Ironically, it seems rather dogmatic? I see a lot of statements about what worked and what should be done that are unsupported. Our knowledge of reality comes from evidence, but you won't find it...
Ironically, it seems rather dogmatic? I see a lot of statements about what worked and what should be done that are unsupported. Our knowledge of reality comes from evidence, but you won't find it here.
On top of that, he does defend an ideological approach, it may not be obvious to him. It's a mix of pragmatism (take what works) and utilitarianism (what works for most people). It's not the best...
On top of that, he does defend an ideological approach, it may not be obvious to him. It's a mix of pragmatism (take what works) and utilitarianism (what works for most people). It's not the best argument made for these philosophies, but yeah he still presents an ideological argument.
When it's about politics, anytime I see someone call themselves or their position realist or objectivist or some variety of this, I assume there's a highly likely chance they're not informed about philosophy and ideology. More informed people most often shy away from using such labels, because it's a very uninformed way of looking at politics, not to mention highly self-congratulatory. If anyone's interested in why I think this way, they can check out the definition of ideology in sociology and political philosophy.
I disagree: opening up the Italian Rail System to private competition has been a success. The formula seems to be: the state owns and maintains the lines, but there is open competition between...
Trains aren't well suited to competitive pressures.
I disagree: opening up the Italian Rail System to private competition has been a success. The formula seems to be: the state owns and maintains the lines, but there is open competition between operators; who each have the same base cost, so innovate to drive down prices and improve customer experience. This has led to lower fairs and more frequent trains, all while the operators also turn a profit.
The choice isn't simply public or private; it's a regulated market, where state ownership of the underlying infrastructure provides a level playing field for operators to compete on.
Ironically, it seems rather dogmatic? I see a lot of statements about what worked and what should be done that are unsupported. Our knowledge of reality comes from evidence, but you won't find it here.
It seems like all that matters these days is if something feels true.
On top of that, he does defend an ideological approach, it may not be obvious to him. It's a mix of pragmatism (take what works) and utilitarianism (what works for most people). It's not the best argument made for these philosophies, but yeah he still presents an ideological argument.
When it's about politics, anytime I see someone call themselves or their position realist or objectivist or some variety of this, I assume there's a highly likely chance they're not informed about philosophy and ideology. More informed people most often shy away from using such labels, because it's a very uninformed way of looking at politics, not to mention highly self-congratulatory. If anyone's interested in why I think this way, they can check out the definition of ideology in sociology and political philosophy.
I disagree: opening up the Italian Rail System to private competition has been a success. The formula seems to be: the state owns and maintains the lines, but there is open competition between operators; who each have the same base cost, so innovate to drive down prices and improve customer experience. This has led to lower fairs and more frequent trains, all while the operators also turn a profit.
The choice isn't simply public or private; it's a regulated market, where state ownership of the underlying infrastructure provides a level playing field for operators to compete on.