Battlepanda: What I am…
Battlepanda: What I am saying is if the government is going to subsidize transportation, it might as well do it in an across the board fashion — not just for automobiles through road building, but also through trains, trams, and other possible types of people movers.
Let’s distinguish two separate questions with regard to government getting involved in transit.
The subsidy question: should governments subsidize (or directly provide) infrastructure or services for transit? If so, which should it subsidize, to what degree, and in what proportions?
The regulation question: should governments pass laws or regulations that effectively ban other people from offering transit services or building infrastructure? If so, which sorts should it ban, by whom, and with what sorts of enforcement?
Let’s set aside the subsidy question for a moment; I’m interested in your take on the regulation question. (This isn’t idle speculation; most municipalities with substantial subsidized or government-owned mass transit, New York City especially, also have very restrictive laws or regulations that ban outright, or sharply limit, competing taxi, bus, etc. services.)
Suppose my city, state, and federal government are taking tax money and pouring it into transit services, road-building, etc., to whatever degree and in whatever proportions you think best; and suppose that I decide, nevertheless, to start a competing taxi service. Or bus service. Or start laying rails for a private train. Do you think that the city, state, or federal government should force me to stop it? Or would that be overreaching on their part?
Anticopyright.