Apparently if people want to go somewhere, they are willing to pay for
it, collectively as well as individually.

This fact of human nature has not changed.

Bret Cahill

On Jun 14, 5:27 pm, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:

Except that people obviously weren't willing to pay for it. The reason
the gov't took it on was because very few private investors were
willing to.

Since it was uneconomic it was not surprising that the building of the
railroad was riddled with corruption culminating in the Credit
Mobilier scandal.

In the name of your "collective" and typical of other gov't
boondoggles which were to follow, within a few years the railroad was
bankrupt despite massive gov't subsidies. Sound familiar?

Another transcontinental railroad was built some years later,
privately financed and without gov't subsidy, and this one people were
willing to pay for. The railroad was a success and profitable from the
start It was J.J. Hill's Great Northern Railway.

Fred Weiss

Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote in news:ba011c03-0409-4af3-8272-
6fd103c27289@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

Still confused, eh Bret?

False dichotomy, Bret. There is no such thing as paying "collectively." All
willingness to pay is individual (because all wills reside in individuals),
and all payments come from individuals. The actual dichotomy is between
those individuals who are willing to pay for their own transportation, and
other individuals who prefer that someone else pay for it (and are prepared
to force them to do so). These latter individuals also expect others to pay
for their food, housing, healthcare, educating their kids, etc.

Hope this clears it up for you.

Wasn't that the one where 80%% of the immigrant RR workers fled the U.
S. and went back home to Bulgaria?

Brilliant idea!

If you rightards make America unliveable enough, the U. S. can become
sustainable.

Bret Cahill

Bret Cahill wrote:

Space: the final frontier ....

That's it we'll mine new constellations for our power needs.

Graham

On Jun 14, 7:24 pm, Publius nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:52:15 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:

I am not sure what you are trying to do here.

Not only was the US defined by this railroad during the mid-late 1800's
(towns = train stops) but is was considered then and still considered
today by some as being a crowning technical achievement.

The Union and Central Pacific were 'privately chartered' by the US
government. Does this sound familiar?

On Jun 15, 8:10 am, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

That may be - so long as you are willing to overlook the vast cost
overruns, the corruption, and subsidies which it required afterwards
to keep it running.

I was just responding to Brat's Babble that "the people" were willing
to pay for it. Obviously they weren't or it could have been done
privately and without subsidies - as was the Great Northern.

Rightards become incoherent when they sense they are going lose a
debate, which is almost all of the time.

Now we're back to the "all men should be angels" and "if everything
isn't 100%% perfect then is shouldn't be done" arguments.

That's just like the commie argument that since Pullman machine gunned
strikers then the private sector ain't perfect and therefore free
marketry should be abolished.

On Jun 15, 10:52 am, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:

That's a total non-sequitur and has nothing to do with the subsidies
provided boondoggles like the transcontinental railroad, which itself
had nothing to do with the "right to travel" or "freedom of
communication".

The funding necessary for our freedoms only pertains to protecting
them, not providing the platforms or means to accomplish them - and
has nothing whatever to do with the gov't subsidizing railroads (or
anything else for that matter, except as it pertains to the gov'ts
proper and strictly limited functions). What it means is that if
someone(s) privately out of their own pocket wanted to build a
railroad (as J.J. Hill did), no one could stop them.