Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

neoliberalism (was Re: Digest Number 460)

Expand Messages
  • Guy Berliner
    Oy vey. You re right, Ronald. There s a very heavy ideological axe to grind inside these arguments. Sometimes I wonder whether it even makes sense to waste
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Oy vey. You're right, Ronald. There's a very heavy ideological axe to
      grind inside these arguments. Sometimes I wonder whether it even makes
      sense to waste breath on people like Cox. But it does, not because I think
      they're amenable to counterarguments, but because we have to publicly
      challenge the pernicious ideology they espouse, which has devastating,
      globe-spanning consequences. Essentially, it's an argument for privatizing
      all public services and running them on profit lines. You could easily
      replace "public transit" with "water," for example. Why should those who
      can afford to install their own reverse osmosis filters help pay for clean
      public drinking water, instead of leaving it to "those who want to or
      need to use it"? It's clear what the proponents of this philosophy have
      in mind: maximizing the benefits to the already privileged, those who
      have expropriated most of the planet's wealth for themselves, while
      making the rest buy their subsistence at the "company store."

      If you want to read a cautionary tale of the kind of nightmarish
      future inequities and social breakdown that this leads to, see
      http://www.struggle.ws/africa/accounts/chekov/lagos.html
      There's even some excellent commentary on the transit system!
      (super-modern, elevated highspeed motorized tollways -- but only
      for the super-rich car owners, the rest are stuck in the miasma
      and gridlock of the city streets below).


      On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:19:58 -0400, Ronald Dawson wrote:

      >
      > John O. Andersen wrote:
      > >Karen,
      > >Thanks for this analysis. I think it's always a good idea to look at what
      > >the opposing arguments are so we can be better informed.
      >
      > I agree with you, that it is very valuable to look at their arguments. In
      > some rare times they are valid, but most of the time they seem to be based
      > on fear and paranoia.
      > Also let's not forget that there is very major social/ideological base to
      > them as well.
      >
      > For example, here is some one else with a very similar mind set as that of
      > Mr.Cox. Dawson
      >
      > <<As long as the better alternative is available (cars), transit rarely does
      > well. On the other hand, a city with a lot of transit available will still
      > usually yield lots of auto usage. In other words, guess who wins in a free
      > market.
      >
      > This is why transit advocates desperately depend on and advocate such
      > things as congestion pricing, subsidies by employers for employees
      > who take transit, and laws designed to make it miserable for people
      > to drive.
      >
      > To me, the current system of how we administer transit in this
      > country is like a house of cards with no foundation. Sooner or later
      > somebody is going to blow it down. Until transit people understand
      > the proper role of transit should be to serve those who want to or
      > need to use it, instead of forcing other unwilling people to use it,
      > they will continue advocating for the wasted consumption of resources
      > that will not yield the desired results. That is, it costs much more
      > to build systems (i.e. rail) to encourage ridership by those who
      > would normally prefer to drive rather than build/operate systems for
      > those who really want to use it (jitneys, small bus service, and
      > other targeted cost-efficient transit service).
      >
      > Somehow we have reached a point in this country in which the inferior
      > solutions (conservation over production, transit over roads, social
      > welfare over hard work and individual ingenuity). All of the former
      > in each pair have been demonstrated failures but like blind sheep we
      > move closer to the cliff anyway.>>
    • Ronald Dawson
      ... Well, so much for the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Also here is an other mind set example that I ve seen. Dawson
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Guy Berliner wrote:
        >Oy vey. You're right, Ronald. There's a very heavy ideological axe to
        >grind inside these arguments. Sometimes I wonder whether it even makes
        >sense to waste breath on people like Cox. But it does, not because I think
        >they're amenable to counterarguments, but because we have to publicly
        >challenge the pernicious ideology they espouse, which has devastating,
        >globe-spanning consequences. Essentially, it's an argument for privatizing
        >all public services and running them on profit lines. You could easily
        >replace "public transit" with "water," for example. Why should those who
        >can afford to install their own reverse osmosis filters help pay for clean
        >public drinking water, instead of leaving it to "those who want to or
        >need to use it"? It's clear what the proponents of this philosophy have
        >in mind: maximizing the benefits to the already privileged, those who
        >have expropriated most of the planet's wealth for themselves, while
        >making the rest buy their subsistence at the "company store."

        Well, so much for the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
        Also here is an other mind set example that I've seen. Dawson

        <Molestation, intimidation, vulgarity, obnoxious behavior are the
        earmark of mass transit. Police can not protect women riding or
        leaving the trains and being followed or accosted by hoodlums.
        Give me road rage any time. At least the bastards had enough money to
        own or steal a car and they do not know if I have a gun under my seat.>
      • Oliver Hayden
        ... Gee, I always think to myself that if I m going to get mugged, I d like it to be by someone with enough money to afford their own car!
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 6, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          > Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 13:39:04 -0400
          > From: "Ronald Dawson" <rdadddmd@...>
          > Subject: RE: neoliberalism (was Re: Digest Number 460)
          >
          > Well, so much for the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
          > Also here is an other mind set example that I've seen. Dawson
          >
          > <Molestation, intimidation, vulgarity, obnoxious behavior are the
          > earmark of mass transit. Police can not protect women riding or
          > leaving the trains and being followed or accosted by hoodlums.
          > Give me road rage any time. At least the bastards had enough money to
          > own or steal a car and they do not know if I have a gun under my seat.>

          Gee, I always think to myself that if I'm going to get mugged, I'd like it
          to be by someone with enough money to afford their own car!
        • Boileau,Pierre [NCR]
          Wow Ronald, Who wrote this?
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Wow Ronald,

            Who wrote this?


            <Molestation, intimidation, vulgarity, obnoxious behavior are the
            earmark of mass transit. Police can not protect women riding or
            leaving the trains and being followed or accosted by hoodlums.
            Give me road rage any time. At least the bastards had enough money to
            own or steal a car and they do not know if I have a gun under my seat.>

            It sounds like they were at war long before the tragic events of Sept. 11th.

            Pierre.

            To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
            To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
            carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
            Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.