Was Lincoln's big-government transcontinental railroad "socialist"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The Daily Elitist
  • Start date Start date
T

The Daily Elitist

Guest
How about Eisenhower's interstate system?

And Obama's smart power grid and high-speed rail network?

If yes, will you then admit that some degree of "socialism" is not only necessary but beneficial, both to the nation and to private business?
Blue T,

You did not answer the question.
Let's play,

Did Clinton's tax hikes - which are nearly identical to Obama's - cripple the job market and restrict the earnings power of the individual? Not at all. To the contrary, they helped create a surge in both private employment and incomes across the board, but especially at the top.
Rob,

I define corporate welfare as "unearned transfer payments to corporations." I do not have a problem with corporations being incentivized to act in the national interest.

Sure, there's no demand for high-speed rail. There's no demand for air transit either. The demand is for transport.

It is well known and totally uncontroversial that our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels creates vast costs which the market does not account for. These costs constitute direct and indirect subsidies to producers of such fuels. A big consumer of said fuels is auto and air transport. Thus, I think government is perfectly justified in creating an alternate form of long-range rapid transit.
Rob,

The fact is that such forms of transit require long-lived capital investments. At the present time, there is nothing on the horizon which is even remotely near high-speed rail's efficiency. If something does come along, the policy can be re-evaluated.

Keep in mind that we're not talking about eliminating cars and air travel, just providing a larger menu of long-range transport options. I could well argue that you'd have much more freedom - I mean, isn't freedom having the ability to make choices? If you have more choices, you have more freedom - that's a tautology.

High speed rail gives me a choice I did not previously have; thus, I am freer with the high-speed rail network than without. Oh sure, you could say I'm being "forced" to fund it, but I'd just the same be "forced" to pay taxes to maintain roads, to secure oil supply lines with military force (vastly more expensive, btw), and so on.
 
Any legislation that is on the side of the underprivileged can be described as Socialist.
 
The highways were built using private companys, under socialism the workers would have been government employees because it is socialism versus capitalism
 
You do not get it! Those are called infrastructure. I am for improving the road and I think the improving the railways is a good Idea, we need mass transit this country is too big not to have something to get us across the country besides a car or a plane.

Obama is a socialist because this is the only proposal for jobs he has because he is destroying the private sector jobs. He wants everything run by the government, this will not work. The government is paid for buy tax dollars if no taxes then the money all of the money becomes the governments. There will not be enough xboxes to go around. You will not be able to afford one.
 
Investments in the nation's infrastructure are not the issue. To cripple the job market, to cripple the earning power of the individual, to take from those who are successful and give to those who will not work, is indeed socialism.
 
since mail was carried by both the railroad and the interstate,they are both required of the federal government by the constitution. post roads are one of the powers granted to the government.if it is not in the constitution,then it it wrong whether you call it socialist or not
 
Some of the things you mention are at least arguably "public goods" much like Adam Smith's lighthouse. I don't think public goods are in any way socialism since by definition they would not even exist in private enterprise.

The railroads and power grid, however, could just as easily be argued to be "corporate welfare" I thought you libs were against that?

High speed rail in America is most likely a "white elephant" since there seems to be no demand for the service aside from a few train geeks.

Edit: Having the government pay for something that is vital to the business and to the extreme benefit of a few monopolistic companies would certainly qualify as welfare in my book.

So if the Govt builds this HS rail and no one wants to ride it because planes and/or cars are faster/cheaper/more convenient, what then? Do you make laws to make it harder to use cars and planes or make them more expensive? Tell people they can't drive/fly the routes the train takes? I feel my freedoms slipping away already.
 
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Sure, infrastructure projects, police, and firemen are all needed to improve society. However, a centrally controlled educational system, a centrally controlled health system, and handouts to the "have nots" that amount to nothing more than wealth redistribution do nothing but harm our nation by creating a nation of citizens that rely more on their government than themselves.
 
That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.

Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln was no socialist.
 
Back
Top