"Socialism means the government owns everything!"

1356722

Comments

  • ... hence his willingness to use public transport in those circumstances.
  • Read it wrong.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Repatriating retail space back into the centre of communities, rather than locating it on a ringroad where only cars can get to it would also democratise the choices for carless members of society.

    The town in which I grew up has a big out-of-town supermarket such as you describe. It has a regular bus service.

    For sure, I can't walk to it from the house I grew up in. I could get there on my bike - there are cycle paths most of the way.

    But I would never actually want to do that, because I'm buying more than I can carry. Yeah, if I had a bike with a big luggage trailer, I could use that.

    AFAIK, lots of people with families but no car do a weekly shop by taxi. They go on the bus, fill two shopping trollies with food, and go home in a taxi, because it's just not possible to lug that much stuff around on the bus.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Ownership meaning control is far too simplistic. There are all sorts of different rights in property, and it's often perfectly possible for different people to have different rights for the same thing.

    For example, anyone who is renting a house might not 'own' the house, but they do have rights around that house and in fact have considerable control over it. Certainly they have a lot of control of the contents.

  • RussRuss Shipmate
    When I drive my car around that pollutes the local atmosphere and the planet in general.
    When you pay a taxi driver to drive you around in his car, that pollutes the local atmosphere and the planet in general. When you pay a bus company to drive you around, that pollutes the local atmosphere and the planet in general.

    The environmental argument is an important one. But it's fundamentally an argument for clean technology and for land use patterns that have people living within walking/cycling distance of the places they need to and choose to spend time.

    Not an argument for organising transport collectively so that you share with everyone else the travel opportunities that the centralised planners choose to provide.

    Buses are only environmentally better than cars under certain sets of assumptions on load factors and extent of empty running.

    The more that public transport serves only the most-demanded journeys at the most-demanded times of day, the better the load factors and so the more environmentally-friendly it looks per passenger-mile. And the more inadequate it is judged by all those people who want to travel elsewhere and elsewhen.

    (Not sure how far you'd count taxis as public - they have some characteristics of both).


  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    What's of interest for this thread is whether you think "encouraging people off their private vehicles onto public" is a good thing in principle. As part of an ideological commitment to collectivist solutions. When in fact what people really want is the control over their own lives that a car gives them.

    Interesting framing, insofar as it omits quite a bit. For example, cars are fairly useless without modern, paved roads which are, in turn, a "collectivist solution". A more accurate way of looking at this is that public roads are a massive government subsidy for both the automotive industry and automobile owners (as well as any industry that ships goods via roads). It's arguable that this kind of subsidy is the best use of collective resources, but trying to erase the collective nature of the enterprise and brand it as "private" is misleading at best.
  • Russ wrote: »
    When I drive my car around that pollutes the local atmosphere and the planet in general.
    When you pay a taxi driver to drive you around in his car, that pollutes the local atmosphere and the planet in general. When you pay a bus company to drive you around, that pollutes the local atmosphere and the planet in general.

    The environmental argument is an important one. But it's fundamentally an argument for clean technology and for land use patterns that have people living within walking/cycling distance of the places they need to and choose to spend time.

    Not an argument for organising transport collectively so that you share with everyone else the travel opportunities that the centralised planners choose to provide.

    Buses are only environmentally better than cars under certain sets of assumptions on load factors and extent of empty running.

    The more that public transport serves only the most-demanded journeys at the most-demanded times of day, the better the load factors and so the more environmentally-friendly it looks per passenger-mile. And the more inadequate it is judged by all those people who want to travel elsewhere and elsewhen.

    (Not sure how far you'd count taxis as public - they have some characteristics of both).


    No, that's not quite the point.

    The point is one of ownership. Am I allowed to put pollutants into someone else's air or only my own?

    How about where I choose to drive my car? Do I need to own the land I drive on?

    My point is that "it's my car to do with as I chose" is only true in a specific and limited way. This matters because the idea that personal ownership is grear and desirable and proves that socialism is bunk is deeply problematic. It only works if you define ownership and socialism in specific ways, such that this amounts to a big Strawman.

    I haven't as yet got into why it's a silly definition of socialism but there's little point without sorting out the definition of ownership. Ownership does not normally confer absolute unconditional freedom and hence the arguments about how socialism is bad coz it's anti-ownership are just silly.

    AFZ
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 27
    I own my phone.

    It's pretty bloody useless without a whole lot of infrastructure that I don't own.

    Same goes for my car, my television and my taps.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    I own my phone.

    It's pretty bloody useless without a whole lot of infrastructure that I don't own.

    Same goes for my car, my television and my taps.

    Precisely.
  • In short it's a society of interdependent people, not a loose collection of monads. Margaret Thatcher, fuck off.
  • "Loose Collection of Monads" sounds like a very troubled indie band, with their album "Margaret Thatcher, fuck off".
  • "Loose Collection of Monads" sounds like a very troubled indie band, with their album "Margaret Thatcher, fuck off".

    I can't guarantee I'd buy it, but I'd at least give it a listen.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    I own my phone.

    It's pretty bloody useless without a whole lot of infrastructure that I don't own.

    Yes that's true. Buses and cars occupy the same collectively-owned roads and pollute the same unowned air. The difference is in ownership and hence control of the vehicle.

    I'm suggesting two things.

    One is that people in general prefer car travel because of that control. In a car you depart when you choose. You choose the route (from the available alternatives). You have some control over the speed. You set the temperature and the pitch of the seat. You choose the air freshener and the music.

    The other is that socialists favour, believe in, have some level of ideological commitment to, public transport. As one example of collective ownership.

    From those two premises, I'm inferring a conclusion about the relationship between socialism and the desires of "people in general".

    You may well question either the logic or the truth of the premises. But emphasising the common characteristics of the two modes doesn't answer the point.
  • For public transport there are two separate questions. 1. Do we need public transport? 2. Who 'owns' that public transport?

    For me:

    1. We need public transport for multiple reasons I've already outlined - providing transport options for those unable to drive a car, reduced environmental costs cf: everyone in their own car ... none of these are particular to socialism (though the bias towards the poor of public transport would be something socialists favour).

    2. The political and economic right would argue that everything should be owned by the private sector and operated to generate profits for those who put in the capital - a model for public transport (and other public services) that reduces the service to just that which can operate for profit and increases prices, often making the service unavailable or unaffordable to those who would most benefit. Socialists would argue that public transport (and other public services) should be in public ownership and operated for the public good even if that means not operating at a profit (if limited to looking just at that one part of the public sphere - cutting costs and/or increasing income elsewhere could easily off-set the costs of the service). Many socialists would expect public transport to be owned by government (local, national or a combination thereof) with management appointed based on ability to run the system, though public transport offered by community groups, cooperatives or similar would also fit the socialist model (probably needing subsidies from government to operate as they won't tap into the greater public good as readily).

    I don't know anyone who would call public ownership of public services "collective ownership"
  • Russ wrote: »

    The other is that socialists favour, believe in, have some level of ideological commitment to, public transport. As one example of collective ownership.

    You state this as fact when it appears to be a guess, bordering on a prejudice. Public transport is economically and environmentally efficient. The reason it is the choice of the poor is that it is cheaper than owning and operating a car. If there is an ideological commitment to it that is because it is accessible to all in a way that private transport is not.
  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited January 28
    For public transport there are two separate questions. 1. Do we need public transport? 2. Who 'owns' that public transport?

    For me:

    1. We need public transport for multiple reasons I've already outlined - providing transport options for those unable to drive a car, reduced environmental costs cf: everyone in their own car ... none of these are particular to socialism (though the bias towards the poor of public transport would be something socialists favour).

    2. The political and economic right would argue that everything should be owned by the private sector and operated to generate profits for those who put in the capital - a model for public transport (and other public services) that reduces the service to just that which can operate for profit and increases prices, often making the service unavailable or unaffordable to those who would most benefit. Socialists would argue that public transport (and other public services) should be in public ownership and operated for the public good even if that means not operating at a profit (if limited to looking just at that one part of the public sphere - cutting costs and/or increasing income elsewhere could easily off-set the costs of the service). Many socialists would expect public transport to be owned by government (local, national or a combination thereof) with management appointed based on ability to run the system, though public transport offered by community groups, cooperatives or similar would also fit the socialist model (probably needing subsidies from government to operate as they won't tap into the greater public good as readily).

    I don't know anyone who would call public ownership of public services "collective ownership"

    Quite right.

    But using "collective ownership" in this context does sound laboured and odd when the neutral "publically owned" is honest with no hint of spite.
  • The reason it is the choice of the poor is that it is cheaper than owning and operating a car. If there is an ideological commitment to it that is because it is accessible to all in a way that private transport is not.

    Sure. But the trade off is a reduction in flexibility and the loss of freedom to travel when and where you choose. With a private car you can travel from A to B whenever you want. With public transport you're at the mercy of some bureaucrat deciding that nobody would ever need to travel from A to B and therefore no service between A and B needs to exist.

    If, for whatever reason, you don't have a car then your journey choices are restricted to those services government chooses to offer. With a car your journey choices are whatever you want them to be. That's an important difference.
  • But the choices of what the government offers are probably far better than those which a private operator can make money from.
  • The comparison is between public transport and personal car use, not different providers of public transport.
  • If roadways are free to use by anyone with a car, the internet should be free to use by anyone with a computer. Why not?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    The reason it is the choice of the poor is that it is cheaper than owning and operating a car. If there is an ideological commitment to it that is because it is accessible to all in a way that private transport is not.
    Sure. But the trade off is a reduction in flexibility and the loss of freedom to travel when and where you choose. With a private car you can travel from A to B whenever you want.

    Well, provided you're not legally blind, below the legal driving age, or have some other factor which prevents you from legally operating a car. But I guess those people don't matter.
    With public transport you're at the mercy of some bureaucrat deciding that nobody would ever need to travel from A to B and therefore no service between A and B needs to exist.

    If, for whatever reason, you don't have a car then your journey choices are restricted to those services government chooses to offer. With a car your journey choices are whatever you want them to be. That's an important difference.

    I love the pretense that modern paved roads are some kind of organic entity that just spontaneously sprout from the earth whenever you want to drive from A to B, rather than something designed and approved by "some bureaucrat deciding [ to put a road ] from A to B". If you want to drive from Anchorage to Bethel, you're out of luck even if you have your own car. Sure there are differences in what options are available, but it's a difference of degree not kind. Arguing that one type of government restriction on travel through control of infrastructure is always better than a different type of government restriction on travel through control of infrastructure is a lot less obvious when stated in such plain terms.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited January 28
    The reason it is the choice of the poor is that it is cheaper than owning and operating a car. If there is an ideological commitment to it that is because it is accessible to all in a way that private transport is not.

    I'm going to refer to the Sam Vimes "boots" theory of economic justice again.

    Public transport isn't cheaper than owning a car in the long term, if you travel a lot. But it does require a significant capital outlay that is beyond the reach of many poor people.

    The principal way that poor people spend less on transport than richer people is by travelling less.


    (The argument here seems to be getting a bit confused between public and private ownership / control, and mass transit vs personal transit. If I were to become dictator, ban private ownership of cars, and install a fleet of robot-driven government-owned taxis, that would be publically-owned personal transit.)
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    The reason it is the choice of the poor is that it is cheaper than owning and operating a car. If there is an ideological commitment to it that is because it is accessible to all in a way that private transport is not.
    Sure. But the trade off is a reduction in flexibility and the loss of freedom to travel when and where you choose. With a private car you can travel from A to B whenever you want.

    Well, provided you're not legally blind, below the legal driving age, or have some other factor which prevents you from legally operating a car. But I guess those people don't matter.

    Some people can't have flexibility therefore nobody should, is that it?
    With public transport you're at the mercy of some bureaucrat deciding that nobody would ever need to travel from A to B and therefore no service between A and B needs to exist.

    If, for whatever reason, you don't have a car then your journey choices are restricted to those services government chooses to offer. With a car your journey choices are whatever you want them to be. That's an important difference.

    I love the pretense that modern paved roads are some kind of organic entity that just spontaneously sprout from the earth whenever you want to drive from A to B, rather than something designed and approved by "some bureaucrat deciding [ to put a road ] from A to B". If you want to drive from Anchorage to Bethel, you're out of luck even if you have your own car. Sure there are differences in what options are available, but it's a difference of degree not kind. Arguing that one type of government restriction on travel through control of infrastructure is always better than a different type of government restriction on travel through control of infrastructure is a lot less obvious when stated in such plain terms.

    I'd say the degree of individual autonomy one has in one's own car compared to on public transport is a difference in kind, but that's by the by. Any reasonable society should have both systems available - good public transport for the more popular and frequent journeys (especially commuting to/from work) with private transport enabling individual freedom to make less popular or more unusual journeys (and journey times).

    I'm all about better public transport, especially of the rail-based varieties. But I want to keep my car as well, because even the best public transport system won't take me anywhere I want at any time of day I choose.
  • Some people can't have flexibility therefore nobody should, is that it?

    @Crœsos 's point, if I may, is that some people can't access the flexibility, and political choices have been made by successive governments to simply say "well, fuck them".

    Which is, with a weary inevitability, not what you said. Extending better, and indeed more, flexible services to everyone is not the same as 'nobody' having flexibility. Again, as you full well know. I'm tired of this performative ignorance.
  • Personal autonomy in car? First of all you are probably paying a car loan and lots for fuel, parking, maintenance. Second you're stuck in traffic (well, let's be clear you are traffic). Third, you're probably feeling annoyed and want everyone to get out of your way. Fourth, your car is just sitting, turned off, for more than 50% of the time.

    I have trouble seeing this as a personal and social good. And consider what you may gain in autonomy is sacrificed with what you lose. It's economically terrible.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    The reason it is the choice of the poor is that it is cheaper than owning and operating a car. If there is an ideological commitment to it that is because it is accessible to all in a way that private transport is not.
    I'm going to refer to the Sam Vimes "boots" theory of economic justice again.

    Public transport isn't cheaper than owning a car in the long term, if you travel a lot. But it does require a significant capital outlay that is beyond the reach of many poor people.

    Again, this is a often a deliberate policy choice rather than a hardwired reality. In most developed countries the revenue from automotive-related taxes (fuel taxes, tax on the sale of cars, etc.) very rarely covers the entire expense of road and highway maintenance. The shortfall is typically made up from general funds (i.e. the taxes paid by everyone). On the other hand a lot of public transport (particularly rail-based public transport) set the fares at a rate high enough to not just cover the expense of vehicle operation but also to cover the infrastructure like track maintenance. In other words private transport often receives a subsidy for infrastructure maintenance whereas public transport is expected to pay full freight.
    I'd say the degree of individual autonomy one has in one's own car compared to on public transport is a difference in kind, but that's by the by.

    Can you square that with your earlier assertion that defines such autonomy as being unrestrained by bureaucratic considerations like infrastructure? Because cars are heavily infrastructure dependent (not just roads, but also fuel distribution networks) in ways that are often obscured or ignored in these kinds of discussions.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Again, this is a often a deliberate policy choice rather than a hardwired reality.

    Yes and no. You're right that general taxation tends to fund road costs, thus providing a subsidy to road use over rail. That's not really an issue for the bus service, which benefits from subsidized roads just as much as private cars (or perhaps more so - bus lanes generally don't get funded by sale of bus tickets either).

    The currently unavoidable cost for mass transit is the need to employ a driver - people drive their personal cars for free. This isn't so much of an issue if you're an inter-city train with 500+ passengers, but if you're a local bus with half a half a dozen people, it's more significant.

    (At the extreme end, this is why most people drive cars rather than riding in taxis. When do people choose taxis over private cars?
    • When there's nowhere to park a car where they're going (big cities typically work better if you don't allocate lots of space for private car parking in the middle of them)
    • If they want to be drunk, and so not suited to driving their car
    • When they make a small number of car journeys, and it's not worth (or they can't afford) the capital expense of car ownership. Such as non-car-owning households using a taxi to bring home a weekly supermarket shop.
    )
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    The reason it is the choice of the poor is that it is cheaper than owning and operating a car. If there is an ideological commitment to it that is because it is accessible to all in a way that private transport is not.
    I'm going to refer to the Sam Vimes "boots" theory of economic justice again.

    Public transport isn't cheaper than owning a car in the long term, if you travel a lot. But it does require a significant capital outlay that is beyond the reach of many poor people.

    Again, this is a often a deliberate policy choice rather than a hardwired reality. In most developed countries the revenue from automotive-related taxes (fuel taxes, tax on the sale of cars, etc.) very rarely covers the entire expense of road and highway maintenance. The shortfall is typically made up from general funds (i.e. the taxes paid by everyone). On the other hand a lot of public transport (particularly rail-based public transport) set the fares at a rate high enough to not just cover the expense of vehicle operation but also to cover the infrastructure like track maintenance. In other words private transport often receives a subsidy for infrastructure maintenance whereas public transport is expected to pay full freight.
    I'd say the degree of individual autonomy one has in one's own car compared to on public transport is a difference in kind, but that's by the by.

    Can you square that with your earlier assertion that defines such autonomy as being unrestrained by bureaucratic considerations like infrastructure? Because cars are heavily infrastructure dependent (not just roads, but also fuel distribution networks) in ways that are often obscured or ignored in these kinds of discussions.

    The last page has expressed things better than I did. It's the hidden subsidies that distort the picture. The problem with motor transport is that we have socialised some of the costs... so that those who are busy complaining about 'socialism' because "why should I fund anyone else? " are the ones benefiting from big subsidies. Hence, as I said, the whole ownership thing is a nonsense argument about socialism.

    AFZ
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    edited January 28
    Personal autonomy in car? First of all you are probably paying a car loan and lots for fuel, parking, maintenance. Second you're stuck in traffic (well, let's be clear you are traffic). Third, you're probably feeling annoyed and want everyone to get out of your way. Fourth, your car is just sitting, turned off, for more than 50% of the time.

    1- freedom is seldom cheap.
    2/3/4- nothing is perfect, and none of those imperfections cancels out the advantages.
    I have trouble seeing this as a personal and social good.

    You’re clearly in the minority there, given the popularity of private car use. But nobody is forcing you to own a car if you don’t think it’s worth it. Many people don’t.

    ETA: I see it as a personal benefit purely because commuting in the car saves me well over an hour every day that would otherwise be spent just travelling.
  • Hence, as I said, the whole ownership thing is a nonsense argument about socialism.

    That’s probably why we’re now talking about individual autonomy and freedom of choice rather than nominal ownership.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Because cars are heavily infrastructure dependent (not just roads, but also fuel distribution networks) in ways that are often obscured or ignored in these kinds of discussions.

    Everything that most of us do every day is heavily dependent on infrastructure. Given that most of us live in urban areas, even food and water requires an impressive amount of infrastructure. I don't think that @Marvin the Martian was suggesting that the amount of necessary infrastructure was a measure of autonomy.

    Nor do I think that comparing the costs (whether subsidized costs or unsubsidized costs) has much to do with the degree of autonomy that each mode of transport offers. It's certainly true that the cost is relevant - a lower cost makes that mode of transport more accessible to more people, which is relevant if you're trying to measure total autonomy of all people, but I don't think it's really useful to combine everything like that.

    It seemed like Marvin's point was quite simple. If you want to get from A to B by bus, you can only do it at times when the bus operator provides service, and if whoever controls the bus timetabling has chosen to provide a bus, or combination of buses, between A and B. If you have your own transport (car, bicycle, legs, ...) then you are not so constrained, and so have more autonomy. This is most relevant if you want to make unpopular journeys. If you're commuting from a place where many commuters live in to a city centre on a normal work schedule, you'll find a large number of fellow travellers going your way, and so presumably you'll also find some mass transit. If you're going from one commuter suburb to a different one, there probably isn't a sensible mass transit route for that, because nobody else wants to go there. So you're probably going in to the city and back out again, if mass transit is your only option.

    @Alan Cresswell made the point that if nobody had cars, there might be a few more people wanting to travel between suburbs A and B, and so some form of mass transit between suburbs might make sense. That's true, to a point - there's currently a tradeoff between mass transit and private cars. If you make private cars less useful or available, and make mass transit more available, then the balance will shift a bit, and people who had previously made the marginal choice to drive for a particular journey will make the choice to take mass transit instead. But this never extends to all journeys - it only makes sense to operate mass transit along a particular route if a mass of people want to take it. Any rational transport scheme is going to include some form of mass transit for popular routes, and some form of individual transport for less common journeys.
  • Personal autonomy in car? First of all you are probably paying a car loan and lots for fuel, parking, maintenance. Second you're stuck in traffic (well, let's be clear you are traffic). Third, you're probably feeling annoyed and want everyone to get out of your way. Fourth, your car is just sitting, turned off, for more than 50% of the time.

    1- freedom is seldom cheap.
    2/3/4- nothing is perfect, and none of those imperfections cancels out the advantages.
    I have trouble seeing this as a personal and social good.

    You’re clearly in the minority there, given the popularity of private car use. But nobody is forcing you to own a car if you don’t think it’s worth it. Many people don’t.

    ETA: I see it as a personal benefit purely because commuting in the car saves me well over an hour every day that would otherwise be spent just travelling.

    I actually don't believe people would choose to drive everywhere if there were alternatives that transported people efficiently. FWIW, we own 2 vehicles. There is no public transportation at all outside of cities or between them (there are 2 cities over 100k people, and 3 over 15,000 and they're all 2 to 6 hours drive apart on generally bad highways in difficult weather (-35°C range this week) in a province almost two times the size of the UK there are only 1.1 million people.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited January 28
    I actually don't believe people would choose to drive everywhere if there were alternatives that transported people efficiently.

    Efficiently is the thing. Unlike some shipmates, I don't especially enjoy driving. My car is a box on wheels that gets me and my stuff where I want to go in a fairly efficient manner.

    The advantages that my car has are:
    1. It goes whenever I'm ready. I don't have to wait for it to be time for it to go, and I can't be late for my car.
    2. It's fairly efficient at getting to places. Buses are slow.
    3. It's reliably there. There's no risk of it not coming because of the wrong kind of leaves on the line, and if I need to work late, my car is still there ready to take me home.
    4. It can carry big heavy things around. Most times I go to a shop, I buy more than I can conveniently carry by myself. Because I have my car, that isn't a problem.
    5. I can keep a bunch of stuff in my car, and it's available to me in case I might need it. It's sort of like having big metal pants pockets with wheels.
    6. It's comfortable (certainly compared to a bus)
    7. In these days of Covid especially, I don't have to share airspace with strangers

    Could I give up some of those advantages? Sure - if the alternative was significantly cheaper, I could compromise on some of those.
  • I actually don't believe people would choose to drive everywhere if there were alternatives that transported people efficiently.

    Efficiently is the thing. Unlike some shipmates, I don't especially enjoy driving. My car is a box on wheels that gets me and my stuff where I want to go in a fairly efficient manner.

    The advantages that my car has are:
    1. It goes whenever I'm ready. I don't have to wait for it to be time for it to go, and I can't be late for my car.
    2. It's fairly efficient at getting to places. Buses are slow.
    3. It's reliably there. There's no risk of it not coming because of the wrong kind of leaves on the line, and if I need to work late, my car is still there ready to take me home.
    4. It can carry big heavy things around. Most times I go to a shop, I buy more than I can conveniently carry by myself. Because I have my car, that isn't a problem.
    5. I can keep a bunch of stuff in my car, and it's available to me in case I might need it. It's sort of like having big metal pants pockets with wheels.
    6. It's comfortable (certainly compared to a bus)
    7. In these days of Covid especially, I don't have to share airspace with strangers

    Could I give up some of those advantages? Sure - if the alternative was significantly cheaper, I could compromise on some of those.

    You and I agree. I personally dislike driving too. I find myself tense and irritated far too often. I found in Europe, as a tourist, including in less organized countries, that train was a relative joy for us. With the busses generally much better than the ones here re schedules. But this is as a tourist.
  • Some cities have car rental clubs where there are cars at distributed parking places you can borrow to do things you need a car for, but which you do seldom enough to make actually buying a car unfeasible or undesirable. Obviously it doesn't work for daily commuting, but if you want to go to a box store and get something too large to schlep on the train/tram/bus, or need to go to the airport to pick up rellies, or other such one-off trips, many people find it an excellent alternative to car ownership. Sort of halfway between the bus and private car ownership in terms of convenience and cost. My son in Baltimore belongs to such a group called "Smart Car".
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 29
    Russ wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    I own my phone.

    It's pretty bloody useless without a whole lot of infrastructure that I don't own.

    Yes that's true. Buses and cars occupy the same collectively-owned roads and pollute the same unowned air. The difference is in ownership and hence control of the vehicle.

    I'm suggesting two things.

    One is that people in general prefer car travel because of that control. In a car you depart when you choose. You choose the route (from the available alternatives). You have some control over the speed. You set the temperature and the pitch of the seat. You choose the air freshener and the music.

    The other is that socialists favour, believe in, have some level of ideological commitment to, public transport. As one example of collective ownership.

    From those two premises, I'm inferring a conclusion about the relationship between socialism and the desires of "people in general".

    You may well question either the logic or the truth of the premises. But emphasising the common characteristics of the two modes doesn't answer the point.

    To be honest I find the attempt to associate public transport with socialism a bit problematic. Alan has outlined some of the reasons why.

    There's a very good chance that when the technology for self-driving (electric) cars develops, your other premise will stop working anyway. Owning cars will become a quaint hobby. Whether the self-driving car that you use will be owned by the government or by a private company, I've no idea.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Some cities have car rental clubs where there are cars at distributed parking places you can borrow to do things you need a car for, but which you do seldom enough to make actually buying a car unfeasible or undesirable. Obviously it doesn't work for daily commuting, but if you want to go to a box store and get something too large to schlep on the train/tram/bus, or need to go to the airport to pick up rellies, or other such one-off trips, many people find it an excellent alternative to car ownership. Sort of halfway between the bus and private car ownership in terms of convenience and cost. My son in Baltimore belongs to such a group called "Smart Car".

    Sorry, ZIP car.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    There's a very good chance that when the technology for self-driving (electric) cars develops, your other premise will stop working anyway. Owning cars will become a quaint hobby. Whether the self-driving car that you use will be owned by the government or by a private company, I've no idea.

    You're imagining that self-driving taxis will eliminate the need to own a car, and that eliminating the driver cost will make self-driving taxis more economic than private ownership?

    Could be. There are still advantages to owning cars over riding in taxis, particularly for families with small kids, for example (where car seats, kid-entertainment, spare clothes, wipes, snacks, and all the other kid-paraphenalia can live in the car, rather than having parents schlep it in and out of the taxi, set up the car seat and so on.

    But economics usually wins - if I can buy a ride in a robo-taxi for little more than the marginal cost of the journey, car ownership is mostly dead.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    There's a very good chance that when the technology for self-driving (electric) cars develops, your other premise will stop working anyway. Owning cars will become a quaint hobby. Whether the self-driving car that you use will be owned by the government or by a private company, I've no idea.

    You're imagining that self-driving taxis will eliminate the need to own a car, and that eliminating the driver cost will make self-driving taxis more economic than private ownership?

    Could be. There are still advantages to owning cars over riding in taxis, particularly for families with small kids, for example (where car seats, kid-entertainment, spare clothes, wipes, snacks, and all the other kid-paraphenalia can live in the car, rather than having parents schlep it in and out of the taxi, set up the car seat and so on.

    But economics usually wins - if I can buy a ride in a robo-taxi for little more than the marginal cost of the journey, car ownership is mostly dead.

    I read an article a couple of years ago, can't quite remember where, that basically argued car ownership would tend to die out and that this would have major flow-on effects to the use of space. No need for so many parking spaces where cars sit throughout the work day (noting now that the pandemic might have radically shifted the whole 'you go to an office each day to work' dynamic anyway). And no need to take up a significant part of the space at your house as a garage.

    You might well be right that the degree to which this happens might be quite different for different people. My house (and my office) are a mess, but when I have passengers they often comment on the complete lack of 'stuff' in my car, for me it's purely a conveyance. It's most significant feature is that it lets me listen to podcasts while I'm on the move.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Personal autonomy in car? First of all you are probably paying a car loan and lots for fuel, parking, maintenance. Second you're stuck in traffic (well, let's be clear you are traffic). Third, you're probably feeling annoyed and want everyone to get out of your way. Fourth, your car is just sitting, turned off, for more than 50% of the time.

    I have trouble seeing this as a personal and social good. And consider what you may gain in autonomy is sacrificed with what you lose. It's economically terrible.

    So car ownership is a Bad Thing in your value system ? And if you ruled the world you'd strongly discourage it ? Despite its popularity ?

    A good example of the disconnect I'm talking about between what people want and what left-leaning political thought gives them.

    Learning Cnicht said:
    The argument here seems to be getting a bit confused between public and private ownership / control, and mass transit vs personal transit. If I were to become dictator, ban private ownership of cars, and install a fleet of robot-driven government-owned taxis, that would be publically-owned personal transit.)

    Useful distinction.

    Robotaxis are an interesting concept, although the difference between a taxi and a robotaxi is primarily one of price. Taxis are an expensive way of getting around because you're paying for the one-on-one time of another human being. I'm wondering whether it's the case that any transport system built around robotaxis could also operate without the technology ? Government to pay the unemployed to be taxi drivers, so that taxis are very cheap at point of use ?

    As regards state ownership, there is of course an argument for competition in the marketplace to provide robotaxi services, with the role of government being to set standards, rather than making the running of robotaxis a nationalised industry.

    What's the merit in banning private ownership ? Seems to me that there are various reasons why someone might wish to own their own robotaxi (and maybe send it out to work as a taxi when they know they're not going to need it).

    As a couple of examples, someone who lives in a very rural area (and thus has a long response time for a robotaxi to reach them) might think having their own vehicle worth paying for.

    Someone who's very tall or very fat might want to customise the standard seat layout to suit their body shape.

    Someone who carries around with them enough tools of their trade might want a vehicle that stays with them all day while they work at various locations.

    Why do you think your ideas about what's good should take precedence over allowing people to choose for themselves whether they own a car or rely on a system of hailing a nearby robotaxi ?
  • Russ wrote: »

    So car ownership is a Bad Thing in your value system ? And if you ruled the world you'd strongly discourage it ? Despite its popularity ?


    That's only true if car ownership is an end in itself. If it's a means to an end then the popularity is really irrelevant.

    But I want to widen out from Transportation.

    I think it is noteworthy in the UK that the government constantly refers to the Test & Trace system as "NHS Test & Trace" even though it cost a fortune, doesn't work and has nothing at all with the NHS.

    Conversely the UK vaccination program is entirely an NHS program, costs peanuts and has been stunningly successful. The government never refer to it as "the NHS vaccination program."

    I will leave my views of the cynical choice of words for a moment but socialism vs capitalism... yep isn't capitalism great?
  • Getting from where you are to where you want to be is the problem. The solutions to that problem are many, and involve a matrix of cost, resources, time, pollution, convenience, access, feasibility, and equity.

    Car ownership isn't so much the problem as car use, the subsidies given to car users, the planning infrastructure of our cities being dominated by car use for near on 100 years, and the consequential downgrading of every other form of transport.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Getting from where you are to where you want to be is the problem. The solutions to that problem are many, and involve a matrix of cost, resources, time, pollution, convenience, access, feasibility, and equity.

    Car ownership isn't so much the problem as car use, the subsidies given to car users, the planning infrastructure of our cities being dominated by car use for near on 100 years, and the consequential downgrading of every other form of transport.

    ^^^ this.

    Cars are generally the most convenient option because we've concentrated for a hundred years on making them so.

    I had a stupid Bookface argument yesterday with a berk who wanted to levy VED on cyclists at the petrol/deisel car rate to pay for cycle paths "since we are the ones wanting them"

    The reality is a "cycling infrastucture" is only needed because the one we already had - the road network - has been steadily taken over by motor vehicles - mainly cars - to the extent that much of it is no longer suitable or even available for cycling. The need for building and maintaining the now much expanded road network, and separate infrastructure for other modes - bus lanes, bus gates, cycle lanes - is entirely driven by mass car use.

    However people seem to find it hard to even accept any perspective that isn't entirely car-centric.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    I had a stupid Bookface argument yesterday with a berk who wanted to levy VED on cyclists at the petrol/deisel car rate to pay for cycle paths "since we are the ones wanting them"
    Well, obviously the first response is that car users need to cough up, about 3p per mile (£200-250 per year for the average driver) just to maintain current spending on new road build and maintenance of current road infrastructure - which, of course, doesn't include anything to cover a century of road building drivers haven't paid for. And, if he wants to add a VED on cyclists that would be at the same rate for electric vehicles with zero emissions.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Naturally this clown wanted the same VED on electric vehicles

    It wasn't a serious proposal even if thought it was. It was just "grrrrr I hate paying VED"
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Naturally this clown wanted the same VED on electric vehicles

    It wasn't a serious proposal even if thought it was. It was just "grrrrr I hate paying VED"

    Let me guess, they called it "road tax" and believed it was hypothecated to pay for roads?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Naturally this clown wanted the same VED on electric vehicles

    It wasn't a serious proposal even if thought it was. It was just "grrrrr I hate paying VED"

    Let me guess, they called it "road tax" and believed it was hypothecated to pay for roads?

    Acted as if it was, of course. They also seemed to think that Local Authorities only paid for road maintenance out of Council Tax, and not the building of new local roads. That was an interesting variation. Firmly convinced motorists pay "too much".
  • orfeo wrote: »
    To be honest I find the attempt to associate public transport with socialism a bit problematic.

    I think I agree. For me, this part of the discussion has been more about the inevitable loss of individual autonomy that comes with centralised decision making, for which the public transport/private car discussion is a useful analogy.
    There's a very good chance that when the technology for self-driving (electric) cars develops, your other premise will stop working anyway. Owning cars will become a quaint hobby. Whether the self-driving car that you use will be owned by the government or by a private company, I've no idea.

    Out of interest, why do you assume that self-driving cars wouldn't be owned by private individuals the same way normal cars are right now?
  • orfeo wrote: »
    To be honest I find the attempt to associate public transport with socialism a bit problematic.

    I think I agree. For me, this part of the discussion has been more about the inevitable loss of individual autonomy that comes with centralised decision making, for which the public transport/private car discussion is a useful analogy.
    There's a very good chance that when the technology for self-driving (electric) cars develops, your other premise will stop working anyway. Owning cars will become a quaint hobby. Whether the self-driving car that you use will be owned by the government or by a private company, I've no idea.

    Out of interest, why do you assume that self-driving cars wouldn't be owned by private individuals the same way normal cars are right now?

    Because shared self-driving cars will give people the benefits of travelling everywhere by cab at less than the cost of having your own car, with the bonus of being able to swap to the most appropriate vehicle for the task. You might book a low-end Smart car-equivalent for your daily commute, but pay for an upgrade to a Volvo estate to go on a longer journey with family. You don't need somewhere to park it, you aren't left with the bill when something electro-mechanically expensive goes wrong. It would happen gradually, but I think there would be a definite shift towards car ownership being a niche attraction.
  • Because shared self-driving cars will give people the benefits of travelling everywhere by cab at less than the cost of having your own car, with the bonus of being able to swap to the most appropriate vehicle for the task. You might book a low-end Smart car-equivalent for your daily commute, but pay for an upgrade to a Volvo estate to go on a longer journey with family. You don't need somewhere to park it, you aren't left with the bill when something electro-mechanically expensive goes wrong. It would happen gradually, but I think there would be a definite shift towards car ownership being a niche attraction.

    OK, I see where you're coming from. But I think the appeal of having exclusive, on-demand use of a self-driving car would be enough for most people to want to have their own, even if it would be more expensive.
Sign In or Register to comment.