Some may remember George Will's meditations on the train (via Krugman's blog–I know, pay wall):
So why is America’s “win the future” administration so fixated on railroads, a technology that was the future two centuries ago? Because progressivism’s aim is the modification of (other people’s) behavior.
Forever seeking Archimedean levers for prying the world in directions they prefer, progressives say they embrace high-speed rail for many reasons—to improve the climate, increase competitiveness, enhance national security, reduce congestion, and rationalize land use. The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.
We discussed this here. Well, today a bit of an update. There appears to be another reason to take the train. It's gets you from point A to point B. Here's Krugman yesterday:
So I think that it is my civic duty to report that yesterday, as I got off Amtrak 161 from Trenton to Washington — having spent 2 1/2 hours being made more amenable to collectivism, not to mention finishing another chapter for 3rd edition — I saw George Will leaving the business class car. (I usually prefer the coach quiet car.)
This is not the first time I've heard of George Will taking the train. I wonder if he spent a comfortable two and a half hours meditating on his practical inconsistency.
2 thoughts on “Collectivism wins again!”
I have to call this one a tu quoque. Just because Will chooses to take the train doesn't mean that he his wrong for arguing that it is a push towards collectivism. I mean I disagree with that conclusion and argument that Will is making but his choice to use the rail is not the problem with his argument nor does his argument mean that you should not take the train if one is available. His argument is saying that one of the motivating factors behind the push for high speed rail is to promote collectivism.
Yes I understand that DCZ. My conclusion was that he was practically inconsistent, that's different from "wrong" (which he is also).
Comments are closed.