Should we nationalise the railways?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

25th December 2011, 21:38
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

No I don't belive that at all. If we could just stick to the US Constitution as written we wouldn't have to worry about that here. You Brits, on the other hand ...... :)

Britain has no constitution.

As for the US Constitution's views on railways, considering that the Stockton and Darlington Railway wasn't opened until 1825 and the US Constitution was written in 1789, it's a subject which was never envisaged let alone considered.
The closest that the US Constitution gets to mentioning anything like railways is in Article 1 Section 8 when it mentions "post roads".

In fact Britain's lack of a constitution means that the parliament is better enabled to evolve and meet the needs of the country.
26th December 2011, 06:27
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

If that is your criteria for a company to be part of the private sector then then I guess no industry is private.

My Companies are. Most Companies in the USA are.
26th December 2011, 06:28
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Or individuals for that matter.
I wonder Mr Vop resents driving his car on Crony-Socialist roads and hates having to follow Crony-Socialist road laws?

What do roads or Traffic laws have to do with crony socialism?
26th December 2011, 06:31
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

It's worth pointing out at this point, that in the home of the free market economy, the United States, the railways are government owned.

Actually it is the passenger railway line that is Government run.............and that is why it sucks. The Cargo Shipping railways are privately owned, extremely efficient and highly profitable.
26th December 2011, 06:59
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

What do roads or Traffic laws have to do with crony socialism?

Roads and traffic laws fit your criteria:

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Are the Railway Companies free to run the railway as they see fit?
Are the Railway Companies allow to drop service to cities, Towns and Areas without having to receive government approval?
Are the Railway Companies free from Government Subsidies and the strings that are always attached?
Are other Companies allow to start their own Railway Lines to compete with the established ones?

Roads in the United States need government approval. The US Interstate system was the largest public works program in history; massive subsidies were allowed during its construction and although there are private motorways in the US, they don't really compete with the established ones but complement them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

If the answer is yes to all 4 questions then the Railways are privatized. If the Answer is no then all it you have is Crony-Socialism disguised as privatization.
Of course you won't be able to grasp the concept of PRIVATE enterprise as you have never truly lived in the private sector.

The answer to some of the questions you posed ass applied to the US Interstate system is very obviously no. Therefore by your definition you have "Crony-Socialism disguised as privatization".

Of course without all those horribly evil and disgusting interstates running across the US, the country wouldn't function as well would it? Then again you won't be able to grasp the concept of PRIVATE enterprise as you have never truly lived in the private sector, have you?
26th December 2011, 13:21
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

The answer to some of the questions you posed ass applied to the US Interstate system is very obviously no. Therefore by your definition you have "Crony-Socialism disguised as privatization".

Of course without all those horribly evil and disgusting interstates running across the US, the country wouldn't function as well would it? Then again you won't be able to grasp the concept of PRIVATE enterprise as you have never truly lived in the private sector, have you?

Please explain to me how the Government built, run, maintained and owned road system is Crony Socialism or Privatization?
26th December 2011, 15:43
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

In fact Britain's lack of a constitution means that the parliament is better enabled to evolve and meet the needs of the country.

Or as some would say (including me and the Founders of this country) the lack of a written British Constitution makes it very easy for Parliament to strip rights away from its citizens.
26th December 2011, 15:54
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Roads and traffic laws fit your criteria:

Roads in the United States need government approval. The US Interstate system was the largest public works program in history; massive subsidies were allowed during its construction and although there are private motorways in the US, they don't really compete with the established ones but complement them.

The answer to some of the questions you posed ass applied to the US Interstate system is very obviously no. Therefore by your definition you have "Crony-Socialism disguised as privatization".

Of course without all those horribly evil and disgusting interstates running across the US, the country wouldn't function as well would it? Then again you won't be able to grasp the concept of PRIVATE enterprise as you have never truly lived in the private sector, have you?

Who here has ever tried to claim the the interstate highway system has been "privatized"? They are not in any way shape or form privatized. The government let contracts for building them and maintaining them. But the government makes no phoney claims of privatization as the UK government has done with their rail system.

The interstate highway system is one example where I believe Federal control is warranted. As you say there is at least a similar concept in the Constitution with post roads. Plus with something that crosses State boarders such as highways it just makes sense to have Federal control. In fact one of the incidences that lead to the call for a Federal convention (later called Constitutional convention) was a dispute over navigation rights on the Potomac River. It could easily be seen how similar disputes could arrise from interstate highways controled by the States.

Very similar arguments could apply easily to the original question of nationalizing the British rail system, if one would choose to take that stance in this debate.
26th December 2011, 20:07
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Actually it is the passenger railway line that is Government run.............and that is why it sucks.

There are government-run passenger railways around the world that do not 'suck', let me remind you. Some are quite good. But, of course, you wouldn't know.
26th December 2011, 20:08
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Or as some would say (including me and the Founders of this country) the lack of a written British Constitution makes it very easy for Parliament to strip rights away from its citizens.

Says the man whose national leaders had no trouble with passing the Patriot Act.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page