Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Joph. You realize that your current argument requires that my argument be true, right?
As Xsarus points out, the amusement comes from your own inability to admit to your double standard.
It's not my double standard though. It's yours. You're the one who refuses to acknowledge that there are social engineering aspects to any transportation and infrastructure spending, including the construction of rails instead of highways. I have *never* said there weren't social engineering aspects running the other direction as well. I've just been trying to get you to acknowledge that said connection exists in the first place.
The major difference is where the money is coming from and where it's going to. If you have to massively jack up the cost of gas in order to both fund the construction of rail systems *and* create a cost efficiency reason for people to use them instead of driving cars, then we can say that one is more "natural" than the other and that the social engineering objective is more powerfully driving the construction of rails compared to the construction of highways.
The point being that even if both solutions were "equal", one would be no better than another, meaning that arguing for rails instead of roads is a non-starter at best. However, they are not equal. But despite this, you support a course of action that would require massive government intervention to make them more equal. And the reason? Purely to get people to use rails instead of roads. Thus, while we can say that road construction has
some social engineering aspects to it, the entire motivation for rails is social engineering. In one, social engineering is a necessary side effect, while in the other it's the whole objective.
You have to use manipulation in order to force people to use rails. No one had to force Americans to drive cars and use roads. We chose to do that all on our own. Surely you can see the difference?