← Back to context

Comment by amrocha

2 days ago

I’m not confusing anything, I just disagree with you.

It’s not an economic argument, it’s an ideological one. Public goods should serve the public. No amount of money can change that.

6 comments

amrocha

Reply
Nevermark  1 day ago

> It’s not an economic argument, it’s an ideological one.

I see. Other's shouldn't make economic choices based on economically created benefit or harm, but to submit to your ideology.

Yet, these were never public goods. And they are more available to the public now.

Reality doesn't conform to ideology. The latter only helps when it contributes to understanding, instead of limiting it.

  • amrocha  13 hours ago

    The fish is blind to the ocean. All of your arguments are soaked in the ideology of economic primacy. From where I stand, it seems like you’re the one that refuses to understand the argument that doesn’t agree with your ideology.

    And to be clear, I couldn’t care less if you own a rail car, but you shouldn’t get to use public infrastructure to operate it.

    • Nevermark  10 hours ago

      > The fish is blind to the ocean. All of your arguments are soaked in the ideology of economic primacy.

      Ok. I guess if you had any actual points you would have made them instead of poor sport poetry and blatant projection.

      I don't believe in economic primacy.

      Nor do I have ideology. I don't think any one way of looking at things can ever be complete. As I already stated.

      It was you, who explicitly outed yourself as ideological, and are making ideological arguments instead of practical ones based on actual harm or benefit.

      People or businesses pay to use public parks for events, public buildings, school buses, the list is endless. People like this. It is viewed as pro-sharing, pro-community. These options makes public asset more valuable to the public, help defray costs, and increase the good they generate for society. With any harm or mistreatment to anyone.

      2 replies →