride - if they had to pay what it really costs for that ride or take a taxi, they wouldn't be able to work.

Not everyone is as fortunate as you, not everyone has the options you do.