4 ms·

In order for states to use their self-interest to diminish quality we have to ask "diminish relative to what"? If your comparing the actual to some ideal then,

In order for states to use their self-interest to diminish quality we have to ask "diminish relative to what"? If your comparing the actual to some ideal then, of course, your always going to see a diminished quality. But that's just a tautology. We have to ask ourselves does a particular plan work better or worse than some other realistic alternative. Unfortunately, realistic alternatives almost always require trade offs with special interest groups. Sorry dude, that's just reality. It's a simplistic analysis to compare something to an ideal optimum point and bemoan how far we've fallen from the ideal. But it's not terribly useful.

timr 10y ago
"We have to ask ourselves does a particular plan work better or worse than some other realistic alternative." You're arguing about the highway system. Not only is it "a realistic alternative" to your state-run theory, it's actually real. In fact, we've had this debate, in the real world, and your side lost: every state has an extensive network of state-funded highways, nearly all of which are slower and less efficient than the interstate system.
- esbranson 10y ago
  Limited access state highways are the same speed as interstate limited access highways ("freeways"). The feds dont give the states magic pixie dust when the states build and maintain the interstate freeways. In CA, my understanding that the most used parts of interstate freeways are actually state limited access routes (highways) extended to major national cities. This is in addition to the other state routes (expressways, etc.) and other county routes that permeate pretty much everywhere. Together, this state highway system (the county being an administrative instrument of state government) is by far more efficient than e.g. taking an interstate to a major national city (skipping even large regional cities) and then off-roading everywhere else. "Efficiency" is pretty loose term in this respect, no?

timr 10y ago

"We have to ask ourselves does a particular plan work better or worse than some other realistic alternative." You're arguing about the highway system. Not only is it "a realistic alternative" to your state-run theory, it's actually real. In fact, we've had this debate, in the real world, and your side lost: every state has an extensive network of state-funded highways, nearly all of which are slower and less efficient than the interstate system.

esbranson 10y ago
Limited access state highways are the same speed as interstate limited access highways ("freeways"). The feds dont give the states magic pixie dust when the states build and maintain the interstate freeways. In CA, my understanding that the most used parts of interstate freeways are actually state limited access routes (highways) extended to major national cities. This is in addition to the other state routes (expressways, etc.) and other county routes that permeate pretty much everywhere. Together, this state highway system (the county being an administrative instrument of state government) is by far more efficient than e.g. taking an interstate to a major national city (skipping even large regional cities) and then off-roading everywhere else. "Efficiency" is pretty loose term in this respect, no?