But you could use public shared transit to reach others in your interest group, burning up fewer resources,
Who said that a personal teleporter would use more resources per person than a mass teleporter? Cars use so many resources because each of us that drives anywhere has to take a couple of tonnes of metal the size of a prison cell along with us. One person walking or cycling by themselves uses the same resources per person as a whole group of people walking and cycling together. (Well, OK, if what you have is a group of lycra-clad commuters drafting each other, then perhaps that uses fewer resources, right up until the point that something happens, and there's a big heap of cyclists heading for the hospital.)
But it was really a comment on how the way we travel and the way we live are intertwined. For the purposes of that discussion, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about personal transport or mass transit, and it doesn't matter how much it wrecks the environment - just that it's accessible to normal people. How far can you travel in 10 minutes, or in 20 minutes, via whatever mechanisms are available to you? That defines a set of destinations that are close to you.
I believe politicians, and by extension government, should instead be putting forward what they consider to be the best for their constituents and nations, and indeed for the whole world. And, then convincing the people (or, at least enough of the people to be elected) that these policies are right and that therefore people should vote for them.
I don't see what's wrong with politicians/government asking the people what they want and then giving it to them.
We want heroin.
Here you go.
This stuff is lethal. Why didn't you tell us it was lethal?
We want to go out and about and socialise and party.
Okay.
Lots of people are dying from this virus. My grandad died last week. Why didn't you stop it?
Asking people what they want is problematic because of lack of information, lack of foresight, lack of consensus and sometimes just goddamn stupidity. There is undoubtedly a place for it, but trying to reduce politics to some kind of machine for doling out desires would be a fucking disaster.
And rather than trying to maintain our present lifestyles, we do need to start reducing our wants to what is available if everyone is to get a fair share.
The alternative, of course, is to accept that not everybody will get an equal share.
Asking people what they want is problematic because of lack of information, lack of foresight, lack of consensus and sometimes just goddamn stupidity. There is undoubtedly a place for it, but trying to reduce politics to some kind of machine for doling out desires would be a fucking disaster.
Then who should decide what the people can have, given that we apparently can’t be trusted to decide that for ourselves? Who would you have ruling over us instead?
Asking people what they want is problematic because of lack of information, lack of foresight, lack of consensus and sometimes just goddamn stupidity. There is undoubtedly a place for it, but trying to reduce politics to some kind of machine for doling out desires would be a fucking disaster.
Then who should decide what the people can have, given that we apparently can’t be trusted to decide that for ourselves? Who would you have ruling over us instead?
And rather than trying to maintain our present lifestyles, we do need to start reducing our wants to what is available if everyone is to get a fair share.
The alternative, of course, is to accept that not everybody will get an equal share.
And who should decide who gets more and who gets less? Who will you have ruling over us in that way?
Orfeo Asking people what they want is problematic.......
Of course it is, but it's not the only consideration. Governments, Political parties and so on constantly ask people what they want through the use of focus groups, but have to balance those desires against additional factors when formulating policies and taking decisions in government.
That's a complicated question, and the answer varies empirically and normatively depending on the issue. By and large nearly all of us on most questions are in no position to take a sensible executive decision, that's for sure! My preference is for a political process that includes a role for elected politicians, experienced administrators, and the rule of law, but that may not be appropriate in all contexts.
Asking people what they want is problematic because of lack of information, lack of foresight, lack of consensus and sometimes just goddamn stupidity. There is undoubtedly a place for it, but trying to reduce politics to some kind of machine for doling out desires would be a fucking disaster.
Then who should decide what the people can have, given that we apparently can’t be trusted to decide that for ourselves? Who would you have ruling over us instead?
The genius of democracy is not that people get what they want. It's accountability. Those who govern are accountable to the governed. This is why it works.
We don't hole a referendum on which Detroyer the Navy should order or a straight vote between the Typhoon Eurofighter and F15 Eagle for the RAF. We don't vote on which drugs I should use to treat you or set interest rates by a monthly ballot... we elect people to take responsibility for making these decisions with the help of as much expertise as possible. With most of the complexities of modern life, that's the only way it can work.
A common theme in all my thoughts about how our democracy is in trouble comes back to areas in which, either by accident or design, accountability is being eroded.
Brexit is fundamentally undemocratic for lots of reasons but a major component is the fact that the entire Leave argument is built on an edifice of lies. Brexit is also a key example of why we have representative democracy. So much of the flagrant dishonesty was about trying to turn the complexities of trade policy and regulation (in multiple complicated areas) into a single binary question. It's so plainly ridiculous, it was always destined to end up here.
And on and on: we elect representatives not delegates.
Moreover, we should not minimise the importance of campaigning. Part of the beauty of democracy is that the public may hold a particular viewpoint now; but they (we) can be informed and convinced to a different position.
Near us a narrow road was closed to motor vehicles back in June to enable safer cycle and pedestrian access to the hospital. At the time people were up in arms.
Now, the issue has been raised by a local councillor on the local FB page and lots of people are saying they were against closure but now, having used it as a motor traffic free route into town and to the railway station, walking dogs and so on, are in favour of it remaining closed or only reopening if traffic calming and a parallel walking and cycling route is provided.
This, I learn from cycling groups on t'web, is a common occurrence.
He opened the thread essentially associating public transport with socialism.
I did say that. From the title of the thread, the topic here is socialism and what it means.
Nobody has yet argued that right-leaning people are as much in favour of public transport as left-leaning people are, so I assume that you accept that the association is valid.
What I've heard is a lot of environmentalist stuff about cars. Now socialism and environmentalism are not the same thing. They have different histories.
Seems like you're trotting out "green" arguments against cars because those are the strongest arguments against cars. But that says very little about your socialism and how that nforms or colours your view of public transport.
I guess you hold a mix of beliefs, red and green, and find no inconsistency between them. So maybe answering the question would involve disentangling those and I'm asking too much.
I on the other hand say no, they are incentivised by the provision of the bus/cycle lane to use the bus or cycle instead of driving.
Traditionally, incentives can be categorised as carrots and sticks. Applying the stick doesn't cease to be disbenefiting someone just because it is done for the purpose of changing their behaviour.
I conclude, therefore, that Russ is not in favour of trying to drive modal shift as government policy, and that instead government should support whatever modes people currently choose to use.
Do I have that correct?
Not exactly. I'm not in favour of adopting policy goals or targets and counting any project that contributes to those as a Good Thing. I am in favour of assessing how much value people actually place on outcomes such as cleaner air or reduced risk of road accidents and using those values in assessing projects.
I say on the other hand that the above are objective problems and need to be fixed, because left unchecked - catering for a perceived desire to drive everywhere - the endpoint is either entirely gridlocked road networks or building so many roads that the country disappears under tarmac.
I think your "objective problem" approach has some merit in the case of climate change, where there is a clear trend towards an outcome nobody desires.
But your trends here are spurious. Neither gridlock nor tarmac-geddon is an inevitable endpoint.
Where the choice is between one equilibrium point with the project and another without it, assessing people's overall level of preference for one situation rather than the other is part of governing in the interests of all.
On the assumption that no person's moral rights are infringed thereby...
A common theme in all my thoughts about how our democracy is in trouble comes back to areas in which, either by accident or design, accountability is being eroded.
As I said on at least one of those threads, it still feels like your main problem with democracy is that it isn’t delivering the results you want.
Moreover, we should not minimise the importance of campaigning. Part of the beauty of democracy is that the public may hold a particular viewpoint now; but they (we) can be informed and convinced to a different position.
Yes, the public can be convinced of a different position. That doesn’t mean they must be. Maybe your side just isn’t convincing enough. Or maybe your side isn’t as self-evidently correct as you think it is.
It's been repeatedly stated that a bias towards car use is a bias in favour of the wealthy, and adding more barriers to the poor who can't afford to own or run a car. When there are people who have no choice but to walk, cycle or take public transport that significantly impacts their options for where they shop (which can include making the cheaper big supermarkets inaccessible, leaving them relying on small local shops with limited fresh food options and higher prices) and work. If what public transport there is is expensive then that makes things even worse.
Of course, helping the poor isn't an exclusively socialist position, any more than care for our environment and human health. But, it is a position that's more closely aligned with socialism than capitalism.
Maybe it's because we have whole industries trying to sell us aspirational stuff we don't actually need and we're so bought into it all that we cannot resist the FOMO (fear of missing out) that would result from not showing off our latest foreign holiday on Instagram or the latest staged picnic photo with borrowed clothes and accessories. Or maybe we can't face the jeers of being a hippy dippy dropout if we wear patched clothes or use public transport?
Making a change is battling against a lot of pressures, often driven by capitalist so-called success criteria, which are blinkered to only accounting a few things, geared mostly to putting money into the pockets of a few bazillionaires.
Personally, I'd rather not line the likes of Philip Green's pockets following like sheeple.
A common theme in all my thoughts about how our democracy is in trouble comes back to areas in which, either by accident or design, accountability is being eroded.
As I said on at least one of those threads, it still feels like your main problem with democracy is that it isn’t delivering the results you want.
Moreover, we should not minimise the importance of campaigning. Part of the beauty of democracy is that the public may hold a particular viewpoint now; but they (we) can be informed and convinced to a different position.
Yes, the public can be convinced of a different position. That doesn’t mean they must be. Maybe your side just isn’t convincing enough. Or maybe your side isn’t as self-evidently correct as you think it is.
I do worry that moving on from congested, fume choked cities where people die from the fumes under the wheels of motor vehicles isn't self evident. Do people really prefer that living Hell to taking a bus or getting on a bike?
Or have they been convinced by people promising that somehow all these deleterious effects of mass car use can somehow be eliminated while maintaining mass car use?
A common theme in all my thoughts about how our democracy is in trouble comes back to areas in which, either by accident or design, accountability is being eroded.
As I said on at least one of those threads, it still feels like your main problem with democracy is that it isn’t delivering the results you want.
Moreover, we should not minimise the importance of campaigning. Part of the beauty of democracy is that the public may hold a particular viewpoint now; but they (we) can be informed and convinced to a different position.
Yes, the public can be convinced of a different position. That doesn’t mean they must be. Maybe your side just isn’t convincing enough. Or maybe your side isn’t as self-evidently correct as you think it is.
Indeed, I may be completely wrong.
In the case of Windrush, we are talking about a government persecuting it's own people. I am not really interested in debating the rightness of that issue...
On the other thread, I was presenting empirical evidence that people vote for thing that deliver the very opposite of what they want. You have never refuted that evidence.
Hence I remain convinced that populism =/= democracy. Arguments that something must be good just because it's popular are deeply flawed.
Moreover you are missing a key point here: at no point have I suggested any remedy that isn’t a democratic one.
Remember, Appeasement was very popular in 1938. It was still a bad idea.
Road building (to a large extent) is surprisingly analogous.
When there are people who have no choice but to walk, cycle or take public transport that significantly impacts their options for where they shop (which can include making the cheaper big supermarkets inaccessible, leaving them relying on small local shops with limited fresh food options and higher prices) and work.
I don’t see how that situation is improved by making it so everybody is similarly restricted.
I do worry that moving on from congested, fume choked cities where people die from the fumes under the wheels of motor vehicles isn't self evident. Do people really prefer that living Hell to taking a bus or getting on a bike?
I do worry that moving on from congested, fume choked cities where people die from the fumes under the wheels of motor vehicles isn't self evident. Do people really prefer that living Hell to taking a bus or getting on a bike?
Clearly they do.
Meanwhile, that preference is killing people. Is killing people OK if it's what people want?
Do you see no role for government in actually assessing options and making policy from factors other than majority opinion, however poorly informed that may be?
When there are people who have no choice but to walk, cycle or take public transport that significantly impacts their options for where they shop (which can include making the cheaper big supermarkets inaccessible, leaving them relying on small local shops with limited fresh food options and higher prices) and work.
I don’t see how that situation is improved by making it so everybody is similarly restricted.
a) no one is suggesting restricting everybody
b) if there was better public transport many of those difficulties will be eased
c) if there are restrictions on cars such that access to out of town retail parks becomes difficult then retailers will move to places customers can get to - back into town centres, for example.
Although to encourage people back into town centres, those town centres will need to be accessible with the same advantages that many out of town centres have: good public transport links, wide pavements with no cars in those areas (not that many around here are like that).
I do worry that moving on from congested, fume choked cities where people die from the fumes under the wheels of motor vehicles isn't self evident. Do people really prefer that living Hell to taking a bus or getting on a bike?
Clearly they do.
Meanwhile, that preference is killing people. Is killing people OK if it's what people want?
It’s the same people who are choosing to cause the increased pollution levels who have a slightly higher risk of dying due to those levels. I certainly think people should be free to choose options that make their lives better in one way while increasing the risk of negative consequences in another way.
Do you see no role for government in actually assessing options and making policy from factors other than majority opinion, however poorly informed that may be?
I think that any time a government ignores the majority of its electorate in order to go down the path it would rather follow, democracy dies a little.
I also think that whether any given individual thinks government ignoring the wishes of its people is a good thing depends greatly on whether that individual agrees with the government’s actions or not. For example, if the government went against majority opinion to greatly curtail car use I imagine you’d praise them to the skies for their courageous leadership. If the government went against majority opinion to privatise the NHS I suspect your opinion would be quite different.
It’s the same people who are choosing to cause the increased pollution levels who have a slightly higher risk of dying due to those levels.
In what sense did Ella Adoo Kissi-Debrah choose to cause the air pollution that killed her? The people being killed and suffering serious illness as a result of air pollution are the people living in the vicinity of busy roads, or in urban areas more generally - people who walk along the local streets, who ride their bikes while near stationary traffic belch poison into the air around them, children who play in parks and school grounds near those roads. The people in the cars have their windows closed and the air they breathe partially filtered by the air con.
I do worry that moving on from congested, fume choked cities where people die from the fumes under the wheels of motor vehicles isn't self evident. Do people really prefer that living Hell to taking a bus or getting on a bike?
Clearly they do.
Meanwhile, that preference is killing people. Is killing people OK if it's what people want?
It’s the same people who are choosing to cause the increased pollution levels who have a slightly higher risk of dying due to those levels. I certainly think people should be free to choose options that make their lives better in one way while increasing the risk of negative consequences in another way.
Do you see no role for government in actually assessing options and making policy from factors other than majority opinion, however poorly informed that may be?
I think that any time a government ignores the majority of its electorate in order to go down the path it would rather follow, democracy dies a little.
I also think that whether any given individual thinks government ignoring the wishes of its people is a good thing depends greatly on whether that individual agrees with the government’s actions or not. For example, if the government went against majority opinion to greatly curtail car use I imagine you’d praise them to the skies for their courageous leadership. If the government went against majority opinion to privatise the NHS I suspect your opinion would be quite different.
You're not entirely wrong there but again it comes back to accountability. I think there's a big difference between government taking actions that are reversible vs those that are not.
Making cities more people friendly and less car friendly is an entirely reversible course. I think it's entirely legitimate for a politician to stand up and say: "you may have your doubts about this but (for these reasons...) I believe it is the right course. If, when it's been running for a while you disagree, vote for someone else..."
That's very different from introducing a change that will be very difficult to reverse.
I believe in democracy but I don't believe it exists in a moral vacuum and that just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is right.
I also don't believe that democracy is an end in itself; it is a good in its own right but not the only one that matters. Democracy is also a key to freedom and good governance. Which is why I hold the paradox that no healthy democracy will elect its judges.
I think democracy is strengthened by fair political financing laws. I believe democracy would be improved by making political adverts at least meet the basic factual standard that commercial adverts have to.
And so much of this thread comes down to not an argument between two different perspectives of equal virtue. It comes down to a popular position which is demonstrably harmful vs a less popular one that is demonstrably better (as far as the best evidence we have shows). That is just a more subtle tyranny. Democracy dies a lot when popularity is used to justify policies that harm the people. Which is where democratic socialism begins.
I do worry that moving on from congested, fume choked cities where people die from the fumes under the wheels of motor vehicles isn't self evident. Do people really prefer that living Hell to taking a bus or getting on a bike?
Clearly they do.
Meanwhile, that preference is killing people. Is killing people OK if it's what people want?
It’s the same people who are choosing to cause the increased pollution levels who have a slightly higher risk of dying due to those levels. I certainly think people should be free to choose options that make their lives better in one way while increasing the risk of negative consequences in another way.
Do you see no role for government in actually assessing options and making policy from factors other than majority opinion, however poorly informed that may be?
I think that any time a government ignores the majority of its electorate in order to go down the path it would rather follow, democracy dies a little.
I also think that whether any given individual thinks government ignoring the wishes of its people is a good thing depends greatly on whether that individual agrees with the government’s actions or not. For example, if the government went against majority opinion to greatly curtail car use I imagine you’d praise them to the skies for their courageous leadership. If the government went against majority opinion to privatise the NHS I suspect your opinion would be quite different.
I would not oppose the latter because it went against public opinion. I would oppose it because I believe it's the wrong thing to do. I would oppose it if it were in line with public opinion.
I do not form my views about what is a good or bad course of action based on what a majority thinks. And I oppose what I think are bad policies and advocate what I think are good policies. I accept I won't get good but unpopular policies in a democracy unless I can persuade enough other people but that doesn't stop them being good policies.
I accept I won't get good but unpopular policies in a democracy unless I can persuade enough other people but that doesn't stop them being good policies.
That’s fine. Just as long as you don’t start going down the road of “democracy doesn’t work and needs to be replaced” a few others on this thread appear to be travelling.
Of course, good and bad are just points of view. There’s no independent, objective way to define which of you, I, or anyone else is actually right about it.
I accept I won't get good but unpopular policies in a democracy unless I can persuade enough other people but that doesn't stop them being good policies.
That’s fine. Just as long as you don’t start going down the road of “democracy doesn’t work and needs to be replaced” a few others on this thread appear to be travelling.
Of course, good and bad are just points of view. There’s no independent, objective way to define which of you, I, or anyone else is actually right about it.
I feel pretty confident that kids dying under the wheels of vans and choking to death on fumes ranks as "bad" on any worthwhile scale.
That’s fine. Just as long as you don’t start going down the road of “democracy doesn’t work and needs to be replaced” a few others on this thread appear to be travelling.
Yeah, coz that's exactly what's been going on here.
Did you here about the world's greatest scarecrow? he was out standing in his field.
That’s fine. Just as long as you don’t start going down the road of “democracy doesn’t work and needs to be replaced” a few others on this thread appear to be travelling.
Ahem. Your definition of 'democracy' appeared to be nothing more than giving people exactly what they want. Which is not how it works.
So sure, I'll maintain that "democracy-as-redefined-by-Marvin doesn't work". But it doesn't need to be replaced, because that isn't the system we actually have. I don't need to argue for the replacement of a system that doesn't exist.
You said you wanted “entire multidisciplinary teams” to rule over us, because we can’t be trusted to decide for ourselves. It’s right there near the top of this very page.
Sounds pretty anti-democratic to me. I mean, once you’ve decided that certain options are off the table whether the people want them or not then you’re not a million miles from deciding that there’s no need to ask the people at all.
I mean, once you’ve decided that certain options are off the table whether the people want them or not then you’re not a million miles from deciding that there’s no need to ask the people at all.
Yeah, if the people want to murder all the Jews and you think that should be illegal nonetheless it's really the same sort of thing as overthrowing democracy.
In a representative democracy, electoral candidates produce manifestos and people vote on those candidates based on those manifestos. Voters are not asked their opinion on each policy.
The elected representatives in Parliament make decisions based on those manifestos. In doing so, they will seek expert opinion on how to implement those manifesto aims. I'm guessing that's where @orfeo's teams come in.
It seems that you consider representative democracy undemocratic and actually want government by referendum.
I mean, once you’ve decided that certain options are off the table whether the people want them or not then you’re not a million miles from deciding that there’s no need to ask the people at all.
Yeah, if the people want to murder all the Jews and you think that should be illegal nonetheless it's really the same sort of thing as overthrowing democracy.
It’s the same sort of thing, yes. A self-appointed elite declaring that the people aren’t allowed to vote for certain policies is anti democratic whether those policies are persecuting minorities, driving cars or taxing the rich.
I mean, once you’ve decided that certain options are off the table whether the people want them or not then you’re not a million miles from deciding that there’s no need to ask the people at all.
Yeah, if the people want to murder all the Jews and you think that should be illegal nonetheless it's really the same sort of thing as overthrowing democracy.
It’s the same sort of thing, yes. A self-appointed elite declaring that the people aren’t allowed to vote for certain policies is anti democratic whether those policies are persecuting minorities, driving cars or taxing the rich.
Fuck me. You're not making much of a case for the merits of democracy here.
Until you refrain from impuning my motives and start taking me at my word I will not engage with you further, @Russ
I'm not doubting your word, Karl. I understand that you hold a mix of "red" and "green" values.
I'm pointing out that the original question was about the red taste for public transport, but what you and others are talking about is your (sincerely-held) green aversion to the environmental impacts of cars.
Can I gently suggest to you that socialists have been pro-public transport since before there was an environmentalist movement. And if in the next few years some succession of techno-fixes should remove the particular environmental impacts of cars that you're concerned about, then socialists will still favour public transport ?
I mean, once you’ve decided that certain options are off the table whether the people want them or not then you’re not a million miles from deciding that there’s no need to ask the people at all.
Yeah, if the people want to murder all the Jews and you think that should be illegal nonetheless it's really the same sort of thing as overthrowing democracy.
It’s the same sort of thing, yes. A self-appointed elite declaring that the people aren’t allowed to vote for certain policies is anti democratic whether those policies are persecuting minorities, driving cars or taxing the rich.
Fuck me. You're not making much of a case for the merits of democracy here.
I think there's two or three different arguments against unrestricted majoritarian democracy here.
The one is a liberal argument: the majority may vote down rights for unpopular minorities.
A second is that the voters might choose a course of action whose benefits are less than they hope and whose costs are greater than they realise. For example, the majority might choose to ban vaccines under the impression that they allow the lizard people to beam 5G directly into the bloodstream. A related objection or maybe a third objection is that propaganda campaigns may prompt people to want something that they would not actually want if they considered the matter in a cool moment.
The second and third arguments are really arguments in favour of better civic education.
Can I gently suggest to you that socialists have been pro-public transport since before there was an environmentalist movement. And if in the next few years some succession of techno-fixes should remove the particular environmental impacts of cars that you're concerned about, then socialists will still favour public transport ?
Sure. If we wave a magic wand, and somehow personal cars become non-polluting, and also occupy no space, so congestion isn't an issue, socialists will still like public transport. Or, to be more specific, transportation methods that are accessible to all of society, not just the rich bits of it.
Although you can probably also make a case for having to publicly interact with all kinds of people (on the public bus, etc.) having social merits of its own.
Surely anyone would be in favour of people having access to transportation, or is there some bizarro ultra-right wing philosophy that believes poor people shouldn't ever travel?
Surely anyone would be in favour of people having access to transportation, or is there some bizarro ultra-right wing philosophy that believes poor people shouldn't ever travel?
I mean, once you’ve decided that certain options are off the table whether the people want them or not then you’re not a million miles from deciding that there’s no need to ask the people at all.
Yeah, if the people want to murder all the Jews and you think that should be illegal nonetheless it's really the same sort of thing as overthrowing democracy.
It’s the same sort of thing, yes. A self-appointed elite declaring that the people aren’t allowed to vote for certain policies is anti democratic whether those policies are persecuting minorities, driving cars or taxing the rich.
Fuck me. You're not making much of a case for the merits of democracy here.
I guess it comes down to whether you think it’s more important for everyone to have their say or for you to get what you want.
Surely anyone would be in favour of people having access to transportation, or is there some bizarro ultra-right wing philosophy that believes poor people shouldn't ever travel?
Nobody on this thread has said public transport shouldn’t exist.
Of course, ideas like the 15-minute city (as advocated by Alan Cresswell amongst others) are pretty much saying nobody should travel. Not very far, anyway.
Of course, ideas like the 15-minute city (as advocated by Alan Cresswell amongst others) are pretty much saying nobody should travel. Not very far, anyway.
I think it more accurate to say that these ideas suggest that "nobody" should need to travel very far on a regular basis.
Lots of people currently spend an hour traveling to work in the morning, and another hour getting home again. I don't think anyone actually likes that, but they are drawn to do it because their job is in some city, and they want to live somewhere green / somewhere cheap / etc.
If you could work somewhere close to where you want to live, and have the normal range of shops, pubs, & restaurants for everyday use, wouldn't you want that?
I mean, once you’ve decided that certain options are off the table whether the people want them or not then you’re not a million miles from deciding that there’s no need to ask the people at all.
Yeah, if the people want to murder all the Jews and you think that should be illegal nonetheless it's really the same sort of thing as overthrowing democracy.
It’s the same sort of thing, yes. A self-appointed elite declaring that the people aren’t allowed to vote for certain policies is anti democratic whether those policies are persecuting minorities, driving cars or taxing the rich.
Fuck me. You're not making much of a case for the merits of democracy here.
I guess it comes down to whether you think it’s more important for everyone to have their say or for you to get what you want.
You talk about "me getting what I want" like it's a cheese sandwich as opposed to a ham roll, while your ham roll is actually "voting to persecute minorities".
Of course, ideas like the 15-minute city (as advocated by Alan Cresswell amongst others) are pretty much saying nobody should travel. Not very far, anyway.
Which is a strange interpretation of the concept. The 15-minute city concept is that ideally everything that's needed on a regular basis is within the immediate vicinity of where people live (with "immediate vicinity" defined as within 15 minute cycle ride) thus meaning that for everyday activities (school, grocery shopping, most leisure activities, and work) there should be no need to travel significant distances. Obviously there will be other activities that require travel over greater distances - everyone deserves the opportunity to go away for a couple of weeks holiday, there will be items that you need to buy infrequently (a furniture store in every neighbourhood would be largely empty most of the time as people aren't buying a new three-piece every month).
Obviously reaching that ideal will need some very significant structural changes in the way our society and economy is currently arranged. In particular, differentials in housing costs and many businesses located in places with high housing costs forcing employees to live further out where they can afford to.
The 15-minute city is pretty obvious to normal people who do general stuff. Your most frequent journeys - school, shops, work, pub - should be within 15 minutes of your house. Weekly journeys can be further - supermarket, church, cinema, leisure centre, play park, restaurant - and monthly journeys further still. Infrequent, annual or biannual trips can be anywhere. But since we spend most of our time travelling our most frequent routes, it makes sense to keep those as short as practically possible.
I'm coming to the conclusion that Marvin just plain likes sitting in his car for hours, even when it's not going anywhere.
Comments
Who said that a personal teleporter would use more resources per person than a mass teleporter? Cars use so many resources because each of us that drives anywhere has to take a couple of tonnes of metal the size of a prison cell along with us. One person walking or cycling by themselves uses the same resources per person as a whole group of people walking and cycling together. (Well, OK, if what you have is a group of lycra-clad commuters drafting each other, then perhaps that uses fewer resources, right up until the point that something happens, and there's a big heap of cyclists heading for the hospital.)
But it was really a comment on how the way we travel and the way we live are intertwined. For the purposes of that discussion, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about personal transport or mass transit, and it doesn't matter how much it wrecks the environment - just that it's accessible to normal people. How far can you travel in 10 minutes, or in 20 minutes, via whatever mechanisms are available to you? That defines a set of destinations that are close to you.
We want heroin.
Here you go.
This stuff is lethal. Why didn't you tell us it was lethal?
We want to go out and about and socialise and party.
Okay.
Lots of people are dying from this virus. My grandad died last week. Why didn't you stop it?
Asking people what they want is problematic because of lack of information, lack of foresight, lack of consensus and sometimes just goddamn stupidity. There is undoubtedly a place for it, but trying to reduce politics to some kind of machine for doling out desires would be a fucking disaster.
The alternative, of course, is to accept that not everybody will get an equal share.
Then who should decide what the people can have, given that we apparently can’t be trusted to decide that for ourselves? Who would you have ruling over us instead?
Entire multidisciplinary teams.
And who should decide who gets more and who gets less? Who will you have ruling over us in that way?
Of course it is, but it's not the only consideration. Governments, Political parties and so on constantly ask people what they want through the use of focus groups, but have to balance those desires against additional factors when formulating policies and taking decisions in government.
That's a complicated question, and the answer varies empirically and normatively depending on the issue. By and large nearly all of us on most questions are in no position to take a sensible executive decision, that's for sure! My preference is for a political process that includes a role for elected politicians, experienced administrators, and the rule of law, but that may not be appropriate in all contexts.
The genius of democracy is not that people get what they want. It's accountability. Those who govern are accountable to the governed. This is why it works.
We don't hole a referendum on which Detroyer the Navy should order or a straight vote between the Typhoon Eurofighter and F15 Eagle for the RAF. We don't vote on which drugs I should use to treat you or set interest rates by a monthly ballot... we elect people to take responsibility for making these decisions with the help of as much expertise as possible. With most of the complexities of modern life, that's the only way it can work.
A common theme in all my thoughts about how our democracy is in trouble comes back to areas in which, either by accident or design, accountability is being eroded.
My rant here was all about how our government could commit tyranny against a section of the population without any political cost: http://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/2361/duck-femocracy
This was a more complex analysis of the connections between what we want and what we vote for:
http://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/2342/democracy-and-free-choice-what-the-hell-are-we-all-thinking-anyway
Brexit is fundamentally undemocratic for lots of reasons but a major component is the fact that the entire Leave argument is built on an edifice of lies. Brexit is also a key example of why we have representative democracy. So much of the flagrant dishonesty was about trying to turn the complexities of trade policy and regulation (in multiple complicated areas) into a single binary question. It's so plainly ridiculous, it was always destined to end up here.
And on and on: we elect representatives not delegates.
Moreover, we should not minimise the importance of campaigning. Part of the beauty of democracy is that the public may hold a particular viewpoint now; but they (we) can be informed and convinced to a different position.
AFZ
Now, the issue has been raised by a local councillor on the local FB page and lots of people are saying they were against closure but now, having used it as a motor traffic free route into town and to the railway station, walking dogs and so on, are in favour of it remaining closed or only reopening if traffic calming and a parallel walking and cycling route is provided.
This, I learn from cycling groups on t'web, is a common occurrence.
Nobody has yet argued that right-leaning people are as much in favour of public transport as left-leaning people are, so I assume that you accept that the association is valid.
What I've heard is a lot of environmentalist stuff about cars. Now socialism and environmentalism are not the same thing. They have different histories.
Seems like you're trotting out "green" arguments against cars because those are the strongest arguments against cars. But that says very little about your socialism and how that nforms or colours your view of public transport.
I guess you hold a mix of beliefs, red and green, and find no inconsistency between them. So maybe answering the question would involve disentangling those and I'm asking too much.
Traditionally, incentives can be categorised as carrots and sticks. Applying the stick doesn't cease to be disbenefiting someone just because it is done for the purpose of changing their behaviour.
Not exactly. I'm not in favour of adopting policy goals or targets and counting any project that contributes to those as a Good Thing. I am in favour of assessing how much value people actually place on outcomes such as cleaner air or reduced risk of road accidents and using those values in assessing projects.
I think your "objective problem" approach has some merit in the case of climate change, where there is a clear trend towards an outcome nobody desires.
But your trends here are spurious. Neither gridlock nor tarmac-geddon is an inevitable endpoint.
Where the choice is between one equilibrium point with the project and another without it, assessing people's overall level of preference for one situation rather than the other is part of governing in the interests of all.
On the assumption that no person's moral rights are infringed thereby...
As I said on at least one of those threads, it still feels like your main problem with democracy is that it isn’t delivering the results you want.
Yes, the public can be convinced of a different position. That doesn’t mean they must be. Maybe your side just isn’t convincing enough. Or maybe your side isn’t as self-evidently correct as you think it is.
Of course, helping the poor isn't an exclusively socialist position, any more than care for our environment and human health. But, it is a position that's more closely aligned with socialism than capitalism.
Making a change is battling against a lot of pressures, often driven by capitalist so-called success criteria, which are blinkered to only accounting a few things, geared mostly to putting money into the pockets of a few bazillionaires.
Personally, I'd rather not line the likes of Philip Green's pockets following like sheeple.
I do worry that moving on from congested, fume choked cities where people die from the fumes under the wheels of motor vehicles isn't self evident. Do people really prefer that living Hell to taking a bus or getting on a bike?
Or have they been convinced by people promising that somehow all these deleterious effects of mass car use can somehow be eliminated while maintaining mass car use?
Indeed, I may be completely wrong.
In the case of Windrush, we are talking about a government persecuting it's own people. I am not really interested in debating the rightness of that issue...
On the other thread, I was presenting empirical evidence that people vote for thing that deliver the very opposite of what they want. You have never refuted that evidence.
Hence I remain convinced that populism =/= democracy. Arguments that something must be good just because it's popular are deeply flawed.
Moreover you are missing a key point here: at no point have I suggested any remedy that isn’t a democratic one.
Remember, Appeasement was very popular in 1938. It was still a bad idea.
Road building (to a large extent) is surprisingly analogous.
AFZ
I don’t see how that situation is improved by making it so everybody is similarly restricted.
Clearly they do.
Meanwhile, that preference is killing people. Is killing people OK if it's what people want?
Do you see no role for government in actually assessing options and making policy from factors other than majority opinion, however poorly informed that may be?
b) if there was better public transport many of those difficulties will be eased
c) if there are restrictions on cars such that access to out of town retail parks becomes difficult then retailers will move to places customers can get to - back into town centres, for example.
It’s the same people who are choosing to cause the increased pollution levels who have a slightly higher risk of dying due to those levels. I certainly think people should be free to choose options that make their lives better in one way while increasing the risk of negative consequences in another way.
I think that any time a government ignores the majority of its electorate in order to go down the path it would rather follow, democracy dies a little.
I also think that whether any given individual thinks government ignoring the wishes of its people is a good thing depends greatly on whether that individual agrees with the government’s actions or not. For example, if the government went against majority opinion to greatly curtail car use I imagine you’d praise them to the skies for their courageous leadership. If the government went against majority opinion to privatise the NHS I suspect your opinion would be quite different.
You're not entirely wrong there but again it comes back to accountability. I think there's a big difference between government taking actions that are reversible vs those that are not.
Making cities more people friendly and less car friendly is an entirely reversible course. I think it's entirely legitimate for a politician to stand up and say: "you may have your doubts about this but (for these reasons...) I believe it is the right course. If, when it's been running for a while you disagree, vote for someone else..."
That's very different from introducing a change that will be very difficult to reverse.
I believe in democracy but I don't believe it exists in a moral vacuum and that just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is right.
I also don't believe that democracy is an end in itself; it is a good in its own right but not the only one that matters. Democracy is also a key to freedom and good governance. Which is why I hold the paradox that no healthy democracy will elect its judges.
I think democracy is strengthened by fair political financing laws. I believe democracy would be improved by making political adverts at least meet the basic factual standard that commercial adverts have to.
And so much of this thread comes down to not an argument between two different perspectives of equal virtue. It comes down to a popular position which is demonstrably harmful vs a less popular one that is demonstrably better (as far as the best evidence we have shows). That is just a more subtle tyranny. Democracy dies a lot when popularity is used to justify policies that harm the people. Which is where democratic socialism begins.
AFZ
I would not oppose the latter because it went against public opinion. I would oppose it because I believe it's the wrong thing to do. I would oppose it if it were in line with public opinion.
I do not form my views about what is a good or bad course of action based on what a majority thinks. And I oppose what I think are bad policies and advocate what I think are good policies. I accept I won't get good but unpopular policies in a democracy unless I can persuade enough other people but that doesn't stop them being good policies.
That’s fine. Just as long as you don’t start going down the road of “democracy doesn’t work and needs to be replaced” a few others on this thread appear to be travelling.
Of course, good and bad are just points of view. There’s no independent, objective way to define which of you, I, or anyone else is actually right about it.
I feel pretty confident that kids dying under the wheels of vans and choking to death on fumes ranks as "bad" on any worthwhile scale.
Remember, the system isn't broken. It was built this way.
Yeah, coz that's exactly what's been going on here.
Did you here about the world's greatest scarecrow? he was out standing in his field.
AFZ
Ahem. Your definition of 'democracy' appeared to be nothing more than giving people exactly what they want. Which is not how it works.
So sure, I'll maintain that "democracy-as-redefined-by-Marvin doesn't work". But it doesn't need to be replaced, because that isn't the system we actually have. I don't need to argue for the replacement of a system that doesn't exist.
Sounds pretty anti-democratic to me. I mean, once you’ve decided that certain options are off the table whether the people want them or not then you’re not a million miles from deciding that there’s no need to ask the people at all.
Yeah, if the people want to murder all the Jews and you think that should be illegal nonetheless it's really the same sort of thing as overthrowing democracy.
The elected representatives in Parliament make decisions based on those manifestos. In doing so, they will seek expert opinion on how to implement those manifesto aims. I'm guessing that's where @orfeo's teams come in.
It seems that you consider representative democracy undemocratic and actually want government by referendum.
It’s the same sort of thing, yes. A self-appointed elite declaring that the people aren’t allowed to vote for certain policies is anti democratic whether those policies are persecuting minorities, driving cars or taxing the rich.
Fuck me. You're not making much of a case for the merits of democracy here.
I'm not doubting your word, Karl. I understand that you hold a mix of "red" and "green" values.
I'm pointing out that the original question was about the red taste for public transport, but what you and others are talking about is your (sincerely-held) green aversion to the environmental impacts of cars.
Can I gently suggest to you that socialists have been pro-public transport since before there was an environmentalist movement. And if in the next few years some succession of techno-fixes should remove the particular environmental impacts of cars that you're concerned about, then socialists will still favour public transport ?
Nor is that the usual definition of democracy.
The one is a liberal argument: the majority may vote down rights for unpopular minorities.
A second is that the voters might choose a course of action whose benefits are less than they hope and whose costs are greater than they realise. For example, the majority might choose to ban vaccines under the impression that they allow the lizard people to beam 5G directly into the bloodstream. A related objection or maybe a third objection is that propaganda campaigns may prompt people to want something that they would not actually want if they considered the matter in a cool moment.
The second and third arguments are really arguments in favour of better civic education.
Sure. If we wave a magic wand, and somehow personal cars become non-polluting, and also occupy no space, so congestion isn't an issue, socialists will still like public transport. Or, to be more specific, transportation methods that are accessible to all of society, not just the rich bits of it.
Although you can probably also make a case for having to publicly interact with all kinds of people (on the public bus, etc.) having social merits of its own.
Feudalism?
I guess it comes down to whether you think it’s more important for everyone to have their say or for you to get what you want.
Nobody on this thread has said public transport shouldn’t exist.
Of course, ideas like the 15-minute city (as advocated by Alan Cresswell amongst others) are pretty much saying nobody should travel. Not very far, anyway.
I think it more accurate to say that these ideas suggest that "nobody" should need to travel very far on a regular basis.
Lots of people currently spend an hour traveling to work in the morning, and another hour getting home again. I don't think anyone actually likes that, but they are drawn to do it because their job is in some city, and they want to live somewhere green / somewhere cheap / etc.
If you could work somewhere close to where you want to live, and have the normal range of shops, pubs, & restaurants for everyday use, wouldn't you want that?
You talk about "me getting what I want" like it's a cheese sandwich as opposed to a ham roll, while your ham roll is actually "voting to persecute minorities".
Obviously reaching that ideal will need some very significant structural changes in the way our society and economy is currently arranged. In particular, differentials in housing costs and many businesses located in places with high housing costs forcing employees to live further out where they can afford to.
I'm coming to the conclusion that Marvin just plain likes sitting in his car for hours, even when it's not going anywhere.