5 ms·

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
        You claiming that you “don’t have ideology” is exactly what I’m referring to. Yes you do. Everyone does, and every argument has an ideology behind it. If you can’t see it, that just means you’re so used to it you’re blind to it, like a fish in the ocean. That’s a dangerous state of mind to be in, it’s very easy to manipulate the person that believes they’re objectively right. You should look up dialectics, it sounds like there would be a lot of new material there for you. And as for your park example, sure, I’ll explain why it’s not the same thing. If it costs 10$ to rent a BBQ spot in the park for an hour, do you think that that’s how much it costs to provide that service? It most likely isn’t. Payment is used as a way to limit demand and to ensure commitment for utilization of a limited shared resource. That’s why these resources are usually priced accessibly to the vast majority of the population. The goal is not to make money, the goal is to ensure the shared resource is utilized efficiently. Do you think that that’s what’s going on here with letting rich people buy access to public infrastructure? It’s not, this is a for profit operation. This service is inaccessible to the vast majority of the population, regardless of whether it’s for sale to the public or not. This is not about sharing a resource, it’s about letting rich people monopolize resources as long as they have the money to pay for it.

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
        You claiming that you “don’t have ideology” is exactly what I’m referring to. Yes you do. Everyone does, and every argument has an ideology behind it. If you can’t see it, that just means you’re so used to it you’re blind to it, like a fish in the ocean. That’s a dangerous state of mind to be in, it’s very easy to manipulate the person that believes they’re objectively right. You should look up dialectics, it sounds like there would be a lot of new material there for you. And as for your park example, sure, I’ll explain why it’s not the same thing. If it costs 10$ to rent a BBQ spot in the park for an hour, do you think that that’s how much it costs to provide that service? It most likely isn’t. Payment is used as a way to limit demand and to ensure commitment for utilization of a limited shared resource. That’s why these resources are usually priced accessibly to the vast majority of the population. The goal is not to make money, the goal is to ensure the shared resource is utilized efficiently. Do you think that that’s what’s going on here with letting rich people buy access to public infrastructure? It’s not, this is a for profit operation. This service is inaccessible to the vast majority of the population, regardless of whether it’s for sale to the public or not. This is not about sharing a resource, it’s about letting rich people monopolize resources as long as they have the money to pay for it.