←back to thread

491 points anigbrowl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kr2 ◴[] No.43981051[source]
Chiming in from Los Angeles, USA to say wow, must be nice living in a modern society that prioritizes public transit and peoples' ease of movement. I know, I know, it comes with trade offs of living in an authoritarian state, but the absolute abysmal state of infrastructure in this country is maddening. Ever been on a train in Denmark or Japan or Switzerland?
replies(12): >>43981063 #>>43981084 #>>43981124 #>>43981133 #>>43981135 #>>43981202 #>>43981218 #>>43981220 #>>43981231 #>>43981261 #>>43981282 #>>43981492 #
jmcgough ◴[] No.43981133[source]
Truly the worst of both worlds that we now have authoritarianism without good public transit.
replies(1): >>43981297 #
chvid ◴[] No.43981297[source]
I don’t see what this has to do with authoritarianism. If anything it is an example of the opposite.
replies(1): >>43981318 #
sandworm101 ◴[] No.43981318[source]
Authoritarian regimes traditionally touted public transit. From "he made the trains run on time", the German autobahn (which actually predated a certain party) to the lavish halls of the Soviet subway stations, to China's highspeed rail networks, public transit is just a thing that strongmen like to do. And absolute power certainly helps when you want to plow a road/rail/bridge through a neighborhood.

I watched an in-flight documentary about the architecture of soviet rural bus stops. Each one of them looked like it cost most than the neighborhoods they serviced.

replies(5): >>43981339 #>>43981381 #>>43981399 #>>43981407 #>>43981779 #
chvid ◴[] No.43981339{3}[source]
I just find this crazy - you can have good public infrastructure without be authoritarian.
replies(2): >>43981396 #>>43981437 #
grumpy-de-sre ◴[] No.43981396{4}[source]
But you cannot have good public infrastructure without a strong state (strength on its own isn't authoritarianism).

A lot of western governments are rather weak, I swear baumols cost disease and spiraling social/retirement/debt spending has crippled their ability to provide for the public.

replies(2): >>43981559 #>>43981578 #
dmurray ◴[] No.43981578{5}[source]
Switzerland has a weak federal government. The cantons are smaller than US states, but have more autonomy, and a lot of matters are decided by direct democracy. Yet they still seem to have good public infrastructure.
replies(1): >>43981688 #
1. grumpy-de-sre ◴[] No.43981688{6}[source]
I mean the obvious is that Switzerland is rich, and money is power.

But it's true that public infrastructure is more dependent on local rather than federal governments. I think the best example of weak local governments has to be the UK [1].

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0DKsMJl6Z8