this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
253 points (100.0% liked)

technology

23182 readers
458 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] invo_rt@hexbear.net 68 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Lol, high-speed rail in the US is a joke. California's HSR program started in 1996 and hasn't produced anything substantial in nearly 30 years. They might be able to get 1/3 of Phase 1 into operation by 2030. It's not even in discussion unless it's bundled with some kind of meme shit like depressurized train tunnels and eliminating safety measures.

In China, Deng started the Chinese HSR program around the same time and went from virtually none to being the world leader in kilometers of HSR with ~45,000 Km of operational HSR. To put that into perspective, that's double the rest of the world combined. In fact, China has more HSR in construction than the rest of the world has active HSR today.

deng-cowboy train-shining

[–] hpca01@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (12 children)

There's this thing called land ownership which is a right...the state can eminent domain them but they'd have to fight it in court.

Doubt they have that in China, if your home is in the way of a planned development...it won't be soon. You don't buy land from the government there, it's on a lease basis.

That and everyone in politics has to be aligned. If the top down order is to build a HSR, no cog in the system can just slow shit down for the hell of it. Doesn't work that way in the US, as witnessed by the myriad times that the government can never approve the budget before it's due.

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 46 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

What is hilarious about your argument is that it takes far more land to build and maintain a highway, and yet we somehow never had any problems with forcing land sales with eminent domain clauses doing that.

It's almost as if the government is owned by a series of interests that are not actually interested in investing and maintaining efficient consumption minimum and economical modes of transportation, and instead focused on making a system that is efficient at creating profit for it's ownership class. It's almost as if, instead of a focus on the money to commodity cycle, there is a perverse incentive for a money to commodity to money cycle that means there is no real incentive to ever substantially invest to improve your commodity production.

Weird. curious-marx

[–] hpca01@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How many new highways do you see being built?? I've lived in California all my life and I've never seen a brand new highway being built. I've seen lanes expanded a few feet...But never a new one built.

Also, you can't just put rail tracks anywhere as you can with land.

The politicians clearly work for reelection. Unfortunately, when a human being is placed in a position of power you usually get this kind of thing. Power corrupts.

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 25 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The highways weren't just magically placed there by the grace of God, they were built and expanded by the government using eminent domain. A highspeed rail system could be built using the same legal precedents, and would likely keep the highways from having to be expanded (ever).

What you are saying is that we could never build a new system in the same way that we built the old system, which is patently false, which is still different from your claim that China can avoid red-tape when the U.S. does not which is also false. The U.S. picks and chooses when it decides to uphold 'private property' because it only cares about the private property of those that buy the political system, it demonstrably does not care about general private property rights of those that inconvenience whatever the agenda is. Which means that the agenda COULD be High Speed rail, and it is not 'the law' or 'the government' getting in the way but private companies.

Also, for someone with a tenuous grasp on legal reality, I don't think you should be discussing the realities of rail-based civil engineering. Highways aren't particularly known for being good to work with on complex landscapes.

I am saying that the literal incentives of a profit-driven capitalist economy will always inevitably degrade the commodity process, incentivizing profit generation and rent seeking over industrialization and economizing commodity processes. It has nothing to do with 'corruption', 'power' or 'politicians', nor did I ever indicate that is what we were talking about. It is the system working as intended.

[–] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 37 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Oh I'll just tell the poor Americans I know whose homes were bulldozed for transportation infrastructure that it didn't happen because they could have fought it in court. Dumbass.

[–] hpca01@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Nah, you could tell them that at least they had the right to fight it in court.

[–] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 23 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well, shit for brains, if you'd read my post you'd know they were poor, so they didn't have money for all the attorney's fees that are necessary for that plan.

PIGPOOPBALLS

[–] hpca01@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Cool cool cool cool cool. They can afford a home in California but they're dirt poor to afford an attorney?

[–] silent_water@hexbear.net 25 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

trains only run through expensive urban areas? people living in rented apartments deserve no protections?

[–] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 20 points 8 months ago

What the fuck are you talking about California for, eminent domain is done across the whole country

[–] ExotiqueMatter@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 8 months ago

you could tell them that at least they had the right to fight it in court.

What liberal education does to a mf.

The liberal notion that you have the "right" to do something when some politician sign a paper that say you can do something even when you'll never be able to actually do it is dogshit.

What good is on paper having the "right" to do something if you don't have the material capability to exert that right? They could just be honnest and pass a law forbiding anyone worth bellow 1M$ to fight construction companies in court and litteraly almost nothing would be different.

Also, I'd like you to show to me proof that the chinese peoples are forbiden from fighting the HSR constuctors in court.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 17 points 8 months ago

When some chud court tells them to go fuck themselves because building a boarder wall as a symbolic gesture of fascism is more important, at least they can remember China Bad

[–] CloutAtlas@hexbear.net 35 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Damn, it feels like your hypothetical system is designed to protect the interests of the rich and screw over the poor masses, and over time, increase the power the rich already have and further screw over the poor. I have some notes.

Like can you imagine if such a system existed in the real world. If, say, they wanted to violate the "right" of land ownership for poor people to segregate cities by, idk, skin colour. They could separate them with massive, uncrossavle highways. The people that make cars and people who own oil fields will love that! The issue is that there may or may not be some poor people that live there. But even the ones that own land, well, they can be removed because of the system of eminent domain. Theoretically it'd also apply to the wealthy, so it looks like a fair system to the layman. But the rich can afford to take time off work and better lawyers. So on paper it sounds fair, but in practice, it favours those who are already wealthy!

And it would feedback into even more advantages for the wealthy. All those highways will require cars, which is good, but cars need fuel. The fuel will need to be moved vast distances, your need a line of pipes from the oil fields! But that would once again require you to build a... "Line of pipes" across vast distances. But there are natives living along where those lines would go! And they theoretically benefit from the right to own land as well! And they're disadvantaged due to being survivors of a genocide. Treaties or no, the lines will get out through their land, they can fight back but obviously they're unlikely to win.

This doesn't seem like a well thought out system. The only other thing the rich would have to do is to own media and education. Then they can pump out articles and curriculum one after the other saying this system is the only system that works! They can even tell people, over multiple generations, that this the only way, that the right to land is a human right (not food or water though, that would cut into the profits of some other rich people, obviously). And make it legal for the rich to have a stranglehold on the government, call it something other than corruption, make it sound less harmful. Eventually you can erode the political structure to consist only of 2 groups of people who both agree with your "right" to land ownership, so even if the masses wanted to (which they don't, thanks to media and education ;)), they literally can never change it

Yeah imagine if this system existed irl. It's a dystopia disguised as a normal country. And basically everyone in it would believe theres no other way, since any alternative has been demonized since before their grandparents were born.

Genius, and evil

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ExotiqueMatter@lemmygrad.ml 33 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Doesn’t work that way in the US, as witnessed by the myriad times that the government can never approve the budget before it’s due.

"Our government is slow and inefficient can't take decisions in a timely manner (especially if it's decisions that benefit everyone at the expence of a fingernail of the bottomline of some rich dickhead for some reason ), that's how you know it's truely democratic"

[–] hpca01@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately it's not democratic...It's a representative democracy where the representation is horrible. Yes, I'm no fan of the way the country is.

[–] ExotiqueMatter@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 8 months ago

Well, glad you at least halfway recognise that the US is not a democracy

[–] PaulSmackage@hexbear.net 31 points 8 months ago (8 children)

America: bulldozes entire neighborhoods to build highways, displacing everyone with minimal compensation.

China: Nail house.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 28 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So...it's a good thing when someone can torpedo a massive infrastructure project that will benefit millions just because they don't feel like selling "their" land? Because they have a slip of paper that says they own a bunch of land, they can personally decide whether or not millions of people have access to public transport? Is that the argument you're making? That capitalism is a superior system because someone who is rich and powerful enough can inconvenience or even destroy the lives of millions just cause they can?

[–] hpca01@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's not a good thing in the long run if someone can do that. I'd have loved the HSR from NCAL to SCAL, would have avoided all those hours on the 5.

There are pros and cons basically, there isn't a system that is perfect.

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Yes, you're absolutely right, there's no such thing as a perfect system (and us communists aren't trying to pretend our system is perfect either, that's a common misunderstanding. The goal is "better" than what we currently have, not "perfect.")

But in the case of this example I would say the cons far outweigh the pros. A system that focuses on the people first and doesn't give the rich special priority and privileges would be a better society in general, wouldn't you?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TC_209@hexbear.net 28 points 8 months ago

There's this thing called tribal sovereignty, which is a right. Doubt they have that in the US; if your tribe is in the way of a planned settlement... it won't be soon.

[–] emizeko@hexbear.net 27 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

Doubt they have that in China

hey genious, what's a nail house?

no investigation, no right to speak

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ExotiqueMatter@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Doubt they have that in China, if your home is in the way of a planned development…it won’t be soon.

[citation needed]

In fact there are many exemples of the opposite happening, China having to build around something because the person(s) refused to move and China didn't force them to.

[–] BovineUniversity@hexbear.net 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

IIRC, you can say no to private development but not to the state. Either way you're well compensated if you give up your land.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 5 points 8 months ago

Yeah, technically the state owns all land, including the land that holds both personal and private property, so they are free to use that ownership, but they are also required to compensate the people who own property on the land. This is basically just a rephrasing of Eminent Domain.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BovineUniversity@hexbear.net 19 points 8 months ago

Yeah you can't get in the way of public development in China. If they want to run a rail through your house they'll give you a fat stack of cash and move you into a nice new apartment. The system works.