Jump to content

FoolOfWorms

Member
  • Posts

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I'll admit I skimmed a bit, since I'm not writing a college paper, but from what I can tell from several different sources I can confirm that yes, a high speed rail line is in fact, expensive. I knew that high speed rail lines were expensive, and not all locations need to be connected by high speed rails to begin with, first of all. Most trains that aren't even high speed go as fast as a car on a highway and carry several times the cargo any truck can, which includes human cargo. But in spite of the costs the articles have illuminated a couple of interesting things for me. A high speed rail would be able to reduce a massive traffic issue occurring in Colorado right now that is currently costing about $839 million annually in missed opportunities. The cost isn't primarily in running, but in initial construction cost, and from what I can tell the train would be able to pay for itself if funded through federal grant. From another article The unviability of the rail is currently due to how unreliable the current methods of getting funds are, not inherently in it unprofitability. It also helps to say that the Colorado department of transportation is still perusing this venture instead of abandoning it, which tells me even if it is unviable as of current due to funds its still a venture Colorado is willing to spend millions in seeing if it can work someday soon, which you can call foolish, but then you'd be saying you're smarter than the state of Colorado. Additionally the majority of the department of transportation's budget goes towards primarily automobiles and highway services. In fact, if I'm reading correctly more money is being spent on aviation than all federal transit and railroads. This may sound like a non sequitur but it shows a national focus away from public transit and towards the maintenance of the current system of automobiles and highways, which could be diverted towards the construction of rails. The money for this is there if the federal government really cared, and several other nations have shown the benefit of high speed rail lines like Japan and France.
  2. You could just walk to the store you know. or take a bus, like I said, or a taxi, or if you are close enough to a city maybe the subway or trolley. I understand they aren't given those, and I understand that megacorps are fucked up. The problem is that we already are ran nationally by megacorps anyways and nationalizing public transit and making it a standard isnt going to make them any more or less powerful. I honestly don't know how your point is an argument against the idea that cars should be one of the vehicles a farmer should be expected to work with and therefore should be funded by in part the hiring agent who provides them farming equipment as well. Your criticism is an argument of capitalism in general which I agree is fucked up, but the idea itself isnt bad and isnt argued against here. Why would they be doing year round production? Why do they even need to do planned obsolescence? If the same manufacturer are selling parts for maintenance and such they theoretically wouldn't need to profit from their vehicle sales and could profit from the vehicle repairs and check ups they do regularly. I know the answer and the answer is that it wouldn't be profitable enough for them to remain in business in spite of their products being quality and everyone needing them and, again, this is a problem with capitalism itself preventing products with long life spans being more regularly made because once an individual buys a product that lasts a long time they aren't a customer anymore. The answer is not, however, to allow car manufacturers to implement planned obsolescence or to allow them to destroy the planet with their garbage and ruin our freeways with traffic. And that is either what you seem to be implying or you are stating that there is no way to fix it, and therefore no point in trying which is an idea I fuckin hate, as you personally already know. I'd like a link to that study if you don't mind because I'd like to read it myself [EDIT] Nevermind, ill do your arguing for you just this once since you gave an example, i'll read this article and come back to you, but besides that, I've met multiple people in my life who traded in their vehicles because they are old and they want a new model because it looks nice. Cars are disposable to a lot of regular middle class and upper middle class people. But thats not even my point. My point is that if you went looking for one, finding and buying a new car is absolutely not difficult whatsoever, and even less difficult to find a used one. If car's weren't on some level, disposable, they wouldn't advertise car's on TV all the time. Almost no one in America is going to buy a car as a brand new costumer, because you can't not own a car in America. The majority of people who car manufacturers advertise to are people who already own a car and can buy a new one by trading their old one in. Then why are you here? You came to my thread and made an argument, the burden of proof is up to you to defend your claim. I'm not going to go out of my way to prove your point for you, no matter how mad you are that you disagree with me. My argument is based of clearly observed data like how cities are constantly clogged with traffic, especially major cities like Los Angeles and New York, and I don't care how you spin it, those traffic jams, massive parking lots and record levels of emissions can not, in any way be profitable or good for the nation they are suppose to be supplying. Its a massive problem, it needs a solution, adding more lanes and pretending it isnt a problem isnt going to cut it, so this is my answer, and you aren't providing a good counter argument so far. Which is why I don't disagree with you! I think cars are still important and should be used, but we shouldn't be basing out entire transport structure around them and should try to limit how much it is used as much as possible, and in America this isnt happening whatsoever. And so are trains more than just for moving cargo around eventually. I'm not even really sure what you mean here its kind of unclear to be honest
  3. You barely had an argument to begin with.
  4. If things are at a point where it gets too expensive to buy a car for the smaller communities that just means that communities on the fringes of societies will have to being moving closer to population centers which isn't the worst thing in the world IMO. I kind of want urban sprawl to die down as much as possible if I'm going to be frank, and people who have to work in remote areas like farmers can be given private cars and trucks as machine necessary for work, like how tractors and threshers are. Thats all assuming your point is even correct, which is debatable in of itself considering the amount of people living in remote areas and how important cars would still be by necessity. Like sure it'll probably go up a little because cars would no longer a disposable commodity which cars shouldn't be in the first place, but I kind of doubt the idea that a society not structured around motor vehicles would make any car so unaffordable as to cause problems. I think at most there would be fewer car models and less roads to go down, and that cars would be built to last a long time, not that cars would be rendered so impossibly expensive that people out in the sticks would be abandoned and left to fend for themselves. If anything the fact that you think that is the case and actually a genuine argument against my idea kind of proves how reliant we are on cars and how we desperately need to re-think how much we rely on them? I'd like for you to prove that before saying it if you don't mind. I'm not asking for something as inane as the hyper loop here, trains and railroads have been supplying nations for centuries now, and the move to motor vehicles and asphalt roads haven't really made things any more efficient then we were then from what I can tell, but i'll concede to that fact if you can prove me wrong there.
  5. Since you brought it up in your post? ok look m8, imma be honest with you, you really arent contributing to this conversation constructively. You aren't saying anything or providing resources that can be debated you are just saying you're right because X reason which isn't even true. My logic is that you can apply a democratic/republic model onto cooperatives and corporations but you seem to thing I want total anarchy or something. Your point about a cooperative community size is a non-sequitur that I think its probably born from semantics rather than actually reading the context of the conversation we are having. I WANT people to be leaders and to take charge and do things on behalf of others because I don't think everyone is willing and able to be experienced enough to make political and financial decisions as well thought out as every single one of their piers since thats fucking exhausting. not everyone wants to be a leader and bear the weight of the world on their shoulders, and not everyone has the energy to have an opinion on every little thing that goes on in their community. I just want the CEO/Board of Directors to be elected in the workplace rather than not like we are now, but I'm not asking for complete community cohesion. You seem to think I want an anarchic state of some sort, which has its own success stories in a way but is mostly unrelated to the topic at hand.
  6. Sorry for deleting my previous post, I was wrong about something because of a conflation between to conflicts in the same region, Its kind of embarrassing. Anyways, from what I can tell, the independence of iceland and finland were less peaceful demonstrations by the people trying to bring democracy to their previously monarchical nation and more bureaucratic issues. Iceland and Finland didnt exist as states for a long time before they became independent democracies, and the reason why both were released as democracies were more a result of both states being too cumbersome to handle after their controlling state became too exhausted financially to maintain their territorial claim to sovereignty over the state. Additionally both states were already fairly self governing due to their respective distance and ethnic population density. You could claim this was peaceful in nature but the circumstance seems to imply that the nations that held them previously wouldn't have been able to stop them from declaring independence without asking if they tried to hold on. I wanna segway to another point however and say a big thing this conversation seems to be missing is context. Modern democracy wasn't born in a vacuum, and the United States and France founded a precedent for how to fight for democracy and against monarchism. After those bloody messes the ghost of revolution haunted monarchs for centuries, and as it became apparent they were less and less effective at ruling and the parliament of these nations started stripping more and more of their power away, constitutional democracy kind of became less of a peaceful acceptance of civil representation and more the final compromise between absolutism and getting your head removed from your shoulder. WW1 kind of put the last nail in the coffin for absolute monarchies in Europe, with WW2 being a massive battering ram through any sense autocracy would be taken seriously at all without open disgust in Europe.
  7. Ok first and foremost I'm not going to pretend I'm not biased in this discussion. I hate driving. I live in America where walking is basically defacto illegal, and I hate driving a massive piece of shit hunk of metal fast enough to turn me into red paste as a regular chore to get medicine and groceries. If you live in a nation that actually cares about pedestrians maybe you don't understand my ire, but in America I have to regularly stare at the road for 40 minutes or more to make sure some crackhead doesn't try to peel out on a red light just to go to a walmart, so I have to ask. Why? Why do we have cars? I know a bit of the answer! A very good reason why we have cars is because its expensive and impractical to create multiple rail lines across every settlement in the united states to insure they are being supplied with food and other things they need to live, so cars act as a cheap way to get around and go from one place to another! In theory In practice its ludicrously expensive for everyone who has a car and is probably worse than just making rails everywhere because with rails you can control what goes where and when which means a lot less traffic fundamentally since karen wont be able to buy her own train car to drive to hobby lobby to pick up scented candle and nothing else because she NEED to smell cinnamon while watching days of our lives. And heres another thing, Even with roads, personal vehicles are extremely inefficient considering things like buses exist that do the same thing as a car but with more people? Sure you dont get to pick where you park but if the roads were JUST cargo trucks and JUST buses I can guarantee traffic would drop. And thats only for places that still need roads. If we connect major settlements by rail that would cut down traffic even further because resource distribution and population transit would follow major arteries that can go as fast as they want because its highly scheduled, while minor towns could be supplied through highly controlled road traffic. And in my most radical of dreams this means city traffic could be brought down to near zero since emergency, transport and supply vehicles could just be turned into trams, subway cars, or forklift sized and slow moving single man cars, that are almost completely out of the way of civilian traffic Now I'm not saying that for REALLY small towns or isolated farmsteads a personal car can't be bought for convenience sake, but thats not where the majority of car owners live now is it? So why dont we do this? Why dont we, as a society, have our roads and transit structured around buses and trains instead of personal cars that are almost never at max capacity? Why do we have a multibillion dollar industry devoted to making the common person buy a car that will just end up congesting the road and causing problems, risking the lives of thousands every day by allowing a system that expects every idiot and geriatric to have a license to operate a massive piece of machinery that can punch a hole through a house? I find it absolutely absurd.
  8. From my, perhaps limited understanding of Leninism, foundationally, in its most lenient, it is unprepared to handle the requests of individuals who do not follow communist ideology and is therefore doomed to be voted out in one way or another, and in its most strict is a force of fascism in of itself, restricting the rights of rule to a hand full of individuals who say they know better and get to make all the decisions of the state on behalf of the common working class who are deeply effected by it. Now I am a supporter of socialism myself frankly and think it might be able to improve the world greatly but I feel like in terms of happiness and effectiveness leninism is about as good as any other oligarchy. I highly disagree with single party politics and believe a more fundamental change in how work and labor is structured and implemented in politics is needed in order to establish a true socialist state that's equal, free, and truly prepared to fight against fascism. I have a thread on that already but to sum it up I believe a good way of doing it would be to make the workplace cooperative, in which boardmemebers are elected by the workforce, send a member to a parliament of the proletariat where they discuss state issues from the perspective of professionals who know exactly what they are asking for on behalf of their workers, this way, there is no single party politicking going on, since the individuals sent could have been elected by their cooperative for a myriad of different ideological and systemic reasons like a desire for expansion or in order to pay their workers more, or find them more work to do. Now of course I'm no lenin, and my idea is probably not as engaging or even as well thought out, but I can't shake the idea working on behalf of a group of people that you didnt ask for consent on if they fully agree with you and shooting everyone who openly states that they dont is kind of a bad idea for freedom and stability. I'm a fairly fuck around and find out kind of guy, I only wanna start shit if others are provoking me into action, but I'm ok with disagreement. After all, under my system, disagreement is just fine, since the whole system is fundamentally changed, rather than disagreement being a threat to national security since if the one party allowed to exist is voted out there is no more communism.
  9. Just because they didnt assassinate anyone didnt mean they weren't prepared to, as many pictures of black panthers holding arms and a certain someone's speech will tell you. We were very lucky the united states were willing to give on this issue, because if it went the way of south Africa things would have burned fast. (you could actually draw parallels to the black panthers and south africa's spear of the nation, especially considering they were founded around the same time) The united states government wouldn't of founded COINTELPRO if they weren't afraid, rightfully, that the civil rights movement and protests would have turned into active rebellion if they didn't compromise to civil equality. Thats not even mentioning other controversial aspects of the peaceful protests themselves, like the children's crusade, which even Malcolm X criticized because it endangered children in order to get publicity.
  10. Not to sound rude but I hate that answer so god damn much, because its such a non answer. we went to the god damn moon on a rocket ship but having a large scale society that doesn't suck is too hard because "human nature just be like that". I feel like that's just a massive excuse not to do anything or try to dream big. At the risk of sounding like I'm saying "I know they failed but I'm different" I'm going to go out there and say the vast majority of the time the reason why is seems like only a handful of governing systems work is because experimenting is hard and dangerous for everyone involved, not because there isn't something better. You can't just declare you podunk town independent and start establishing rules unique to it, people will get nervous about if they'll get fed, and the surrounding governments will either get pissed or greedy if you somehow succeed. Thats half of the reason why a system like this hasn't worked right there. The other half is because of technology and resources. You wanna know the difference between articles of confederation America and now? Mass production, general education, Massive logistics keeping computers, the ability to have roughly 5% of the population dedicated to farming rather than 70% like we used to. Also I have to say citation needed on the republic of cooperatives in the first place because I have to doubt that early America was ran by cooperatives instead of landowners and contemporary corporations ran by stock holders or a handful of individuals like the CEO and their cousin rather than the whole workforce with board members elected through democratic practices. My biggest source of doubt on that claim is that well over half of the people who were in politics at the time were slave owners, which isnt really telling me they cared about listening to their workforce much if they didnt have to.
  11. You can disagree with Malcolm X but you can't deny the influence he had on the civil rights movement, which is kind of the point I was trying to make. The civil rights movement wasn't just MLK and peaceful protest. There was some direct action taking place. Its undeniably a very prominent part of it and you cant just pretend there weren't some people ready to take up arms if the united states chose not to listen which was partially why peaceful protest was successful to begin with.
  12. Frankly I find this a kind of ignorant understanding of the civil rights movement considering the massive number of really important riots that occurred. Malcolm X would also absolutely disagree with you, not to mention that the biggest leader of non violent protest during the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr. Was literally assassinated under very strange circumstances, which lead to its own riot, before which the FBI was actively harassing him and even drew up a fake suicide note. I'm not saying MLK did not contribute whatsoever, but I am saying peaceful protest was not the only form of protest around, nor was it necessarily the most effective. We remember MLK because he's taught in schools as paragon of justice, equality and peace, and rightfully so, but its often to the detriment of more controversial aspects of the Civil rights moment, like the black panthers. Peaceful Protest help gain more followers, but the riots helped show the government that if they didn't capitulate things were going to burn, and in my opinion that helped move it forward.
  13. See the problem with that is climate change tho. We've really been taking that one slowly, and from what I can tell its to our detriment. How are we going to fix things slowly and carefully with all of the agents and organizations and governments working really hard to make that basically impossible? I'm not trying to be facetious I hope there is genuinely an answer but its getting more "idealistic" the more time goes on.
  14. Attempting to create a democratic and legal basis for the use of force is paradoxical in nature. Applied force is an act against mutual agreement in of itself and attempting to create a "democratic" legal basis of it only reinforces a government's right to rule through violence they only permit when done amongst their collaborators. I am not saying there should be brutish anarchy or even that violence is a good and righteous thing to use in order to establish ones goals, what I'm trying to say is that violence is an inevitable sin one has to bear if one is to stand against tyranny. There should be limitations on the use of violence, and people should try to insure it does not occur wantonly, what Im asking however is when is it necessary to employ force for ones own life and liberty, because its getting hazy frankly. You could argue that a lot of nations now have democratic processes in order to achieve one's goals peacefully, but you could also argue many of them are plutocracies that make true freedom impossible, or that the world is going to shit so fast that trying to take things slow and peaceful actually might cause more harm overall than trying to overthrow the whole thing and try to cut down as much killing the world as possible. If I were in a position to make this choice I would Ideally try to do something slow and steady, because to do so otherwise would be authoritarian and against my nature. I dont want a position of power ruled with an iron fist, I want the world to be equal and for violence to be as useless as possible in order to get what you need. The problem lies in the fact that in order to achieve that world I have to consider the reality that many people are just fine ruling with an iron fist and my soft ideals would be an easy target if I dont think about this harshly. I intentionally used provocative language because I didnt want to sugarcoat the question itself, but dont mistake the question as a confession that it is a good thing to use violence to get what one wants, its a question of when is it necessary to do so and why.
×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.