4 ms·

The case you've presented is "China does it, so we should too", which is not all that strong of an argument.

shermantanktop 3y ago
Yes, the strawman version of the case is not strong, and of course plays on the fear of possible unspecified other things we would do if we copied China as a general approach. But what about the steelman version of the case? I think it's a lot stronger.
- dumbo-octopus 3y ago
  What is the steelman you envision?
  - mikepurvis 3y ago
    That living in a society entails some costs but the nice things that come with it are on balance worth those costs? And just to be clear, different societies differ on where they put that marker. Canadians believe in free hospital visits but not (yet) in free drugs, dental, or vision care. Most westerners believe in free fire and police, free schools, and free roads to drive on. Some people are starting to experiment with food and basic housing also being human rights and therefore free, though that's not yet widespread. A lot of Americans are okay with occasional airline bailouts if it means cheaper ticket prices. So we're definitely okay with taking some things from people for the sake of investing in transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges, parking lots, airports). Just... not for trains.
    - dumbo-octopus 3y ago
      Nobody believes in "free" anything you say, they believe in the right of the government to tax all individuals in order to provide services to some (ok, some people might believe "free" hospitals are actually free, but they should hopefully be rare enough to ignore). The question here is to what extent should the government be able to take other things (besides money) from individuals in order to provide other services to some. I believe it should be limited as much as possible, any many agree with me. It would seem Texans generally do too, as no politician has come to power on the promise of building a train from X to Y by any means possible. (Much to the chagrin of random internet commenters who have in all likelihood never traveled from X to Y in their life and never will).
  - shermantanktop 3y ago
    For me, if we were to invest in rail infrastructure at scale, we could create benefits so undeniable that even the disgruntled landowners are ok with it. We did exactly that with freeways, and freedom-lovers generally view the open road as a vast source of individual opportunity, not a symbol of the crushing boot of government. Should we not have done that?

Yes, the strawman version of the case is not strong, and of course plays on the fear of possible unspecified other things we would do if we copied China as a general approach. But what about the steelman version of the case? I think it's a lot stronger.

dumbo-octopus 3y ago
What is the steelman you envision?
- mikepurvis 3y ago
  That living in a society entails some costs but the nice things that come with it are on balance worth those costs? And just to be clear, different societies differ on where they put that marker. Canadians believe in free hospital visits but not (yet) in free drugs, dental, or vision care. Most westerners believe in free fire and police, free schools, and free roads to drive on. Some people are starting to experiment with food and basic housing also being human rights and therefore free, though that's not yet widespread. A lot of Americans are okay with occasional airline bailouts if it means cheaper ticket prices. So we're definitely okay with taking some things from people for the sake of investing in transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges, parking lots, airports). Just... not for trains.
  - dumbo-octopus 3y ago
    Nobody believes in "free" anything you say, they believe in the right of the government to tax all individuals in order to provide services to some (ok, some people might believe "free" hospitals are actually free, but they should hopefully be rare enough to ignore). The question here is to what extent should the government be able to take other things (besides money) from individuals in order to provide other services to some. I believe it should be limited as much as possible, any many agree with me. It would seem Texans generally do too, as no politician has come to power on the promise of building a train from X to Y by any means possible. (Much to the chagrin of random internet commenters who have in all likelihood never traveled from X to Y in their life and never will).
- shermantanktop 3y ago
  For me, if we were to invest in rail infrastructure at scale, we could create benefits so undeniable that even the disgruntled landowners are ok with it. We did exactly that with freeways, and freedom-lovers generally view the open road as a vast source of individual opportunity, not a symbol of the crushing boot of government. Should we not have done that?