4 ms·

Other than the cost of the car (which is going to hold its value for decades) & its fees, how is this anywhere near decadent if someone with some money likes to

Other than the cost of the car (which is going to hold its value for decades) & its fees, how is this anywhere near decadent if someone with some money likes to travel this way? Wherein lies the harm? People spend more on higher end RVs, burning more fuel, wheels & wear. This is nowhere near the league of anything that travels through the air with a hint of luxury.

amrocha 1y ago
The privatization of the public good is the problem, regardless of how ecological or economical you rig your economy to make it look.
- Nevermark 1y ago
  You are confusing several things. First, train cars are not a precious limited resource. Someone having a car creates no impediments to anyone else. Second, nothing is being taken from a public sphere - these are one off historically interesting cars being maintained by private individuals at no cost to the public, instead of being scrapped by private companies. So in fact, something that would be wasted is continuing to get use. Third, many of these cars are being made available for use to anyone, not just their owners, to help cover their costs. More options for everyone is in fact, a real public good. The world is full of injustice but it’s worth not confusing someone having something others don’t with someone using wealth to suppress or harm others. There is nothing here to “fix”. No imbalance or obvious benefit here to justify repressing others. Overreactions to injustice are, unfortunately, a common source of injustices themselves. I share your concerns for others, and also feel deep frustration with the status quo of increasingly unaccountable wealth-driven compounding of economic, political, social, health, educational and legal inequality.
  - amrocha 1y ago
    I’m not confusing anything, I just disagree with you. It’s not an economic argument, it’s an ideological one. Public goods should serve the public. No amount of money can change that.
    - antegamisou 1y ago
      [flagged]
    - Nevermark 1y ago
      > It’s not an economic argument, it’s an ideological one. I see. Other's shouldn't make economic choices based on economically created benefit or harm, but to submit to your ideology. Yet, these were never public goods. And they are more available to the public now. Reality doesn't conform to ideology. The latter only helps when it contributes to understanding, instead of limiting it.
      - amrocha 1y ago
        The fish is blind to the ocean. All of your arguments are soaked in the ideology of economic primacy. From where I stand, it seems like you’re the one that refuses to understand the argument that doesn’t agree with your ideology. And to be clear, I couldn’t care less if you own a rail car, but you shouldn’t get to use public infrastructure to operate it.
        Nevermark 1y ago
        > The fish is blind to the ocean. All of your arguments are soaked in the ideology of economic primacy. Ok. I guess if you had any actual points you would have made them instead of poor sport poetry and blatant projection. I don't believe in economic primacy. Nor do I have ideology. I don't think any one way of looking at things can ever be complete. As I already stated. It was you, who explicitly outed yourself as ideological, and are making ideological arguments instead of practical ones based on actual harm or benefit. People or businesses pay to use public parks for events, public buildings, school buses, the list is endless. People like this. It is viewed as pro-sharing, pro-community. These options makes public asset more valuable to the public, help defray costs, and increase the good they generate for society. With any harm or mistreatment to anyone.
        amrocha 1y ago

amrocha 1y ago

The privatization of the public good is the problem, regardless of how ecological or economical you rig your economy to make it look.

Nevermark 1y ago
You are confusing several things. First, train cars are not a precious limited resource. Someone having a car creates no impediments to anyone else. Second, nothing is being taken from a public sphere - these are one off historically interesting cars being maintained by private individuals at no cost to the public, instead of being scrapped by private companies. So in fact, something that would be wasted is continuing to get use. Third, many of these cars are being made available for use to anyone, not just their owners, to help cover their costs. More options for everyone is in fact, a real public good. The world is full of injustice but it’s worth not confusing someone having something others don’t with someone using wealth to suppress or harm others. There is nothing here to “fix”. No imbalance or obvious benefit here to justify repressing others. Overreactions to injustice are, unfortunately, a common source of injustices themselves. I share your concerns for others, and also feel deep frustration with the status quo of increasingly unaccountable wealth-driven compounding of economic, political, social, health, educational and legal inequality.
- amrocha 1y ago
  I’m not confusing anything, I just disagree with you. It’s not an economic argument, it’s an ideological one. Public goods should serve the public. No amount of money can change that.
  - antegamisou 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - Nevermark 1y ago
    > It’s not an economic argument, it’s an ideological one. I see. Other's shouldn't make economic choices based on economically created benefit or harm, but to submit to your ideology. Yet, these were never public goods. And they are more available to the public now. Reality doesn't conform to ideology. The latter only helps when it contributes to understanding, instead of limiting it.
    - amrocha 1y ago
      The fish is blind to the ocean. All of your arguments are soaked in the ideology of economic primacy. From where I stand, it seems like you’re the one that refuses to understand the argument that doesn’t agree with your ideology. And to be clear, I couldn’t care less if you own a rail car, but you shouldn’t get to use public infrastructure to operate it.
      - Nevermark 1y ago
        > The fish is blind to the ocean. All of your arguments are soaked in the ideology of economic primacy. Ok. I guess if you had any actual points you would have made them instead of poor sport poetry and blatant projection. I don't believe in economic primacy. Nor do I have ideology. I don't think any one way of looking at things can ever be complete. As I already stated. It was you, who explicitly outed yourself as ideological, and are making ideological arguments instead of practical ones based on actual harm or benefit. People or businesses pay to use public parks for events, public buildings, school buses, the list is endless. People like this. It is viewed as pro-sharing, pro-community. These options makes public asset more valuable to the public, help defray costs, and increase the good they generate for society. With any harm or mistreatment to anyone.
        amrocha 1y ago