House of Eratosthenes

The reason why ‘progressives’ (statists, really) love trains and hate cars is that cars go from where you are to where you want to go, whereas trains go from where the statists think you ought to be to where they think you ought to want to go.

He links to a Slate article with a map on it, which is a bit scary if you live anywhere on the Pacific Coast North of the the Siskiyou pass and want to get anywhere.

I’m recalling the write-up I did last week on this ambition toward dependence…not independence, but dependence. Some among us, particularly those who put an almost religious enthusiasm into their belief in evolution, seem to harbor a dream of evolving from being a whole working thing, to being part of a working thing. I’m very slow figuring this out, even though it surrounds me apparently, because I just don’t relate to it and I can’t understand it.

Statism I linked, there, to the George F. Will article about trains which says essentially the same thing that Dyspepsia is saying. So, I’m ready to buy off on this: Liberals don’t give a crap about people getting anywhere any quicker, or the high-speed rail systems becoming viable. They want the individuals to be at the mercy of the centrally managed system, with all its flaws and foibles. That’s the point. Question is, why. Do they want to create more aggravation? That seems improbable.

It isn’t a lust for power, as I understand lusts for power. Most of the high speed rail advocates harbor no ambition at all, to actually run the system. Nor do they seem to envision themselves as stepping in to any kind of role where they could trade favors for other favors, as an extension of the power that comes from the many being impacted directly by the decisions of the few. But, issue by issue, they seem awfully fond of this many-impacted-by-few configuration. They never really get away from it. Ever. The wheel-of-people, with a tiny hub and a massive bunch of things around the rim. It is central to everything they do, or propose to do, every idea they have.

People should become capillaries. Mere nodules of things danging at the ends of vessels delivering vital-whatever…barely significant, completely connected to the host system, but not terribly consequential to its continuing existence, while the host is all-important to the capillary. A relationship somewhere between symbiosis and parasitism, such that the host must be concerned about the totality of the capillaries, but not rely on any one of them.

But there is a hierarchy to this: If anything happens to Obama, the country is certainly screwed. But if a fate befalls a bunch of other Americans, then What Difference Does It Make.

I’ve noticed before, in quite a few places, that ants and bees work this way. There is a queen, which becomes almost a living part of the nest itself, and for the rest of the bees or ants becomes functionally one and the same with the nest. And then they toil. And they are absolutely expendable. Whereas the queen does not, and is not. Liberals want us to live like insects.

Current operating theory: They are not trying to put us in this configuration in order to accomplish anything else, specifically. They are simply motivated to live this way. It is their comfort zone. Bzzz, bzzz, bzzz…

I agree with your current operating theory. If Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone somewhere may be having a good time, then liberalism is the haunting fear that all the cool kids back in high school might have been right.

Liberals drank deeply from the well of “self-esteem” back in grade school. They are convinced they’re exceedingly special. Problem is, the world doesn’t agree. Kim Kardashian has a million Twitter followers, and they have three, because being good-looking trumps a perfect score on the SAT verbals every time. Statism is one life-long act of revenge for this sad state of affairs– they can’t keep the quarterback from dating the head cheerleader, but they can make them both ride the subway to get to the prom.
- Severian | 02/11/2013 @ 12:03
…Statism is one life-long act of revenge for this sad state of affairs– they can’t keep the quarterback from dating the head cheerleader, but they can make them both ride the subway to get to the prom.

SHIT… somehow I have to find a way to do another BSIHORL.

That was pure gold.
- mkfreeberg | 02/11/2013 @ 12:50
They keep telling me that “progressives” want to you know, make progress. Yet they keep advocating things straight out of the 50’s and 60’s. Strong unions with strong manufacturing economy. People taking public transportation everywhere and fewer choices in consumer goods.
- Duffy | 02/11/2013 @ 13:22
The high-speed rail map on Slate reminds me of the bus routes in Eugene, OR. If I wanted to get from my home to work, I’d have to take two bus trips way out of my way, or three if I wanted to be a bit more direct.

Needless to say, a car was more convenient.
- Captain Midnight | 02/11/2013 @ 14:33
I linked, there, to the George F. Will article about trains which says essentially the same thing that Dyspepsia is saying. So, I’m ready to buy off on this: Liberals don’t give a crap about people getting anywhere any quicker, or the high-speed rail systems becoming viable. They want the individuals to be at the mercy of the centrally managed system, with all its flaws and foibles. That’s the point. Question is, why. Do they want to create more aggravation? That seems improbable.

Some can’t see the forest OR the trees, even when they run smash into them.

High speed rails and people being able to get other places, faster, keeps them from the mercy of a centrally managed system.

Especially in a place like California. Herb Kelleher, then CEO of Southwest Airlines, opposed a Texas high-speed rail system. “We’ve already got one,” he said. “We call it Southwest Airlines.”

Funny, and largely true. But Southwest didn’t then serve Minneapolis, and you couldn’t get from Minneapolis to Milwaukee on ’em. San Diego to Seattle, maybe — but not so well as with a high speed rail.

Making nations work well is not so much statism as it is patriotism, and good common sense. Of course, that is a bigger pigeonhole, and it’s not so easy to invent false snark if you’re in favor of patriotism and common sense, and things it causes other patriots to do — like advocate high speed rail.
- edarrell | 02/11/2013 @ 15:52
I’m afraid he’s got you there, Morgan — patriots favor high-speed rail.

Patriots.

Where’s your patriotism, buddy? Do you hate America, Morgan? Why do you hate America, Morgan? Every time you think bad thoughts about high-speed rail, George Washington has to spend another decade languishing in purgatory.
- Severian | 02/11/2013 @ 17:18
Yup. Looks more like a religion than a science, in all sorts of ways.
- mkfreeberg | 02/11/2013 @ 17:19
Note edarrell’s bait and switch. He claims that high speed rails frees people from a centrally managed system, ie, Southwest Airlines, as if Southwest were the only airline in Texas, an attribute that only applies to the rail system he is pushing. Rails must be centrally managed because, duh, rails, as opposed to airlines, who only have a management bottleneck at the airports, which, amazingly enough, are controlled by the government. But it is a nice demonstration of how dangerous Anti-trust laws are. Funny how edarrell needed Southwest Airlines to be a monopoly, and behold, it was. Of course, the Really funny part is that edarrell’s ilk are the ones who destroyed the rail system playing just that game, proclaiming the companies to be a “natural monopoly” and dictating terms on pain of destruction. The country, of course, routed around the damage, creating the Airline and Trucking industry, stripping a lot of power from the government edarrell and his leftist friends favor. Oops……
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/11/2013 @ 19:38
No, Robert: High speed rail frees people from having to stick in the local community. Southwest Airlines ALSO frees people to travel (it’s a Constitutional right, by the way, but what do you care about the Constitution if it costs you money and benefits other people, right?).

You are held completely in thrall to the “statism” that says Americans should have opportunity only if they are rich, that Americans cannot benefit from high speed rail. Oh, you curse the fact that you couldn’t oppose the creation of the interstate highway system (National Defense Highway Act, but who could ever invade us, right?); you rue that liberal Lincoln’s subsidizing the transcontinental railroads, and the giveaways to those lazy louts, the pioneers who settled Wisconsin, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Oregon, California and Colorado — they’ve had their hands out ever since!

Statism? No, Marie Antoinette was right, with “Let them eat cake!” If they’re not smart enough to substitute cake when they can’t afford bread, they DESERVE to have no way to develop economically, no way to travel for jobs or education or pleasure, and they MUST be held in thrall to the oil companies and auto makers!

/sarc

You guys aren’t really opposing statism. You’re just asking to kiss a different whip.
- edarrell | 02/12/2013 @ 13:02
Robert, do you favor the massive expenditure necessary to upgrade the Air Traffic Control system?

Statism, much?
- edarrell | 02/12/2013 @ 13:03
“High speed rails and people being able to get other places, faster, keeps them from the mercy of a centrally managed system.”

Now that’s rich. The airlines are private and competitive, not to mention pretty fast. The rails are statist and uncompetitive. But having to wait until enough people want to travel an obscure route to justify a short commuter-hop air route by one of many competitive private airlines is being at the mercy of a centrally managed system, while going between whatever two cities the latest rail boondoggle decided was a good route for you is protecting you from the mercy of a centrally managed system.

Is the problem with how we’re using the words “central” and “managed”? What I’m hearing is the fear of the corporate bogeyman. He’s driven by profit! He’s rich and powerful! He doesn’t give me what I want! He pays attention to what people in general want, and even then he cares only if they’re interested enough to spend their own money! I want a system that goes where I want to go at the expense of all those other people who actually pay taxes.

Honestly, it’s amazing how many bad ideas come down to the basic assumption that profit is evil but governments are nice like Mommy and never send me a bill when they meet my needs.
- Texan99 | 02/12/2013 @ 13:07
but what do you care about the Constitution if it costs you money and benefits other people, right?

Yeah, Robert… why don’t you care about the Constitution? Why do you hate the Constitution, Robert? Every time you think something bad about high-speed rail, Patrick Henry gets pitchforked in the tuchus by Satan himself.

Just out of curiosity, Ed, do you have any other settings than “smugly hectoring” and “Maude Flanders?” Won’t someone please think of the children?!
- Severian | 02/12/2013 @ 14:13
[…] second favorite liberal, Ed Darrell, provides some classic examples here. The context is a “debate” over high-speed rail, but it’s immaterial. […]
- The Dim Devil’s Dictionary (D3): “Maudochromatic” | Rotten Chestnuts | 02/12/2013 @ 14:45
“No, Robert: High speed rail frees people from having to stick in the local community. Southwest Airlines ALSO frees people to travel (it’s a Constitutional right, by the way, but what do you care about the Constitution if it costs you money and benefits other people, right?).”

Where were you going with this? Is the idea that high-speed rail allows you to travel, and the Constitution guarantees you the right to travel, so the taxpayers have to build you a high-speed rail?

“You are held completely in thrall to the “statism” that says Americans should have opportunity only if they are rich, that Americans cannot benefit from high speed rail. . . . Statism? No, Marie Antoinette was right, with “Let them eat cake!” If they’re not smart enough to substitute cake when they can’t afford bread, they DESERVE to have no way to develop economically, no way to travel for jobs or education or pleasure, and they MUST be held in thrall to the oil companies and auto makers! . . . . You guys aren’t really opposing statism. You’re just asking to kiss a different whip.”

I guess I don’t understand what you mean by the word “statism.” I think the normal usage is to refer to the end of the spectrum characterized by central government control, in contrast with dispersed liberties held by individual citizens and, typically, a free market. I can’t line that up with the notion that it’s statism to suggest that Americans should enjoy only those opportunities they can afford. Or with the idea that, when people are “denied” the right to develop economically, they end up in thrall to private companies. I’m getting the impression that you use the word “statism” to refer to any large or powerful institution with whom an individual has a less than satisfying contact. Opposing that state of affairs is more usually called “populism” and is often contrasted with either “big business” or “crony capitalism.” Statism also is in conflict with populism, but in that case the bad guy is (by definition) the state, not private institutions. In any case, if I understand your point, you fault us for being blind to the plight of the little common man in his struggle against Big Airlines, and for failing to see that high speed rail is the state’s benevolent method of freeing him from that pernicious influence. But I’m afraid I don’t see the advantage, other than that the little guy has to pay for one service out of his own pocket, but can foist the cost of the other onto the taxpayer. In every other respect, adopting the viewpoint of the little guy, I’d much rather deal with the big private airline than with the state. At least the airline lacks a monopoly, a taxman, and an army.
- Texan99 | 02/12/2013 @ 15:28
I guess I don’t understand what you mean by the word “statism.”

It’s a pretty silly application of the concept, isn’t it? Ask Morgan. It’s his idea. He’s the one who laid out opposition to high-speed rail as really being opposition to “liberal statism.” Read the lead post.

No, we don’t have to build high speed rail. It’s just a boon to the economy, a very good idea, generally much more environmentally friendly that alternatives, and it adds to our enjoyment of America — but Morgan sees some dark purpose there.

Morgan wrote,

Liberals don’t give a crap about people getting anywhere any quicker, or the high-speed rail systems becoming viable. They want the individuals to be at the mercy of the centrally managed system, with all its flaws and foibles. That’s the point. Question is, why. Do they want to create more aggravation? That seems improbable.

If we build high speed rail, humans become “mere capillaries,” Morgan said. Damn the business advantages, damn the environmental advantages, damn the social advantages — we’ll all be slaves to trains!

I don’t know where such wackiness comes from. I cannot imagine what sort of trauma would produce that conclusion out of Morgan (bad choices in lovers for extra-marital affairs and decades of lousy Oriole teams probably did it to George Will). But you can see what Morgan thinks of high speed rail. “More aggravation.”

Of course it makes no sense. Does anything in the so-called conservative (mis-called, if you ask me), anti-tax, anti-government, anti-good neighbor, cynical misanthropic political views of any Tea Partier/Remnant GOP/self-proclaimed libertarian universe of thought have to make sense? Served up with enough words, especially big ones, and peppered over with a high degree of snark and snobbishness, isn’t that Good For America?

I don’t know why Morgan mislabeled it statism. But no one else here thought that a problem, let alone the lunatic claim it was to begin with. Morgan talks a lot about argument, but reductio ad absurdum only works when the extension of an idea runs to absurdity, not against great ideas that simply stick in a finger in a misanthrope’s eye — and then only because the misanthrope poked that finger into his own eye.

High speed rail is a generally very good idea. Small minds, meaning so-called conservatives, like Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Rick Scott in Florida, lead crusades against high speed rail. They don’t base the opposition on anything that makes sense — but you have to dig to find that in George Will’s complaint, or Morgan’s. If they can label it “statist,” that means it’s bad, right?

Right?

Why do you disagree? You want Obama should win one?

P.S. — I didn’t say anything about the plight of the common man against Big Airlines. But reading all sorts of stuff into what I write here is par for the course. If there were a decent production of the Bald Soprano playing somewhere, I’d probably go see that instead.

At least then I wouldn’t have to explain Herb Kelleher’s punch lines.
- edarrell | 02/12/2013 @ 16:24
The airlines are private and competitive, not to mention pretty fast. The rails are statist and uncompetitive.

Says who? Why can’t a private rail system be a part of this, as it is in every other modern nation?

Actually, in the U.S. today, rails are private and competitive, and very fast. Warren Buffet invests in them for a reason — they make a lot of money for a very long time, and they are very well run.

But, in your mad flight from mis-labeled “statism,” you decide you want inefficient rail?

Another good reason to keep anti-government wankers out of elective office. The danger of aiming for inefficient organizations is, we’re likely to get them when we do.
- edarrell | 02/12/2013 @ 16:29
“[Morgan is the] one who laid out opposition to high-speed rail as really being opposition to ‘liberal statism.’”

Yes, and his point made sense, because high-speed rail is statist. You then argued that opposing high-speed rail was statist, which was the complete opposite. That point didn’t make sense, because it was the complete opposite of something that did make sense.

“[H]igh speed rail [is] just a boon to the economy . . . .”

Yeah, that’s probably why it always loses money and has to be subsidized.

“anti-tax, anti-government, anti-good neighbor, cynical misanthropic political views of any Tea Partier/Remnant GOP/self-proclaimed libertarian universe”

Anti-tax and anti-goverment I’ll give you. I don’t see the connection to anti-good-neighbor or misanthrope. Conservatives do good things for other people, especially their neighbors. It’s just that they do it with their own money. You know, I supposed, that statistics show conservatives give more to charity than liberals?

As for private rail systems, I have no problem with them — that means no subsidies. Show me a proposed high-speed rail that’s not relying on subsidies. It’s not like I’m against choo-choos for their own sake. And no, I don’t think I’m advocating inefficient rail.
- Texan99 | 02/12/2013 @ 17:21
anti-good neighbor, cynical misanthropic political views of any Tea Partier/Remnant GOP/self-proclaimed libertarian

Yeah, Texan99! Take that!! Why do you hate your neighbors? Why do you hate humanity itself?

Every time you think something bad about high-speed rail, Gandhi’s reincarnated soul is forced to fight to the death for the amusement of some Third World warlord.
- Severian | 02/12/2013 @ 17:26
Alas, edarrell, I have a lot of experience with high speed rail (I vacation once a year in Japan, for a month, as a rule. Not nearly as expensive as you may have heard, about $3000 for the whole trip if you do it right.). I always get a JRrailpass, for the trains are quite costly, and not nearly as quick as you might think, for although they have an impressive top speed, you lose a lot of time each time you stop, and there a lot of stops. So the Japanese stick to the local community a lot more then Americans do, and day trips to places are quick rare. When you spent hundreds of dollars to take the family someplace (Tokyo to Kyoto, one way, is about $130, to go about 228 miles. Four people, round trip, is over a thousand dollars.) you better get your money’s worth! And that is a highly subsidized system (the Japanese are very proud of their rail system, it’s a source of national pride) with a much smaller country with a much higher population density then ours. I’m afraid your “freedom” to travel is much curtailed in the Land of Rails. And that is in a country which is so law abiding that a knife attack in Akihabara made international news. The American genius at cheating the system guarantees that any high volume passenger rail system that might make sense in the U.S. would go bankrupt because of gate jumpers and ticket scammers. Oh, wait, Ametrack………

But keep attacking my motives. I’m flattered at how much passion you imply this sad eater of dust has……..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/12/2013 @ 20:13
Do tell us, Mr. Mitchell, about how the Japanese are oppressed by having to ride on trains, how this “statist” solution steals the liberty from the Japanese, and how they would do anything they could to get that yoke off their necks.

I didn’t claim trains are perfect. I didn’t claim there are no difficulties. I only point out that knee-jerk opposition to high speed rail as “statist” is Bolshevism in the highest form; hooey in the highest, too.
- edarrell | 02/12/2013 @ 22:19
Well, of course they are less free, they only get to go where the trains go, and the Japanese government does sometimes actually oppress them by using this power (among others) to make villages and towns “go away”, much as FDR used his power to politically cleanse New York State. It is, true, a very soft oppression, and the Japanese are very tolerant of government power.

Quite a walkback from “High speed Trains are Freedom”. But, ok. Alas, you misunderstand the opposition. It is not knee-jerk opposition, those who oppose it do so because it has been tried and found wanting. Amtrack loses money hand over fist, and it has the North-East corridor, the most railed part of the country, and with the highest population density in the country. The New York subway system loses money (which it didn’t do when it was in private hands). The D.C. metro loses money. Lots of money. The Japanese system loses money. It would seem that trains were never a viable way to transport people, and with the loss freight caused by government regulation interfering with pricing, they are not profitable. None of us here would object to an honest private sector attempt at a High Speed Train System. Private rails can be and are run at a profit, as I have seen in Japan. Haven’t seen any government do that…….

and yes, a government run rail system is statist, by definition. Which, again, is what we are being sold. Not even the Crony Capitalists want to be in charge of any of these plans. These are government vanity projects, doomed to fail, if for no other reason then the unholy alliance of government work rules and union work rules. You really think the government is going to stop their workers from unionizing? Really think those workers are not going to strike? Really think that the people trapped by the strike have had their freedom increased? History has given us answers to these questions, and the answers are not kind to your position………
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/13/2013 @ 00:58
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/13/confirmed-conservatives-understand-liberal-positions-better-than-liberals-understand-conservative-positions/
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 03:10
. . . as FDR used his power to politically cleanse New York State.

What kind of hallucinogens do you guys use? That’s a lot more creative than the fictional election of Charles Lindbergh. Have you tried to sell it as a novel?

Not knee-jerk? Just jerk?

Yes, Amtrak loses money — all public transportation does. Roads lose a lot more, but we amortize it a little better. Other costs are higher (though EPA finally seems to have done away with the lead-poisoning side effect).

If one counts the massive federal giveaways to get the transcontinental rail routes built out, those railroads are still losing money and always have.

Civilization isn’t free.

The claim that allowing Japanese people to travel “oppresses” them is also quite creative.

So much “anti-statism” is based in fantasy that is not even Carrollian. Another indication that liberals understand conservative positions much better than conservatives understand anything. A twist on the old “I see things that never were, and ask why not”: So-called conservatives see things that never were, and punish everyone else for causing the hallucination.
- edarrell | 02/13/2013 @ 08:00
Civilization isn’t free.

Yeah, Robert. Why are you such a hater, Robert? The fact that you don’t want your tax dollars pissed away on Amtrak is all the proof I need that you hate civilization itself, Robert.

Every time you think bad thoughts about high-speed rail, Sid Meier and the ghost of Hammurabi are forced to watch The Postman six times in a row.
- Severian | 02/13/2013 @ 08:24
“Yes, Amtrak loses money — all public transportation does.” All taxpayer-funded transportation loses money by definition, or it wouldn’t have to be subsidized by taxpayers. But not all transportation available to the public does so. The original squabble was over whether high-speed rail was better than commercial airlines. I’m still not seeing it. Why wouldn’t we prefer commercial airlines if they can support themselves through user fees, rather than dump the cost of loser rail systems onto the taxpayer? If we could figure out a way to make railways solvent via user fees, I’d be just as happy with them as with airlines.

Civilization costs money. Well, sure, so the question is: Whose money? Civilization is not the same thing as the government. Lots of civilization is happily created and financed by private individuals exchanging goods and services with each other in the free market. Very little of civilization is uniquely suited to government. People who believe in limited government have a preference for doing things through private institutions and the free market; they favor turning over functions to the government only upon a convincing showing that the government can accomplish something of critical importance that is next to impossible through private, voluntary means, like national defense and epidemiology. Why? Well, among other things, because the free market has proved better able to create general prosperity than any centralized command economy has ever done. I’m not talking subtle differences here, but the difference between a nation so prosperous that its poor people die of obesity, and nations that starve people by the tens of millions in previously agriculturally self-supporting areas. Government can be convenient in its powerful centralization, and it’s sometimes the right tool, but it’s very expensive and inefficient. It should be used sparingly.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 09:15
And yet, edarrell, private transportation managed to build rails, roads and airports and make a profit. Perhaps it is you who has the knee-jerk reaction against freedom?

“Civilization isn’t free”? True. Civilization makes a profit! The government can’t seem to get it’s act together enough to do so, but the rest of us pull it off all the time. Roads were built by the private sector, for a profit, canels were built by the private sector, for a profit, rails were built by the private sector, for a profit, ports were built by the private sector, for a profit, airports were built by the private sector, for a profit. Money, money, money. And then the public sector takes over and it’s “Civilization isn’t free”. Funny that. Post office loses money hand over fist, well, CIF. UPS makes money hand over fist for doing the same thing, and they do it better. Maybe if the State could do the work it claims for itself, we wouldn’t be so “anti-statists”, yes?

And of course “allowing” Japanese people to travel is oppression. It would be Freedom if the Japanese government couldn’t stop the Japanese people from travelling. Not a hard distinction, I would hope.

And no “hallucinogens”, I’m afraid. FDR made several parks in upstate New York, and a lot of people were displaced. Amazingly enough, Republican enclaves were hardest hit. Not a unique situation, the government displaces people all the time for it’s vanity projects (see the TVA and the Three Gorges Dam). Surprisingly, the people with political power are better able to get lines redrawn or actual value for their property. I’m sure you’ll start talking about omelets next……..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/13/2013 @ 09:36
[…] Severian, commenting at Morgan’s place: […]
- dustbury.com » Quote of the week | 02/14/2013 @ 16:17

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Best Sentence CXXXIMonday, February 11th, 2013

Best Sentence CXXXI
Monday, February 11th, 2013