We haven't received enough votes with gender data to show this graph yet.
We will show the graph as soon as we have enough votes!
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Generally speaking, in your country wherever it is. I'd like to find out if you think it is a good thing or bad thing, as compared to public transport being run by the government.
It can go either way. If their is good money to be made then privatized will work better than government run. However, if their isn't good money to be made then government run will probably work best.
a. I'd be interested to know how federally funded public transportation would be against the US Constitution. Maybe you could make an argument via Amendment X, but even that is easily countered, I believe.
b. Amtrak is basically a federally-owned public transportation corporation. (I understand it is not entirely federally-owned, but it would certainly fall within the general idea of being "federally sponsored.")
..
[1 point]4 years ago by hobo9ReplyEdited 4 years ago by hobo9
The Constitution allocates all government power to the states except that which it narrowly allocated to the federal government, which must prove a constitutional basis for operating within a state's jurisdiction. Interstate railroads and highways have been ruled to fall under the interstate commerce clause, so the government can intervene in interstate transportation even without state or local approval.
The federal government can have slightly more difficulty establishing a constitutional basis for forcibly taking over a municipal transportation system; but munis can voluntarily apply for federal loans and grants through which the federal government can exert regulations via purse-string politics. In such a case, the muni could escape some federal regulations merely by turning down federal financing.
So, you're both right. In the past, there was a general perception arising from the wording of the Constitution that it was a contract between the federal government and the people, such that the states could not voluntarily cede any more power to the federal government without a constitutional amendment; but that became a minority opinion long ago, for better or for worse.
While I agree with your analysis, I think the federal government could move to take over public transportation, though I don't think it would.
As for regulation, as you point out, it has it's foot in the door already via funding/legislation. But even if the states/munis were to opt out of said funds, I feel certain that the federal government could step in via the interstate commerce clause.
..
[1 point]4 years ago by hobo9ReplyEdited 4 years ago by hobo9
I agree that the feds can buy most of the influence they would ever want over local transit, and that they probably wouldn't try to take over completely, so our point of disagreement is mostly hypothetical.
Interstate commerce (IC) is often interpreted broadly, but if push were to come to shove, the federal court system could deter its executive and legislative branches from interpreting IC broadly enough to grab long-held state and local powers on a whim. SCOTUS would probably draw the line at public transit in most cities under normal conditions.
The feds can intervene temporarily to secure civil rights, interstate infrastructure, deliveries across state lines, operation of vital economic centers, etc. That's a lot of potential authority in some places like NYC, but it's not control over day-to-day operations.
In NYC, the agency most vulnerable to federalization under IC is probably the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is clearly interstate. It is governed by a board appointed by both states, not a federal agency. http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/Governance/
The Port Authority is self-sufficient (doesn't tax and uses no state or local taxes), so it's more likely to privatize than federalize, IMHO; but not very likely to privatize, either, due to the political climate there.
Regarding the Sen. Paul quote, what he says makes sense. However, it would also be powerless, and probably non-existent, see: 1861-1865.
Regarding, the Federalist paper quote, I take Hamilton's remark as having more merit. However, one still must understand that the Federalist papers were written as opinion pieces in newspapers with the express purpose of convincing voters to join the Union. I am not saying that I think Hamilton (or Madison or Jay for that matter) were outright liars or that they planned to do something exactly opposite to what they wrote about. But the fact of the matter is that this is no longer the late eighteenth century. Things evolve.
As to the body of the Constitution, note the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3: "The Congress shall have power... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..." --That alone puts them in nearly every economic transaction.
Art 1, sec 8, clause 18: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." --so not only can they make any law they want, it is their job (note that judicial review is not given in the Constitution). I realize that I am playing fast and loose with this one but the point is that Congress (constitutionally) answers to no one. Voters, yes, but look at turnover rates in Congress. Representatives and Senators do not get voted out of office. They police themselves with exception of the Supreme Court, and only then because the Supreme Court did something extra-constitutional to give itself the power of judicial review. (Though the idea is discussed in the Federalist papers as well. By Hamilton even.)
Assuming state control is laughable (to me) because projects of significant importance have always required federal intervention, or outright federal control. (Interstate highways, civil rights legislation, voting rights legislation, end of child labor laws, etc.) I realize that some states were ahead of the federal government in many instances but the point is that many states had not changed and weren't going to.
The Articles of Confederation were a bad idea (in my opinion), as was the Confederacy. To remove federal powers to the states is not only counter-productive, but also nonsensical. To assume that just because the governor is closer than the president that the governor will do a better job does not follow.
..
[1 point]4 years ago by hobo9ReplyEdited 4 years ago by hobo9
The transportation system here is a blend; publicly regulated, privately operated. Licensees charge enough to be self-sustaining and competitive, but not more than the license allows. The city and private charities chip in to subsidize low-income and disability fare cards. Licensees are subject to city routes, scheduling, and quality control. If they don't like city control, they can go completely private; some do. The combination of public and private seems to work fine. But then, this isn't a very big city, so the system may not scale.
The problem with privatized anything is that it never actually is privatized. Oh sure, public funding (taxes) may no longer be the sole financier of the service, but since the service is protected from competition by virtue of government force preventing any other company to compete with the company gov't assigns or rewards with the task (whatever it may be) there is simply no incentive for the company to provide an adequate level of service.
The moment people are allowed to contract freely with other people in an atmosphere of free trade, prices fall and quality improves.
It's truly sad to see so many American's choosing government over private enterprise. I expect this pro-state behavior from Europeans and south Americans, but to see a formally free people opt for more, not less government control causes my heart to ache for a less socialistic-minded America...
Singapore
Where?
Generally speaking, in your country wherever it is. I'd like to find out if you think it is a good thing or bad thing, as compared to public transport being run by the government.
It can go either way. If their is good money to be made then privatized will work better than government run. However, if their isn't good money to be made then government run will probably work best.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyOurs is privatized in Melbourne.
We all want it to go back to the Government.
The service was bad with the Government but private here is Very Bad.
It's expensive, unreliable and it's dangerous.
We are back in our cars.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[0 points] 4 years ago by deleted user Replya. I'd be interested to know how federally funded public transportation would be against the US Constitution. Maybe you could make an argument via Amendment X, but even that is easily countered, I believe.
b. Amtrak is basically a federally-owned public transportation corporation. (I understand it is not entirely federally-owned, but it would certainly fall within the general idea of being "federally sponsored.")
..
The Constitution allocates all government power to the states except that which it narrowly allocated to the federal government, which must prove a constitutional basis for operating within a state's jurisdiction. Interstate railroads and highways have been ruled to fall under the interstate commerce clause, so the government can intervene in interstate transportation even without state or local approval.
The federal government can have slightly more difficulty establishing a constitutional basis for forcibly taking over a municipal transportation system; but munis can voluntarily apply for federal loans and grants through which the federal government can exert regulations via purse-string politics. In such a case, the muni could escape some federal regulations merely by turning down federal financing.
So, you're both right. In the past, there was a general perception arising from the wording of the Constitution that it was a contract between the federal government and the people, such that the states could not voluntarily cede any more power to the federal government without a constitutional amendment; but that became a minority opinion long ago, for better or for worse.
While I agree with your analysis, I think the federal government could move to take over public transportation, though I don't think it would.
As for regulation, as you point out, it has it's foot in the door already via funding/legislation. But even if the states/munis were to opt out of said funds, I feel certain that the federal government could step in via the interstate commerce clause.
..
I agree that the feds can buy most of the influence they would ever want over local transit, and that they probably wouldn't try to take over completely, so our point of disagreement is mostly hypothetical.
Interstate commerce (IC) is often interpreted broadly, but if push were to come to shove, the federal court system could deter its executive and legislative branches from interpreting IC broadly enough to grab long-held state and local powers on a whim. SCOTUS would probably draw the line at public transit in most cities under normal conditions.
The feds can intervene temporarily to secure civil rights, interstate infrastructure, deliveries across state lines, operation of vital economic centers, etc. That's a lot of potential authority in some places like NYC, but it's not control over day-to-day operations.
In NYC, the agency most vulnerable to federalization under IC is probably the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is clearly interstate. It is governed by a board appointed by both states, not a federal agency. http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/Governance/
The Port Authority is self-sufficient (doesn't tax and uses no state or local taxes), so it's more likely to privatize than federalize, IMHO; but not very likely to privatize, either, due to the political climate there.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyRegarding the Sen. Paul quote, what he says makes sense. However, it would also be powerless, and probably non-existent, see: 1861-1865.
Regarding, the Federalist paper quote, I take Hamilton's remark as having more merit. However, one still must understand that the Federalist papers were written as opinion pieces in newspapers with the express purpose of convincing voters to join the Union. I am not saying that I think Hamilton (or Madison or Jay for that matter) were outright liars or that they planned to do something exactly opposite to what they wrote about. But the fact of the matter is that this is no longer the late eighteenth century. Things evolve.
As to the body of the Constitution, note the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3: "The Congress shall have power... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..." --That alone puts them in nearly every economic transaction.
Art 1, sec 8, clause 18: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." --so not only can they make any law they want, it is their job (note that judicial review is not given in the Constitution). I realize that I am playing fast and loose with this one but the point is that Congress (constitutionally) answers to no one. Voters, yes, but look at turnover rates in Congress. Representatives and Senators do not get voted out of office. They police themselves with exception of the Supreme Court, and only then because the Supreme Court did something extra-constitutional to give itself the power of judicial review. (Though the idea is discussed in the Federalist papers as well. By Hamilton even.)
Assuming state control is laughable (to me) because projects of significant importance have always required federal intervention, or outright federal control. (Interstate highways, civil rights legislation, voting rights legislation, end of child labor laws, etc.) I realize that some states were ahead of the federal government in many instances but the point is that many states had not changed and weren't going to.
The Articles of Confederation were a bad idea (in my opinion), as was the Confederacy. To remove federal powers to the states is not only counter-productive, but also nonsensical. To assume that just because the governor is closer than the president that the governor will do a better job does not follow.
..
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyNo, then it would be private transport...
The transportation system here is a blend; publicly regulated, privately operated. Licensees charge enough to be self-sustaining and competitive, but not more than the license allows. The city and private charities chip in to subsidize low-income and disability fare cards. Licensees are subject to city routes, scheduling, and quality control. If they don't like city control, they can go completely private; some do. The combination of public and private seems to work fine. But then, this isn't a very big city, so the system may not scale.
The problem with privatized anything is that it never actually is privatized. Oh sure, public funding (taxes) may no longer be the sole financier of the service, but since the service is protected from competition by virtue of government force preventing any other company to compete with the company gov't assigns or rewards with the task (whatever it may be) there is simply no incentive for the company to provide an adequate level of service.
The moment people are allowed to contract freely with other people in an atmosphere of free trade, prices fall and quality improves.
It's truly sad to see so many American's choosing government over private enterprise. I expect this pro-state behavior from Europeans and south Americans, but to see a formally free people opt for more, not less government control causes my heart to ache for a less socialistic-minded America...