On 28/06/06 09:01 +0100, Ashish Gulhati wrote: > > On 27-Jun-06, at 10:02 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote: > > >>For very dubious values of "well"! > > > >Care to show me better working mass transit in India which scales > >up to > >those levels? > > India is a socialist, collectivist country. Even the Bombay mass > transit system was not set up by the socialist state, but by the Brits. > > Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_suburban_railway, > particularly: > > Yearly more than 3,500 people die on the Mumbai suburban railway > track > due to overcrowding during peak hours. This is believed to be the > highest > number of fatalities per year on any urban or suburban railway > system. > > And: > > overcrowding has grown to be a compelling problem (4,700 passengers > are > packed into a 9-car rake during peak hours, as against the rated > carrying > capacity of 1,700). This has resulted in what is known as Super- > Dense Crush > Load of 14 to 16 standing passengers per square metre of floor space. > > A private company motivated by profit can and will solve the > "problem" of increased demand with increased supply. (A private > company doesn't actually consider this a problem, of course!) The state > is most often incompetent to meet increasing demand, even when it will > result in higher profits to the state!
What happens when resources are stretched far beyond their limits? When the critical resource is not the number of trains, but land area? When you have to consider that new land isn't exactly creatable (you can dig only so many tunnels, build only so many bridges), how do you propose to use those resources? > > >Care to show me alternative, working transport systems which were not > >substantially funded/owned by the government and which have not > >been set > >up with cheap funds and labour looted from an empire? > > James Hill built the first transcontinental railroad in the US, with > no government help and no "funds and labour looted from" anyone. I said working :). I don't think that AMTRAK is profitable (in any sense of the term). > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_hill > > There are over 30 private train companies in Switzerland. All provide > levels > of service that the Mumbai metropolitan railway can never even dream of > achieving as long as it stays under state control and coercively resists > competition. > > >Or if you want to argue for pure market forces, what would happen if > >copyright was abolished? How much literature would come into > >existence, > >and then get to the public? > > Copyright is entirely compatible with capitalism. > > >>If not enough people are convinced, maybe more convincing is > >>necessary? > > > >Or maybe economic intervention? Or something else which drives up the > >costs to the polluter instead of everyone else? > > As I said before, if there's a real threat to anyone's health or > safety, polluters can > be dealt with in the same manner as any other violators of individual > rights. > And this is not a tyranny of the majority? How? > >However, the benefit to society is when > >mass transit is used, in terms of roadspace used, pollution and time > >savings for large numbers of commuters). However, this total gain > >results in a net loss of convinience to every individual private > >transport user. > > Most people in Switzerland use rail transport for distances over 100KM, > voluntarily. Nobody forces them to do this. With economies of scale, What do they do for short distances? Most people I know use trains for moderate to long distances (and some people fly). This is perfectly voluntary too. In places where working mass transit is available, a majority of people use it rather than personal transport. Where personal transport is being supported, I don't see efficiencies in traffic flow. A bus offers less comfort per individual than a car. However, when a majority of commuters user cars rather than buses/trains, they run into large traffic snarls. And because the investment in cars is already made, there is a strong resistance to shifting to buses/trains for short distances. > cost savings of mass transit can be passed on to consumers, and they > will choose mass transit voluntarily for the lower costs. > > Besides it isn't at all clear that mass transit offers all that many > advantages > to society, beyond the sum of the advantages it offers individuals. > Arguments > based on resource limitations are blind in their denial of the > ability of new > technology to unlock previously inaccessible resource pools, like oil > shale. > The critical resource you are missing in my question is land, not oil. I don't care how much money you throw at the problem, land is not going to magically appear. Alternative routes? Where are the flying cars? > >>Who determines these things are "necessary"? By what authority? > >>Popular > >>opinion? But you just said these things were also "unpopular"? :-) > >> > >Reasonable judgement, which considers social costs, as opposed to > >purely > >individual costs? > > This doesn't answer my question at all. If there is a disagreement > over an issue, > how do you decide whose judgement is more "reasonable"? In a democracy > unbounded by the primacy of individual rights, the answer is > basically: "might > makes right". If you accept that tenet, you should have no problem > with slavery, > murder, genocide, etc. > In a democracy bounded by the concept of the rights of smaller groups to have their say. After all, the purpose of the government in a democracy is also to act as a counterwieght to the tyranny of the majority. > >>Capitalism doesn't only subsume "profit driven industry", but also > >>ANY > >>voluntary association of human beings, including charities, co- > >>operatives, > >>non-profit organizations, and philanthropic organizations. As long as > >>there's no coercion involved, any of these entities is free, under > > > >Any form of government intervention is coercion (the threat is losing > >money and/or freedom). > > Yes. So? The sorts of organizations I mention above do not need to > resort to > coercion to effect social change. > > >>And your point is? Fine wines are more profitable per bottle than > >>beer. > >>In a capitalist society, however, both are produced in sufficient > >>quantities > >>to meet any arbitrary level of demand. Just because Viagra is > >>produced > >>does not mean cures for malaria will not be. Competition in the > >>market > >>means a diversity of interests and approaches towards every problem. > >> > >However, if the market is essentially demanding an ever increasing > >growth in profits, then your argument does not hold good. > > As I pointed our before, capitalism allows for the existence of all > sorts of voluntary-based organizations, including not-for-profits, > charities, etc. So > this insistence on painting capitalism narrowly in terms of "greedy > profit seeking" alone is just wrestling with straw men. > I am arguing in terms of profit. This may not necessarily reflect directly in the bottom line as cash. For a charity, profit may be measured in the number of people helped. Devdas Bhagat
