My experience with Amtrak Agent

[bigjohnson]

Regarding the government subsidy of Amtrak....

Back in the 1930s, electric utility companies refused to provide electric service to many rural areas. The justification for their refusal was that it was not cost effective. In cities and suburban areas, they would have dozens - even hundreds - of customers per mile of electric line. In rural areas, however, they might have to run ten miles of cable and erect hundreds of power poles just to serve one customer. So the government, in the form of the Rural Electrification Administration, stepped in and provided subsidies to the electric companies so that farms throughout the country would have access to electric power. The thinking in Washington was this: If private business cannot or will not provide a necessary service, then it is the responsibility of the government to do it.

This was the same thinking that brought about the National Railroad Passenger Act of 1970, which created Amtrak. The freight railroads were unable to continue running passenger trains because of the huge losses they incurred, and rail passenger service was deemed to be a "necessary service". So the government stepped in. It probably would have been a better idea to subsidize the freight railroads and let them continue to run the passenger trains, but actually Amtrak has not done all that bad of a job. Ridership and revenue is up again this year (the 12th year in a row). Ticket sales cover about 80% of Amtrak's operating costs, while ticket sales in European countries cover only about 45% of the costs of running their government-owned passenger rail services. Of course, European countries spend a huge amount percapita on passeenger rail... much more than is spent here in the US. And that expenditure certainly shows when you ride their trains.

Amtrak needs MORE money, not less.

As to their policy of no guns: I think they're wrong. I can also tell you that I carry a gun almost everywhere I go. And that includes riding the train. The words to remember are "discretion", and "concealment".

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

What the heck is FOPA

Uh....Duh....What is 'FOPA' stand for. Two posters used the term but nobody defined what the letters stand for. Pardon my ignorance.

 

[trinydex]

doesn't that sound like her own policy?

 

[Geronimo45]

Firearm Owners Protection Act, 1986 (IIRC). No new MGs registered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOPA

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Amtrak needs MORE money, not less.

Big,

Why do you want to force me, at gunpoint of taxation, to pay for services that other people use? Is that just?

Should I continue to be forced to pay to (poorly) indoc... er, educate other people's kids, too?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[bogie]

The problem is that Amtrak's people are looking at their own operation as a novelty, rather than as usable transportation.

Throwing more money at that will result in a larger novelty.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Doesn't the FOPA protect you on AMTRAK when traveling, or are they free to ignore Fed law?

The FOPA should cover you on Amtrac (assuming you'll be traveling interstate and not intrastate), but the geniuses who wrote the FOPA apparently never took into account that some Americans travel interstate by means other than their own private automobile. That's what got the guy arrested at Newark airport. The law basically says you can transport (not "carry") firearms when traveling interstate. But ... the specific rules laid out for how to do so in compliance with the law ALL describe travel in a private automobile.

 

[Robert Hairless]

I'm sure whatever point you're trying to prove is terribly clever but I've missed it. Seems like sort of a pyrrhic victory, but congrats.

I merely asked the question: Although you prefer not to have those idiots armed, what is stopping them from doing so?

I don't understand why you both have such difficulty with such simple English, why you both read so much that isn't there into them, or why you invest such emotion in those two simple sentences I wrote:

I traveled by AMTRAK frequently enough so that I've seen people drinking and behaving boorishly on those trains. I'm not thrilled by the thought of them carrying guns or having access to them on the trip from here to there.

The first of those two sentences said that I've seen people drink and behave boorishly on AMTRAK. I have.

The second sentence said that I am not thrilled by the thought of those people carrying guns or having access to them on long trips while they drink and behave boorishly. I'm not.

Nowhere have I expressed an opinion about AMTRAK's firearms policies or how they relate to the Second Amendment or any such thing, and I'm just not sure I have any real opinion on the subject.

I don't like restrictions on people's ability to carry the means to defend their lives but, as I said, I've seen such downright bad behavior by passengers on AMTRAK that I'm not thrilled by the prospect of people who behave boorishly or drink to excess being armed or having access to firearms on the trip. I've thought a little about the AMTRAK ban on firearms in checked baggage. It doesn't seem reasonable to me but I don't think I know enough to have earned an opinion.

Although Soybomb's intellectual ballet on what I said really is mildly entertaining it isn't useful or relevant, and as often is the case I don't understand its purpose or why he exaggerated a simple expression of my own experience into a target worth attacking.

MakAttack is just beyond me. I don't know how to distort "not thrilled by the thought of" into "prefer not to have," but I suppose that the way to do it is to make the question carry the burden, begin by denying that it is a distortion, and conclude by asserting that any response is likely to "impugn" his statements. Good way to win an argument, I suppose, although the technique didn't seem to stop Barack Obama from mildly rejecting the Rev. J. Wright when he did the same thing with equal skill:

Robert, I distorted nothing.

I merely asked the question: Although you prefer not to have those idiots armed, what is stopping them from doing so?

Maybe you see some sense in your statement as some kind of response to what I wrote. I don't. It's irrelevant to my statement that I am not thrilled by the thought of people behaving boorishly and drinking carrying guns or having access to them in railroad trains. It never occurred to me that maybe there's the need to point out that everyone on a moving railroad train is captive. So, again, I'm not thrilled by the thought of people who can't or don't control themselves being armed on a train in which everyone is a potential victim. I don't see that not being enthusiastic about something is the equivalent of condemning it, but you do and that's the important thing I guess.

So I think it's real good that you "have traveled rather infrequently on Amtrak (twice per year, generally around Christmastime) from CHICAGO, no less, and have not been screened nor approached." I'll certainly take that into account when I think about what I witnessed in Washington, DC, and what I've recently read about AMTRAK increasing its security in the Northeast corridor. Rather than impugn your intelligence I might decide to trust your eyes instead of my own, and I'm certainly willing to consider trusting what you say about AMTRAK security instead of what AMTRAK says about it.

Oddly, all I did to initiate this nonsense was relate a brief summary of my own experiences and my tentative feelings about it. After all the thread started with one person's experiences, then others contributed their experiences, so I thought to contribute a bit of my own. Little did I think that even a couple of people could weave such enormous Byzantine tapestries out of such small stuff.

Pyrrhic victory? Impugn? Oh gee, Miranda, there you go putting on airs and it ain't even Saturday night?

 

[MakAttak]

And irony of ironies, I awaken in time for my expected flogging.

(I'm sorry my levity in my previous post was misunderstood: I expected no less than to suffer from your sardonic wit, Mr. Hairless. Hence, my "impugn" statement was tongue in cheek, something rather difficult to convey)

You are correct, I did make the assumption that "not thrilled by the thought of" could mean "prefer not to have," especially given this thread began with a discussion of an Amtrak agent who began by supporting Amtrak's policy and lead to a position of total gun control.

And honestly,

I don't know how to distort "not thrilled by the thought of" into "prefer not to have,"

I think you can easily see how such an assumption can be made given the context of the thread.

However, I will concede I have made assumptions and have been rightfully criticized for them. I apologize for imputing unexpressed desires.

As for security measures, I have given you a different point of reference- the entirety of Amtrak is not found in the Northeast. Thus, the security measures taken there do not cover the whole of the service. If you are only concerned with what happens in the Northeast, please feel free to disregard my experience.

 

[bigjohnson]

Sans Authoritas wrote:
"Why do you want to force me...to pay for services that other people use? Is that just?"

Well, yes it is. My tax monies are used for a variety of things that are of no direct benefit to me. For example, federal fighway funds, to which I contribute via my taxes, are being used to build and repair highways in states where I have never been and never intend to go. But does it bother me? No. Because that's the way it works in this country. And that's the only way it can ever work. Our tax money goes into a big pot, and projects and programs that the government needs to operate are paid for out of the pot. Every project or program may not benefit me directly, but it benefits the nation as a whole.

That's the way it is with Amtrak, and that's the way it is with free public education. You might not like paying taxes to support schools when you have no children in those schools, but what's your alternative? Would you force the parents of school children to pay for all of the operating expenses of the schools, and essentially do away with the system of free public education that has been an essential part of our nation's heritage for over 200 years?

Based on your comments, I think you would. But perhaps you might want to think of the other people in this country for a while and not just think of yourself.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans Authoritas wrote:

"Why do you want to force me...to pay for services that other people use? Is that just?"

Big wrote:

Well, yes it is. My tax monies are used for a variety of things that are of no direct benefit to me. For example, federal fighway funds, to which I contribute via my taxes, are being used to build and repair highways in states where I have never been and never intend to go. But does it bother me? No. Because that's the way it works in this country. And that's the only way it can ever work. Our tax money goes into a big pot, and projects and programs that the government needs to operate are paid for out of the pot. Every project or program may not benefit me directly, but it benefits the nation as a whole.

Growing up, I learned that I should pay for the things I wanted, and not expect or force other people to buy them for me. The "common good" is only the sum of the good of the individuals that comprise a collection of individuals. It is not something above, beyond or outside this definition, as you propose.

I don't have a right to have a highway funded by people who live 600 miles away. The same goes for them. If there is an actual legitimate demand, the market can accomodate it.

Big wrote:

That's the way it is with Amtrak, and that's the way it is with free public education. You might not like paying taxes to support schools when you have no children in those schools, but what's your alternative? Would you force the parents of school children to pay for all of the operating expenses of the schools, and essentially do away with the system of free public education that has been an essential part of our nation's heritage for over 200 years?

Actually, yes. I should be expected to pay for my children's upbringing, should I not? I don't have a right to force you to feed them, clothe them, babysit them or buy toys for them, so why do you you think people should be forced to pay for their education?

There were very few, if any, tax-funded schools at the time of the spawning of the Constitution. The idea of taxpayer-funded schools was almost universally scorned as a "wicked" idea. Church-based schools were the cornerstone of educational institutions. It was not until the early 1900's that you saw a boom of tax-funded schools. Before that dark age, children read Cicero, Dante and Homer in high school, often in their original languages. Today, you are lucky if you can find a child who can formulate a coherent, properly punctuated paragraph in English.

D.C. has the country's most-funded public school system and is dead last in standardized test scores.

Back before the government took monopoly control over "education," there was accountability in schools. People demanded results from their money. (Money they still had in their wallets because they weren't being forced to pay for other kids' educations.) When their expectations were not met, people put their children in other schools. Money is still the best incentive to gain results. Now tell me what happens when you try to withhold money from the pits that are public schools. That's right, the monopoly holder comes and kicks down your door to collect.

The best thing anyone can do in this violence-backed monopoly is to homeschool one's kids. And we see the results of that: their SAT scores are consistently and statistically off the charts. For infinitely less money than the average public school ravages from taxpayers on behalf of each child.

Private schools would once again be more plentiful and cheaper if the government got its monopoly-hooks out of the field. That's because private schools have monetary incentive to try to excel: something the government does not have. At all. They'll get their money no matter what. And they'll continue to pump out the same bilgeous results that they have for the past 40 years.

Big wrote:

Based on your comments, I think you would. But perhaps you might want to think of the other people in this country for a while and not just think of yourself.

Again, this isn't about me. This is about the foul idea that anyone should be forced, at gunpoint, to fund/subsidize the services another person would like to enjoy. Just think how much money people would have if they were able to not pay 30% of their incomes to subsidize socialist programs. Much more than enough money to voluntarily enter into agreements with other parents to give their kids an outstanding education.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[bigjohnson]

Sans Authoritas:

Where do you draw the line on this? Should I pay only for roads in my home state? Following your logic, no. After all, my tax money might go to build a highway in southwest Virginia, or repair the bridge-tunnel at Hampton Roads, neither of which I use.

Maybe it should be limited to spending my tax money only in my county. But then again, my county is pretty big, and they might use my taxes to build a road in a part of the county I don't live in and where I don't normally travel, and using your test of fairness, that wouldn't be right, either.

Using your logic, the only way to pay for the building and upkeep of the roads would be to have toll booths every half-mile or so. That would ensure that I would only pay for those roads that were of a direct benefit to me.

The next time you are cruising down the Interstate (which the federal government paid 90% of the cost) think about what you said in your last post, and maybe you'll see how little sense it makes.

 

[Autolycus]

So Robert Hairless do you have an opinion on whether people should be armed while driving as some of these people have access to weapons. Would you object to that as some of these people behave boorishly while driving and may have alcohol in their vehicles. I am sure you are not thrilled about that.

My opinion is that you should be allowed to carry a firearm on the train, even if it does not thrill some people such as Robert Hairless. People should have the right to carry. I think that because some behave boorishly on the train is reason I should carry on Amtrak.

I also would look at the whole picture. With gas rising to near record highs due to the greed of oil executives we will see the use of Amtrak increasing. I have seen many college students on the Amtrak when I ride it. I enjoy it as I feel it is nicer than flying and it is a less costly alternative to driving automobile. ( I dislike flying as I feel it is extremely unnatural and I just really don't like it.) My own opinion is that as a nation we should start looking to mass transit systems such as those in Europe for inspiration. I would also like to see national reciprocity and allowing people to carry firearms on trains.

As someone else stated though there really is no way to secure a firearm on Amtrak. Everyone has access to everyone elses luggage. Perhaps introducing a luggage car would be a method to combat this problem. Another alternative is to get a sleeper car and store your belongings in the sleeper.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Big wrote:

Where do you draw the line on this? Should I pay only for roads in my home state? Following your logic, no. After all, my tax money might go to build a highway in southwest Virginia, or repair the bridge-tunnel at Hampton Roads, neither of which I use.

Maybe it should be limited to spending my tax money only in my county. But then again, my county is pretty big, and they might use my taxes to build a road in a part of the county I don't live in and where I don't normally travel, and using your test of fairness, that wouldn't be right, either.

Using your logic, the only way to pay for the building and upkeep of the roads would be to have toll booths every half-mile or so. That would ensure that I would only pay for those roads that were of a direct benefit to me.

An EZ-Pass style system would be more than adequate to ensure everyone who travels a road pays for the services they use. And it would not cover only the services they use, but would actually turn a profit for the company that maintains the roads. This "profit" phenomenon is something you never see in a tax-based government.

The next time you are cruising down the Interstate (which the federal government paid 90% of the cost) think about what you said in your last post, and maybe you'll see how little sense it makes.

The Federal (and state) taxpayers already pay for more than 90% of public schools, too. The question is, do they have a need to? And does your neighbor (who votes) have a right to force you to pay for his kids' educations, merely because he says (votes) so? Does the will of a majority somehow make any action just?

My post showed that taxpayers do not need to pay for the services that other people enjoy, and that services get more efficient and cheaper when the individuals who comprise government bureaucracies get their little monopoly-hooks out of what the free market could be accomplishing, no matter what the service is.

You didn't counter the points I made in the argument: you only said, "where do you draw the line?" The line was very clear.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Dismantler]

Geez! This thread really morphed!

 

[bigjohnson]

Sans Authoritas:

So all taxes are illegal/immoral? So everything should be run by private industry or not run at all?

You wouldn't be a member of Posse Comitatus would you now?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Big wrote:

So all taxes are illegal/immoral? So everything should be run by private industry or not run at all?

Look at what at a "tax" is at its elemental level, and tell me that taxation is not immoral.

I pay taxes, but certainly not because "I owe them."

Here are some articles that discuss what taxation is. Reading all of them would be phenomenally worthwhile.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/giles7.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard24.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/chodorov/chodorov10.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli10.html

-Sans Authoritas

 

[bigjohnson]

If you really believe that nonsense, then there is nothing that I, or anyone else, can say will make any difference.

I must ask, however: If all taxes are immoral, how about gun laws? Are there any "moral" gun laws?

By the way. I read two of the "essays" you suggested. I couldn't read any more of them as I had to run out to the supermarket and get a roll of heavy-duty tinfoil to line all my hats with.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Big wrote:

I couldn't read any more of them as I had to run out to the supermarket and get a roll of heavy-duty tinfoil to line all my hats with.

Insults in the face of unfamiliar, uncomfortable ideas. Delightful.

Big wrote:

I must ask, however: If all taxes are immoral, how about gun laws? Are there any "moral" gun laws?

Absolutely: "Don't handle any weapon unsafely, or threaten, injure or kill, any non-aggressor with any weapon."

The summary of all legitimate gun laws.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

big johnson you too?

i think its a miracle the government hasn't been overthrown with all these heros of the revolution around. they ever get off the net and on the barricades things will sure change

 

[bigjohnson]

Sans Authoritas:

So it's morally okay to sell an M16 to a 10 year-old, or to a person who is obviously mentally disturbed. Or to furnish a pistol to a person with a history of committing armed robberies.

Great. Just great.

*********************************************************
And to you, Casandrasdaddy:

You think I"M the revolutionary? Politically, I'm slightly to the right of Darth Vader. But I'm a firm believer that along with rights come responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to obey the law. I don't like taxes any more than Sans does. But if the law says I've got to pay taxes, then I may grumble a bit, but I'll pay. Raise my taxes though, and come November I'll do my best to get your butt voted out of office.

Having said all that, let me point out that I'm not one of those guys who believes that no government is the best government. Nor am I one who seeks an all-inclusive cradle-to-grave nanny state of the type we are facing should either of the current Democrat candidates be elected. Believe it or not, there IS a middle ground. The world is not black & white. Those who are unable (or unwilling) to see the many shades of grey are blind indeed.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Big wrote:

Sans Authoritas:

So it's morally okay to sell an M16 to a 10 year-old, or to a person who is obviously mentally disturbed. Or to furnish a pistol to a person with a history of committing armed robberies.

Great. Just great.

Big, I never, ever said that it was moral to sell a firearm to a child (without his parents' consent) or to an obviously mentally disturbed person.

In the case of either, you would be accountable both legally and morally for any harm they caused, through criminal negligence.

If you sell a firearm to a child (without his parents' approval, who must make the decision of what he owns) or to an obviously mentally disturbed person, you are in great part responsible for whatever actions are committed with that firearm.

If someone gave gallon of gasoline to a 10-year old without good reason to believe that what he is going to do with it is moral and safe, should I not be, in part, morally and legally accountable for what he does with it?

Big wrote:

The world is not black & white. Those who are unable (or unwilling) to see the many shades of grey are blind indeed.

There is no "grey area" in a moral question that is not the result of the simple fact that the truth of the morality of an action is not fully known. There is no such thing as a moral and just blending of good and evil. Evil is the absence of a good that should be present, not an entity in itself. Therefore, what is perceived as "grey" is either good tainted with evil (the lack of a due good) or the action is simply not recognized as such, despite one's best intentions.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[junyo]

I take the train fairly frequently. For 3-5 hour trips it's easier than driving myself, and easier/faster/cheaper than air travel. Sans the security checks and with machine check-in, total travel time is comparable if not better than flying, with less delays and more comfortable accommodation's. Allentown to Richmond, 2 hours flight time is usually 6 hours of trip time by the time you factor in the counter and security. It was actually 14 hours of total trip time the last time due to lateness and mechanical issues. Two trips before that it was 11 hours. The train, even with an hours drive into Philly, gets me into Richmond in 5 hours, only slightly slower than I could drive it, and I get a comfy seat with actual legroom, a dining car, and a place to plug in my laptop. Comparing it to the Lil' bit of Calcutta that is bus travel is a joke.

Before I knew the rules, I CC'd on the train or pack one for home, and never had an issue with either a firearm on my person or in my luggage. Unless they make massive operational changes the probability of it being an issue would seem almost nil. Not that I would advocate violating an arbitrary rule.

 

[Picard]

There is no "grey area" in a moral question that is not the result of the simple fact that the truth of the morality of an action is not fully known. There is no such thing as a moral and just blending of good and evil. Evil is the absence of a good that should be present, not an entity in itself. Therefore, what is perceived as "grey" is either good tainted with evil (the lack of a due good) or the action is simply not recognized as such, despite one's best intentions.

Amen. In regard to explaining morality, you hit the nail on the head.

 

[bigjohnson]

Okay. You agree that it's morally wrong to sell an M16 to a 10 year-old or to a mentally disturbed person. But your previous post indicated that you didn't think it should be LEGALLY wrong to do so. Most of English common law, and many of our present-day statutes have their basis in MORAL and RELIGIOUS laws and edicts. The crime of murder is legally so serious because the MORAL prohibition of murder has always been so.

I agree with you that many of our present-day gun laws are oppressive, unconstitutional, and just plain wrong. But that doesn't mean that we should allow ANYone, at ANY age, with ANY background, to own a firearm. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act, and others which I have neglected to mention, are all total bull*****. I know that as well as you do. But there are gun laws on the books that DO make sense. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here. I realize that when many politicians talk about "reasonable gun laws", what they really mean are laws that would require all guns to be melted down and made into man-hole covers. But you surely realize that there has to be some way of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mental incompetants without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

And by the way: When I spoke of the many shades of grey, I wasn't talking about "moral relativity". But I'm sure you already knew that.