As well as Rand would like this story, with its normative, visionary captain of industry, its worth remembering that this line of thinking is as bankrupt as it

As well as Rand would like this story, with its normative, visionary captain of industry, its worth remembering that this line of thinking is as bankrupt as it is naive. First of all, it would be utterly impossible for a purely private initiative to build the hyperloop as proposed. Most obviously, the unique feasibility argument here is that the government already owns highways that could bear the tube for most of the distance between SF and LA. But no serious rail line has ever or could ever be built without government help, because it would be impossible to negotiate the purchase of all the land without eminent domain. Pragmatics aside, this is also just a very facile way of looking at things that belies, I think, a certain amount of laziness. The government isn't perfect, and sometimes bureaucracy does hinder good projects, but really the challenge for hyperloop would be garnering public support. If the proposal becomes massively popular, the government will have a huge incentive to build it. Unfortunately it's easier to complain vaguely about the government than it is to convince weary tax payers to fund a massive project using unproven technology. I'd love to see hyperloop built, but I am not desperate for other services that would be provided with the same money (better schools, for example). Much of the reason American business thrived in the second half of the twentieth century is because of the superior infrastructure the government built. Every business in Y Combinator relies on services provided by the government and couldn't function nearly as well if Ron Paul were king. And, obviously, the government has achieved radically ambitious projects before. Have you ever been to Hoover Dam? Driven from coast to coast? Government isnt perfect and can be frustrating, but bureaucracy is almost never the primary obstacle. It's just a convenient excuse.