Originally posted by whodey The high speed rail suggestion is just a Big Government scam. Not only would they cost billions of tax payer money, they would require billions more to keep up and running. It would then become just another money losing scam like Amtrack robbing the American people of even more tax money.
Again you ignore externalities; even if (that's IF) the high speed lines themselves could not be operated at a profit, it's entirely possible, even likely, that they would save the country money.
Of course in Ireland the scale is possibly less ambitious but the principle is the same and has no obvious resemblance to central planning. Just good old capitalism run amok.
Originally posted by Teinosuke The answer would depend on how many people the government was making better off, relative to how many people it was making worse off.
Wrong: The answer is the gummint has no business making innocent people who are going about their own business, minding their own business etc, worse off.
You see punishing innocent people is not the business of gummint.
Originally posted by finnegan http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/identifying-ireland%E2%80%99s-ghost-estates/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_estate
Of course in Ireland the scale is possibly less ambitious but the principle is the same and has no obvious resemblance to central planning. Just good old capitalism run amok.
😛
Yet another example of a market shaped by gummint regulation (as per ATY's example) and therefore not an example of capitalism. a.k.a blasting a hole in your own foot.
Originally posted by Wajoma Yet another example of a market shaped by gummint regulation (as per ATY's example) and therefore not an example of capitalism. a.k.a blasting a hole in your own foot.
Capitalism can't exist without government so such a statement is meaningless.
Originally posted by Wajoma It is based on your right to your property No1, it doesn't take the state, all it takes is two people that recognise those rights in each other.
I thought it just took one bum and a cardboard box?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung I thought it just took one bum and a cardboard box?
No, that's not what I said dolt, a bum in a cardboard box can be a capitalist, there is no minimum property holding requirement, if you want to play with the example I gave No1, then if two bums camped out on some private property that they have received permission to do so recognise that the other fellows rightfully acquired card board box is his, and that the box he sleeps in belongs to himself then they are capitalists. The state may (rather than protecting capitalism, or making capitalism possible as No1 makes out) want to intefere in all kinds of ways making it impossible for these two to go about their peaceful capitalist life style.
Originally posted by Wajoma No, that's not what I said dolt, a bum in a cardboard box can be a capitalist, there is no minimum property holding requirement, if you want to play with the example I gave No1, then if two bums camped out on some private property that they have received permission to do so recognise that the other fellows rightfully acquired card board box is his, and that t ...[text shortened]... ds of ways making it impossible for these two to go about their peaceful capitalist life style.
So what happens when the bigger bum beats up the smaller one and takes his box? Capitalism just magically vanishes?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung So what happens when the bigger bum beats up the smaller one and takes his box? Capitalism just magically vanishes?
Correct, the bigger bum has chosen the route of the non-capitalist.
Empty Chinese Cities
01 Apr '11 05:25
Back to Top