Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Dragoman"] I don't think this is a good analogy at all.  For starters, railroads (and the large corporations that by and large own & operate them) are not individual homeowners.  They are commercial enterprises, created by and operated under state corporate charters and franchises.  They are in a highly-regulated industry.  As common carriers, they have an absolute responsibility to operate in the public interest.  These factors mean that they cannot just chase profits, but must operate in a manner that is consistent with rules, regulations, and the public policies reflected therein. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that HSR should be forced upon railroads without fair and adequate compensation.  But when a railroad announces in advance that it doesn't want to even enter into the discussion (CSX?), or will only do so after demanding unfair and absurdly excessive compensation (UP demanding 3/4 of a Billion dollars to add 4 trains a week to the Sunset route?), then they are being unreasonable. The better "quartering" example would be that the "citizen" operates a hotel, where he is required (if asked) to allow government employees to be housed, at the current room rates.  If special hotel services are required, the government would pay for them. And, let's throw in that the hoteliers business license actually requires such cooperation.  (Let's not forget that the "deal" with Amtrak was that it would relieve the railroads of their existing obligations to provide passenger services, in exchange for their cooperation with Amtrak's operations.) <div style="clear: both;"></div> [/quote] I think Jay’s analogy uses homeowners to make the point of heaping new regulatory burdens onto someone who is enjoying life without them.  But your description pretty much sums up the attitude of those who believe that the freight railroads should accept the burden of expanded passenger rail because the government orders them to do so.   <o:p></o:p> And then you soften your position by offering that the government will give fair compensation.  But then you turn around and complain that the U.P. is asking for too much compensation.  In a free market, the buyer and seller agree on the price. It is an entirely different system where somebody else decides what is a fair price for the seller.    <o:p></o:p> Sure there are a lot of already existing regulations on business, but it does not follow that because there are some regulations, the government is free to impose unlimited new regulations.  That is not the deal.    <o:p></o:p> I applaud Mr. Ward for having the courage to stand up to the bully.  It sounds like you would have him arrested for not operating in the public interest.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag