Libertarians are moderates.

[Gabu]

I think that this largely underscores exactly why Libertarians don't exactly do well: they start from an ultimately fatal assumption that everyone agrees with them and simply doesn't know it yet and then attempt to go from there.  If such an assuption is, in fact, wrong, everything that follows it will be ineffectual.

You can keep patting yourselves on the back all you want and reassuring each other that you're the true moderates and that all of those other people are extreme terrorists, but it's not going to give you any greater success than you've already had.

[Brandon H]

Interesting way of viewing things. However, it would be difficult to covince the 99% of the people who voted Republicrat of that. However, the Democrats are always calling the Republicans extremists and the Republicans are always calling the Democrats extremists. So maybe the Republicrats are right about something. Too bad they haven't tried looking in a mirror.

Of course someone would say that anyone they disagree with is an extremist.

[12th Doctor]

As a matter of fact, I contend that a survey of the cratered no-man's land that we call "American politics" reveals libertarians as the only moderates, and that the more "extreme" the libertarian, the more "moderate" he or she is relative to the assortment of cranks, thieves, murderers and degenerates currently lobbing shells at one another from the respective trenches of the "conservative" and "progressive" forces fighting for rare and transient moments of dominance over that no-man's land.

That statement alone just defeated his entire argument.

[Storebought]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those are all imminently debatable points.

But they're just that -- debatable -- but not really feasibly politically implementable (except No. 7, and to a lesser extent, No 1).

On No 4 alone, the teachers unions will murder elected Libertarians who proposed that as new legislation. Much worse, from a political standpoint, would be the reaction of parents with school-age children -- Libertarians will appear hateful to them.

Of course, if the LP nominates the equivalent of a Eugene Debs or a H Ross Perot, that would be moot, the charisma of the candidate surpressing the radicalism of the platform. On the whole, though, the LP greatly dislikes the cult of political personality; therefore, a LP Perot is not on the horizon.

Still, I see that the LP ought to consider ways to sell their policy ideas to a population that does not automatically appreciate their intrinsic worth as libertarian (small " l ") philosophy.

[WalterMitty]

public transportation cannot be profitable.  it isnt meant to be profitable either.


it's  aservice that is capable of doing a lot of good for society.  it should be expanded.  more government subsidies are needed.

[David S]

public transportation cannot be profitable.  it isnt meant to be profitable either.


it's  aservice that is capable of doing a lot of good for society.  it should be expanded.  more government subsidies are needed.

You're still in the wrong party.

[Nym90]

public transportation cannot be profitable.  it isnt meant to be profitable either.


it's  aservice that is capable of doing a lot of good for society.  it should be expanded.  more government subsidies are needed.

I strongly agree. The benefits of public transportation are numerous.

It provides a way for poor people to get to jobs that they otherwise wouldn't be able to rather than forcing them into lower paying jobs that they can walk to (it is clearly bad for the economy for people to not be able to get to a job that they are otherwise qualified for).

It is good for the environment by reducing fossil fuel emissions.

It is good for national security by reducing our consumption of gasoline, thus making us less dependent on the Middle East.

It reduces the need to build new roads or to expand existing roads, and reduces the need for maintenance to existing roads, thus decreasing government infrastructure costs.

It reduces overall traffic congestion, enabling everyone else to get where they are going faster, thus greatly helping the economy.

I would say it is a government initiative that pays for itself several times over.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

public transportation cannot be profitable.  it isnt meant to be profitable either.


it's  aservice that is capable of doing a lot of good for society.  it should be expanded.  more government subsidies are needed.

I strongly agree. The benefits of public transportation are numerous.

It provides a way for poor people to get to jobs that they otherwise wouldn't be able to rather than forcing them into lower paying jobs that they can walk to (it is clearly bad for the economy for people to not be able to get to a job that they are otherwise qualified for).

It is good for the environment by reducing fossil fuel emissions.

It is good for national security by reducing our consumption of gasoline, thus making us less dependent on the Middle East.

It reduces the need to build new roads or to expand existing roads, and reduces the need for maintenance to existing roads, thus decreasing government infrastructure costs.

It reduces overall traffic congestion, enabling everyone else to get where they are going faster, thus greatly helping the economy.

I would say it is a government initiative that pays for itself several times over.

But don't you get it, public transportation spending is socialism that gets in the way of spending that money on some uhhhh capitalistic freeways, and treating car pullution related diseases.

[MaC]

public transportation cannot be profitable.  it isnt meant to be profitable either.


it's  aservice that is capable of doing a lot of good for society.  it should be expanded.  more government subsidies are needed.

I strongly agree. The benefits of public transportation are numerous.

It provides a way for poor people to get to jobs that they otherwise wouldn't be able to rather than forcing them into lower paying jobs that they can walk to (it is clearly bad for the economy for people to not be able to get to a job that they are otherwise qualified for).

It is good for the environment by reducing fossil fuel emissions.

It is good for national security by reducing our consumption of gasoline, thus making us less dependent on the Middle East.

It reduces the need to build new roads or to expand existing roads, and reduces the need for maintenance to existing roads, thus decreasing government infrastructure costs.

It reduces overall traffic congestion, enabling everyone else to get where they are going faster, thus greatly helping the economy.

I would say it is a government initiative that pays for itself several times over.

But don't you get it, public transportation spending is socialism that gets in the way of spending that money on some uhhhh capitalistic freeways, and treating car pullution related diseases.

I'd be happy if you weren't sarcastic.

Public v. private transportation is a matter of efficiency.  If a business starts a transportation system and they do poorly (are late, overcrowded, bad seating, whatever), people will stop taking that system and the system will go out of business.  Therefore a business must be good in some respect if it's able to exist independently.
A government-run system doesn't have to do well.  All it needs is taxpayer money (which only a fraction of the taxpayers who pay for the system will use it ) and if it fails, the government will bail it out by 'reforming' and taking more taxpayer money. 

It's a matter of efficiency.

[Nym90]

public transportation cannot be profitable.  it isnt meant to be profitable either.


it's  aservice that is capable of doing a lot of good for society.  it should be expanded.  more government subsidies are needed.

I strongly agree. The benefits of public transportation are numerous.

It provides a way for poor people to get to jobs that they otherwise wouldn't be able to rather than forcing them into lower paying jobs that they can walk to (it is clearly bad for the economy for people to not be able to get to a job that they are otherwise qualified for).

It is good for the environment by reducing fossil fuel emissions.

It is good for national security by reducing our consumption of gasoline, thus making us less dependent on the Middle East.

It reduces the need to build new roads or to expand existing roads, and reduces the need for maintenance to existing roads, thus decreasing government infrastructure costs.

It reduces overall traffic congestion, enabling everyone else to get where they are going faster, thus greatly helping the economy.

I would say it is a government initiative that pays for itself several times over.

But don't you get it, public transportation spending is socialism that gets in the way of spending that money on some uhhhh capitalistic freeways, and treating car pullution related diseases.

I'd be happy if you weren't sarcastic.

Public v. private transportation is a matter of efficiency.  If a business starts a transportation system and they do poorly (are late, overcrowded, bad seating, whatever), people will stop taking that system and the system will go out of business.  Therefore a business must be good in some respect if it's able to exist independently.
A government-run system doesn't have to do well.  All it needs is taxpayer money (which only a fraction of the taxpayers who pay for the system will use it ) and if it fails, the government will bail it out by 'reforming' and taking more taxpayer money. 

It's a matter of efficiency.

If a government run system doesn't do well, the people have the right to chime in on that in the next election. They don't have that direct ability to affect business policy as they do governmental policy.

And regarding efficiency, while the profit motivation is a plus for business, the fact that business has to make a profit is a minus, so it all pretty much balances out. Neither is inherently more or less efficient than the other.

Buses, trains, subways, etc. are inherently cost-prohibitive for businesses to create and to operate due to large start up costs in terms of land acquisition, infrastructure creation and maintenance, etc. That's why it's the perfect example of something government should do rather than the private sector, because no one business is likely to be able to afford it; plus, the benefits are mostly long term and diffuse across the entire population, thus not making it an attractive venture for business to go into. A business wouldn't be able to make enough short term profits off of it to make the long term benefit to the country or to themselves worth their while when compared to other business opportunities in which they can capture more of a niche market.

[Emsworth]

If a government run system doesn't do well, the people have the right to chime in on that in the next election. They don't have that direct ability to affect business policy as they do governmental policy.

On the contrary, I think that the very opposite is true. If a private transportation system is operating poorly, then the consumer need only stop using it. The business will suffer losses, and will therefore have to change its policy. But why would the government fear losses? How would it be motivated to amend its policy?

The idea that voters can improve the system by making their objections known at the ballot box is, with all due respect, rather fanciful. How many elections that you know of have been fought and won on transportation policy?