First, train cars are not a precious limited resource. Someone having a car creates no impediments to anyone else.
Second, nothing is being taken from a public sphere - these are one off historically interesting cars being maintained by private individuals at no cost to the public, instead of being scrapped by private companies.
So in fact, something that would be wasted is continuing to get use.
Third, many of these cars are being made available for use to anyone, not just their owners, to help cover their costs. More options for everyone is in fact, a real public good.
The world is full of injustice but it’s worth not confusing someone having something others don’t with someone using wealth to suppress or harm others.
There is nothing here to “fix”. No imbalance or obvious benefit here to justify repressing others. Overreactions to injustice are, unfortunately, a common source of injustices themselves.
I share your concerns for others, and also feel deep frustration with the status quo of increasingly unaccountable wealth-driven compounding of economic, political, social, health, educational and legal inequality.
The fish is blind to the ocean. All of your arguments are soaked in the ideology of economic primacy. From where I stand, it seems like you’re the one that refuses to understand the argument that doesn’t agree with your ideology.
And to be clear, I couldn’t care less if you own a rail car, but you shouldn’t get to use public infrastructure to operate it.
> The fish is blind to the ocean. All of your arguments are soaked in the ideology of economic primacy.
Ok. I guess if you had any actual points you would have made them instead of poor sport poetry and blatant projection.
I don't believe in economic primacy.
Nor do I have ideology. I don't think any one way of looking at things can ever be complete. As I already stated.
It was you, who explicitly outed yourself as ideological, and are making ideological arguments instead of practical ones based on actual harm or benefit.
People or businesses pay to use public parks for events, public buildings, school buses, the list is endless. People like this. It is viewed as pro-sharing, pro-community. These options makes public asset more valuable to the public, help defray costs, and increase the good they generate for society. With any harm or mistreatment to anyone.
You claiming that you “don’t have ideology” is exactly what I’m referring to. Yes you do. Everyone does, and every argument has an ideology behind it. If you can’t see it, that just means you’re so used to it you’re blind to it, like a fish in the ocean. That’s a dangerous state of mind to be in, it’s very easy to manipulate the person that believes they’re objectively right.
You should look up dialectics, it sounds like there would be a lot of new material there for you.
And as for your park example, sure, I’ll explain why it’s not the same thing.
If it costs 10$ to rent a BBQ spot in the park for an hour, do you think that that’s how much it costs to provide that service? It most likely isn’t. Payment is used as a way to limit demand and to ensure commitment for utilization of a limited shared resource. That’s why these resources are usually priced accessibly to the vast majority of the population. The goal is not to make money, the goal is to ensure the shared resource is utilized efficiently.
Do you think that that’s what’s going on here with letting rich people buy access to public infrastructure? It’s not, this is a for profit operation. This service is inaccessible to the vast majority of the population, regardless of whether it’s for sale to the public or not. This is not about sharing a resource, it’s about letting rich people monopolize resources as long as they have the money to pay for it.
> You claiming that you “don’t have ideology” is exactly what I’m referring to. Yes you do. Everyone does, and every argument has an ideology behind it.
Ideology refers to groups of related ideas that people feel some kind of loyalty too, or priority for. For instance strong libertarians (who have trouble seeing the many limitations of their otherwise good ideas), strident capitalists, communists, etc.
I don't have any loyalty to any ideas beyond how much they make sense, and how relevant they are. Wherever you make sense I will readily adopt ideas from you.
> That’s why these resources are usually priced accessibly to the vast majority of the population. The goal is not to make money, the goal is to ensure the shared resource is utilized efficiently.
Here you do make sense. And it is true.
Public assets are often made available to the public, for private use, at their marginal costs. Which are much lower costs than a business or other large organization would be charged. Those organizations are expected to cover their share of both marginal and primary costs - which are much greater. But fees for the public generally only cover the marginal costs. I.e. if for potential clean up, avoid over booking (as you noted), or whatever.
Marginal costs provide a massive discount for individuals, but are not a subsidy either.
Perhaps that is the missing piece here.
The flexibility of the rail system to work with individuals is admirable. It provides enthusiasts the ability to renovate historically interesting artifacts and continue to give them life. Living connections to the past have a public cultural benefit. With harm done to none.
How can you be so sure that you’re evaluating ideas fairly? How can you be so sure you’re not biased? What if you have an intrinsic bias that you’re unaware of shaping every single decision you make? What if that bias was instilled into you purposefully by people who wanted their ideology to seem like the “rational” way of being?
I don't have any "beliefs", just best understandings at any give time, which I am constantly and actively improving.
Of course I don't know everything about anything. It floors me that people ever think they do. And that many are not motivated learners or listeners, even/often in the areas they most care about.
I can't make sense of your negative assessment of a few private cars paying their way on public tracks, already used by large organizations.
But the way you described public access in general was a good viewpoint, and that helped me clarify my own reasoning.
You didn't explicitly use the words marginal cost, but your description was very close to that, and it really struck me as the heart of the matter. A consistent way to think about moral economic policies for public things being made available to private parties, at serious discounts, but without public tax dollars subsidizing those private parties. (Unless subsidizing for everyone is the point, like libraries.)
All things being equal, it is morally wrong when taxes subsidize something only wealthy people can afford. That seems like a point of agreement.
Subtle distinctions can matter a lot, as it did here, so thank you.
