Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the people would prefer to take public transit rather than drive, why is it that the majority of people in both areas prefer their private automobile?
Because they are subsidized by taxpayers to do so.
But he doesn't seem to oppose public roads and highways, which are taxpayer-supported, and were first implemented by the political left in order to take power away from privately owned streetcar companies.
I think we have a wee bit of confusion over terminology and issues.
We NEED mass transit.
We don't like government managed PUBLIC transit.
We NEED an alternative to fossil fueled vehicles.
America is no longer Queen of oil.
We NEED electric traction rail, the most efficient form of land transportation.
Especially before we're forced to abandon the fossil fuel system, due to escalating costs and supply problems.
One suggestion:
Zero public funding for mass transit rail.
Zero tax liability for privately owned and operated electric traction rail mass transit. (In other words, the company and employees and stockholders have zero tax liability.)
That way, no taxpayer is stuck with the bill. No need for "government" meddling. No partisan politics. No need for bureaucracy to manage "not taking taxes". Ditto for administrative overhead to record "not taking taxes".
I would expect a huge rush of investment capital, speedy construction, and an emphasis on making profits the old fashioned way - providing the most benefit for the least cost.
I think we have a wee bit of confusion over terminology and issues.
We NEED mass transit.
We don't like government managed PUBLIC transit.
We NEED an alternative to fossil fueled vehicles.
America is no longer Queen of oil.
We NEED electric traction rail, the most efficient form of land transportation.
Especially before we're forced to abandon the fossil fuel system, due to escalating costs and supply problems.
One suggestion:
Zero public funding for mass transit rail.
Zero tax liability for privately owned and operated electric traction rail mass transit. (In other words, the company and employees and stockholders have zero tax liability.)
That way, no taxpayer is stuck with the bill. No need for "government" meddling. No partisan politics. No need for bureaucracy to manage "not taking taxes". Ditto for administrative overhead to record "not taking taxes".
I would expect a huge rush of investment capital, speedy construction, and an emphasis on making profits the old fashioned way - providing the most benefit for the least cost.
I don't have time to make a well thought out post. But I just want to make the observation that tax abatements are often also considered a form of government subsidies.
Yeah, you had me up to that "zero tax liability" part. Not having to pay taxes (where other businesses would) is absolutely a form of subsidy, so you're contradicting yourself right out of the gate.
The other problem is that transportation infrastructure is the foundation of urban design: the physical form of a city is dictated by transportation infrastructure--things like zoning and general plans are, at best, suggestions compared to the overwhelming priority of transportation. This means that the transit network dictates the nature of the buildings around it in terms of density and land value. So it's pretty much impossible to separate transit from urban planning. Businesses that operate in the real world don't operate in a vacuum--a transit company has to deal with the current urban form, plan how to best serve that form, and how to direct growth for the urban form that will follow creation of new transit modes. That is pretty much impossible without cooperation and coordination with a city government, unless the land around the streetcar lines is also "privatized," in which case the private-sector company becomes a de facto government.
So, we have partial agreement--I'd like to see an end to highway subsidies, and a return of the private sector to the public transit business (despite the terminology, the term "public transit" was also used to describe privately owned transportation systems.) But they should still pay taxes, and have to work with government the same way that other businesses do.
I don't have time to make a well thought out post. But I just want to make the observation that tax abatements are often also considered a form of government subsidies.
Not that I think it's a bad idea, though...
I do not object to zero taxes on all business and labor.
So would you consider yourself an objectivist, an anarcho-capitalist, or some other variety of anarchist?
Since anarchy is the absence of law, and sovereignty is the source of law, as a proponent of individual sovereignty, I am anti-anarchist.
Reference:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; ....
[United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]
REPUBLICAN (form of) GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, ... directly,
.... In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary
SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
"It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states."
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
Under the republican form of government, the people are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states. The people are the supreme authority, and are served by government, not commanded by it.
{Citizens, by definition, are subjects of government. I still haven't gotten an answer to my query on how a servant government can impose subject citizenship upon an infant, at birth, while admitting that American people are sovereigns over the government.}
I believe that public transit should be more comprehensive. In most metro areas it goes to downtown and the airport and that's about it. If your destination is somewhere else, you have to go to one of those two places first. Southern California's "Inland Empire" line is a step in the right direction, going from Riverside to Oceanside without having to go to downtown L.A.
Since anarchy is the absence of law, and sovereignty is the source of law, as a proponent of individual sovereignty, I am anti-anarchist.
"Anarchy" is not the same as "anarchism." Anarchism is based on the idea of the human capacity for self-rule, such as the idea of individual sovereignty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
