• @hpca01
    link
    English
    15 months ago

    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 [none/use name]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      45
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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
        link
        English
        15 months ago

        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 [none/use name]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24
          edit-2
          5 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 [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      365 months ago

      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.

          • HexBroke [any, comrade/them]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            15 months ago

            Sorry I meant to suggest that transportation infrastructure was/is often an excuse to raze black neighbourhoods and evict them all

            Central Park being an example where they razed the homes and just put in a giant park instead

      • @hpca01
        link
        English
        15 months ago

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

        • TheLepidopterists [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          225 months ago

          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
            link
            English
            15 months ago

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          205 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 [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          165 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 [none/use name]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      355 months ago

      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

      • @hpca01
        link
        English
        15 months ago

        You could have saved the wall of text and just said America is also bad…It is.

        When someone has power, power corrupts. It’s a tale as old as time.

        • Kras Mazov
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          You’re almost there. The problem is not that power corrupts, by this logic there’s nothing you can do and every country is doomed. The issue is not individual, but collective.

          The problem is that the whole structure of the system is made for the interests of the wealthy that detain all the power and not for the hard working majority of people. Lobbying is the perfect example of that.

          And it’s not about good or bad, but simply colliding antagonic class interests where the class that holds the power always wins.

          It’s easy to get doomerish and think that people or power is the problem, that’s precisely the position the ruling class wants you to take because it keeps then safe and keeps us under their capitalistic boots.

          I invite you to read Marx. Once you understand the systemic root cause of the issues we see everyday, it’s truly freeing. I suggest the Communist Manifesto since it is really short and can get you the general grasp, just be aware that it’s language is very dated.

          Here are other good entry points:

          Why You Should be a Socialist in 2024 by Second Thought

          Will Life be Better Under Socialism? by Hakim

          How Capitalism sells poverty as modesty & why equality isn’t a practical goal. by Yugopnik

          • TreadOnMe [none/use name]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            16
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Unless there is someone to patiently walk them through it, they will not understand Marx trying to read it themselves. It’s pretty clear from their lazy reading, sloppy replies and fall back on cliches they are either taking the piss or mildly literate at best.

            No progress will be made from self-education on this one imo, particularly with something as not completely modern as Marx. Maybe ABC’s of Socialism.

            • Kras Mazov
              link
              fedilink
              English
              9
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I get what you’re saying but I don’t think this person is just trying to take the piss on us, from what I read here they look like just another misinformed liberal.

              You’re completely right about the rest tho, I usually suggest easier entry points like some stuff by the Deprogram boys, I don’t know why I didn’t do that this time.

              When I suggested Marx I was more thinking about the manifesto since, while it’s language is very dated, it is still good enough to start and get a grasp while being extremely short, but I should have said that in the comment too.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          105 months ago

          Power over others represents a problem, power with and through others (collective power) represents a solution.

        • jaeme [any, comrade/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          8
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It’s a tale as old as time.

          Liberals trying not to essentialize political systems into supposed “common” human culture in order to retroactively justify their own decaying societies impossible challenge.

          American exceptionalism brain mf (and that’s me being nice).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      325 months ago

      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
        link
        English
        25 months ago

        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.

      • @hpca01
        link
        English
        15 months ago

        And everyone is free to fight you in court and sue the shit out of you if they find a flaw in your design.

        Btw, don’t you think that there are others that want to stay but didn’t get a chance to? It’s just the one dude who gets no water or electricity? No one else wanted to stay in the whole neighborhood?

        What do you think happened before nail houses?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          225 months ago

          don’t you think that there are others that want to stay but didn’t get a chance to?

          Making a supposition that maybe there was doesn’t make it true. If you think there is you need to prove it, a claim made without proof can be rejected without proof.

          • @hpca01
            link
            English
            15 months ago

            Nah, you can believe what you want to, I don’t really care.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              20
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              “I don’t really care anyway, I’m not trying to opt out of an argument I’m losing because I have no comeback and nothing to back what I’m saying” not mad

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              175 months ago

              The point isn’t “freedom of belief”, you are “free” to be as delusional as you want. What they are saying is that good epistemic practice dictates that you have some sort of inference from evidence that actually supports your claim rather than “I made it the fuck up”.

        • RollaD20 [comrade/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          And everyone is free to fight you in court and sue the shit out of you if they find a flaw in your design.

          “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

          Wonder how wealth plays into the material reality of going to court. phoenix-think

          How many of those lawsuits against eminent domain in the USA were successful btw?

    • TC_209 [he/him, comrade/them]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      285 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      285 months ago

      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?

    • emizeko [they/them]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Doubt they have that in China

      hey genious, what’s a nail house?

      no investigation, no right to speak

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      23
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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 [they/them]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        115 months ago

        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 [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          55 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.

      • @hpca01
        link
        English
        15 months ago

        Yes I can flip a coin and half the time it lands on heads I can then claim that heads is always going to be the outcome of all coin flips.

        I worked with a guy back in the day who was a dual citizen and owned homes back there. They were far ahead of us in terms of transportation, payments and conveniences. He went back every year for a month to party, even taking a few of us along.

        All those nail houses you see are homes near roads, do you see one in the way of a HSR? You can’t build a HSR around a home like you can with a road.

    • BovineUniversity [they/them]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      195 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.