force either way...

Jason Pye was criticizing the rail funding in the stimulus package

I stated that one might do this, "to make people use more of one over the other..."

He then responds by stating

Because that is all government is...force.

I'm assuming he stated this because I said "make people use." But this has me perplexed. The debate seems to be spending money on rail vs. roads. Either policy decision is going to create incentives for certain behaviors over other behaviors (force in Jason's terminology). Thats policy.

I responded that

all policies impose certain incentives over other incentives. A traffic ticket creates an incentive to not speed... "forcing you". But once we move past an obvious truism i'm not sure what that has to do with anything on the policy front.

he responded that

I’m referring to government forcing individuals to change personal habits, such as creating an atmosphere that is more amenable to riding transit instead of driving.

If you divert enough money away from roads and into transit, you can’t construct new roads or at least be effective with new roads or maintenance on existing roads. You’re using the power of government (force) to get a desired end. It’s an incredibly misguided and expensive angle for government to take.

but again thats a policy decision... either decision would be impacting personal habits.

which is why I'm still perplexed by the use of the term "force" in his response.

Either action is a government decision to spend money in a specific way. Therefore force is implied in either decision and there is no reason to bring in "force" in regards to spending on rail rather than spending on roads. Either decision is going to impact peoples behaviors. I don't walk around saying the government forces me to drive all the way to Indian creek to jump on the train. I guess I could?!?!?

You can state that more people use their cars, but the government isn't forcing people to not use cars in this instance, they are just increasing the quality of trains--which would increase ridership, and change the development/growth of those areas; for better or worse.

The force is implied either way when it comes to government spending/policy because all policy decision preference some behaviors over others.

Anyways it just seemed strange to bring up force for one when its just as true for the other.

They may be two different policy decisions with different impacts... but thats a political decision... that is determined in the political process.

You can argue more people prefer spending on roads, but thats what representative government is for to make such decision and if ones representative doesn't people would kick them out.

One mans misguided and expensive angle is another perfered policy...

I guess one could argue that increasing rail would increase the infrastructure costs over the long term, which the orginal quote he cited noted, and increase the services that government is obligated to fund--hence need to raise revenue for.

But I was just intrigued by the word on this one...