>>1428660That's not lethargy, that's called "this isn't profitable til enough people want it."
inb4
>profit reeeProfit is quite literally just wanting to get more out of an action than the resources you put into shit. Extremely basic, at a stupidly basic individual level it's wanting more calories out of eating than it takes to eat.
When enough people want some mass transport to where the benefit of running it outweighs the cost of setting it up, then you will get it if the market in the area is free enough.
But almost no one wants to fucking ride a bus or packed train, they want to travel in luxury and/or freedom and only ride it because they live in a dense as fuck shithole, are too poor for a car, or too afraid or weak to bicycle.
Trains were big news 150 years ago when you had literally no other option for long distance land travel besides riding a horse for weeks on end. Same with bicycles, at least in dense Europe, as even with the heavy iron bikes owning one let you go ridiculously far and fast compared to walking. Going from the south of england to north of scotland in 3 days by your own leg power was a damn miracle.
>>1428088No, liberals do not. Leftists do, and it's pathologically arrogant to think you know everyone else's problems and need to shoulder them.
>>1427841Public ownership makes sense when things are in constant use by all people. Roads are in constant use by all people, even if all people do not use all roads (and in many areas the tax to pay for roads comes from fuel or other automotive taxes, so pedestrians are subsidized by drivers.) Running water, electrical lines, etc. are all required.
