New Web Site Shows AMTRAK Connections To National Parks

Foster Folly News ^ | Saturday March 13th, 2010

[GonzoGOP]

take that "head over to DU" routine and cram it.. It's intellectually shallow and adolescent and reflects your inability to actually discuss the issue.

The railroads were built as a free enterprise system and when allowed to operate as such have overwhelmingly worked well. Every time the government has become involved they have made the system worse. From the USRA nationalization of 1917 to the Amtrak abomination of 1971. Each time the government, who you seem to think should control all transportation systems, has become involved the physical plant has deteriorated, the service has declined, and ironically tax revenue has dropped. The railroads almost went bust until Staggers Rail Act of 1980 deregulated them. That allowed the railroads to abandon unprofitable and under utilized lines and to increase their prices to meet operating expenses. When given the choice between the policies of progressive socialism (USRA) and free market capitalism (Staggers Act) I tend to go with the latter. Apparently that makes me a newbie in your eyes.

The reason Amtrak is such a disaster is that the Government, that again you are claiming should have control over all transportation, forces them to continue service to locations that don't create sufficient traffic and does not allow Amtrak to raise fairs to cover operating expenses. Maintaining stops in key congressional districts is more important to Amtrak than is maintaining an efficient service. I would prefer private and efficient ownership of transportation over any government run transportation system.

As for your quote "We the People are NOT a bunch of serfs living under a feudal aristocracy who must pay tolls to the landed gentry." The railway companies built the lines, the railroad companies operate the lines, if you want to use the transportation system that they built and maintained you should be prepared to pay the price they demand. Or you can walk or build your own railway.

[John S Mosby]

Willie- read through some more of these replies here. So, Burlington Northern Santa Fe owns 35% of Amtrak stock? Holy cow! That means that Berkshire Hathaway holding company, ie. Warren Buffett now controls 35% of Amtrak stock since they bought Burlington Northern Santa Fe. This was about a month ago. And Buffett has turned on Obama. But in one move he buys the major western rail company and also 35% of national subsidized passenger service in the mix. Pretty slick and worth keeping an eye on, especially as regards other comments here about private enterprise. Buffett could do it.

[John S Mosby]

There are lots of things you say that I agree with. But, the railroads were NOT and are no longer free enterprise. They were part of the monopoly empire building of the Gilded Age. Please. Cornelius Vanderbilt I was a rags to riches guy, but eventually he supped at the government table and no one would say that he wouldn’t use the Union Army for his personal business needs. All the while saying the “the public be damned” whenever he wanted to. An interesting read is a biography of old Cornelius, that and of one William Walker and the Filibusters, who fought Cornelius with a private army and took over the country of Nicaragua. A study in “free” enterprise, and fascinating.

[Willie Green]

The railroads were built as a free enterprise system and

...and were all subsidized with government land grants for the right-of-way.

As for your quote "We the People are NOT a bunch of serfs living under a feudal aristocracy who must pay tolls to the landed gentry." The railway companies built the lines, the railroad companies operate the lines, if you want to use the transportation system that they built and maintained you should be prepared to pay the price they demand.

What's so difficult about understanding the difference between "We the People" and "We the Stockholders"???

When push comes to shove, it is We the People who are sovereign.

Railroads and other corporations are not people, and their so-called "rights" are inferior to the rights of We the People. Along with rights go responsibilities. And corporate shareholders gave up their collective individual property rights when they incorporated, in exhange for the privilege of limited personal liability.

Keep that in mind, Gonzo... We the People are sovereign, not Wall St.

[GonzoGOP]

(1) The Vanderbilt family is long gone from the Railroad scene. These days their main concern is being talking heads on CNN.

(2)The railroad Vanderbilt created, the New York Central has gone bankrupt (Penn Central), been taken over by the Government (Conrail), run into the ground, and finally sold back to private industry (CSX NS) who are once again running it efficiently.

(3)And if you can throw out Cornelius Vanderbilt as an example of everything that is wrong (and for what it is worth I would have gone with J Gould, he was a lot worse) then I can just as easily site James J. Hill who was an example of everything that was right. Built the Great Northern line without land grants or subsidies, never went into receivership, never "Watered" his stock. He didn't pull the swindles of the Gould or Vanderbilt, didn't need to, just made money running the greatest railroad in the west. The line he built has never gone broke, and constitutes the core of the BNSF railway system today.


Oh and getting back to the original topic of this thread the Empire Builder, the train named after James J. Hill and that runs on the railroad that he built, is one of the best ways to visit Glacier National Park. Glacier will be celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, and was created on land that was donated by the Hill Family and the Great Northern. Since it was always intended to be a "Railway Park" there are two stations in the park itself with excellent lodges, built not surprisingly, by the Great Northern Railway. Not for charity mind you, but so that they could make money selling railroad tickets to them.

With respect to a few of the earlier comments about today's Empire Builder service they don't have to worry about stale food, as there is a dining car with food cooked on board. When I took the trip two years ago they actually served fish caught that day in rivers along the line. And if they are willing to put up the extra money for a room in the sleeper they don't have to share a bathroom. The line is one of Amtrak's 10 busiest and breaks even from a financial standpoint.

[Willie Green]

So, Burlington Northern Santa Fe owns 35% of Amtrak stock? Holy cow! That means that Berkshire Hathaway holding company, ie. Warren Buffett now controls 35% of Amtrak stock since they bought Burlington Northern Santa Fe.This was ab out a month ago. And Buffett has turned on Obama. But in one move he buys the major western rail company and also 35% of national subsidized passenger service in the mix. Pretty slick and worth keeping an eye on, especially as regards other comments here about private enterprise. Buffett could do it.

Good catch!... although I don't know how big a factor that was in Buffet's acquisition.
It should be noted that the other stockholders (BNSF, Canadian Pacific and Canadian National) were not party to Lindner/AFG's lawsuit to destroy Amtrak
It should also be noted that Lindner didn't mind sucking the taxpayers' teat when Cinncinati built Great American Ballpark when he owned the Reds.

[GonzoGOP]

and were all subsidized with government land grants for the right-of-way

Land grants were given in exchange for hauling government cargo at reduced rates. The cost of those grants was paid back many times over with the enormous saving reaped by the government during WW I and WW II. That was a business deal, you appear to be reading the progressive turn of the century histories at face value.

Also it is important to remember the perception of that land in the 1860s was quite poor. With the exception of land near Omaha, Sacramento, and Ogden, the Union Pacific and Central Pacific land grants held little value. The land only became valuable once you had a railroad to connect it to the rest of the county.

Finally even those stipulations apply only to those lines built with land grants. While the UP, ATSF, NP, and SP received a lot of land grants, Great Northern and many of the eastern lines didn't get any. Your justification appears to be that if one railroad got a land grant the government has the right to take over any company.

Railroads and other corporations are not people, and their so-called "rights" are inferior to the rights of We the People. Along with rights go responsibilities. And corporate shareholders gave up their collective individual property rights when they incorporated, in exchange for the privilege of limited personal liability.

So stockholders are not people? Their property rights are not to be protected? Because while they may only be a few shares, those shares are very definitely my property. When the government takes over the railroads what happens to the value of the BNSF and NS stock in my portfolio? Exactly how do you expect to raise capital for any enterprise if at any moment the government can seize the property of the stockholders without compensation? And as a railroad stockholder I object to your claiming that I am somehow less than a person.

[Willie Green]

So stockholders are not people? Their property rights are not to be protected?

Considering the stocks that are held by mutual funds, yes, I suppose you could say that many stockholders are not people.

As actual ownership becomes more remote, so do rights and responsibiities.
Corporate "rights" are inferior to individual rights, although corrupt corporate influences often trample the individual.

[GonzoGOP]

Considering the stocks that are held by mutual funds, yes, I suppose you could say that many stockholders are not people.

Again, I AM A RAILROAD STOCKHOLDER. Yet you say I am not a person. That you and "We the People" have the absolute right to come take my property. I reject that statement outright and absolutely.

Since you are so fond of the words "We the People" perhaps you should study the original document that begins with those words. The U.S. Constitution as written never allowed for the government to take a persons property unless they had been proven in a court of law to have committed some crime. In fact it is not a stretch to say that the entire document is a catalog of protections to ensure that the government does not go around seizing a persons property. If your justification for taking my property is that some robber baron, who owned a different railroad, took government money I would state that you are establishing a very dangerous president.

Do you own land in the continental US? Under your logic if some dead persons in the past who you never met did something unethical to some other long dead guy you never meant any claims to that property today are null and void. Since almost ever square foot of the Continental US was taken from somebody at some time any piece of land could be grabbed at any time. So when President Obama sends "We the People" to take your house because 150 years ago some cowboys drove some Indians off the land you are going to be OK with that? If you can decide that "We the People" have the right to take my stuff can I not make also claim to have "We the People" take your stuff?

As for your war against evil corporations and landowners take a look at Zimbabwe. They drove all those evil white land owners out of the country and turned all the land over to "The People". Today they are starving. Socialism doesn't work, it has never worked, it will never work. Taking my property because you want it, but are unwilling to pay for it is theft. Even when it is done by "We the People " . I don't want your stuff. Or if I do I understand that I will have to pay the price you demand. But if you are determined to take take my property, don't send government goons in the name of "We the People". Come take it yourself. One of us will walk away from that encounter.

And since you like to say that "We the People" are sovereign, I will point out that a sovereign is a king, and unlike our president I don't bow to kings.

[Willie Green]

You can post your replies in big bold bada$$ capital letters all you want.
It doesn't bother me a bit.
Your "property rights" as a stockholder are inferior to your personal property rights as an individual due to the privilege of corporate limited liability.

You better get used to it because that's the way it is in the real world.

[GonzoGOP]

Your "property rights" as a stockholder are inferior to your personal property rights as an individual due to the privilege of corporate limited liability.

Do you even understand what limited liability means?

Definition;
Type of investment in which a partner or investor cannot lose more than the amount invested. Thus, the investor or partner is not personally responsible for the debts and obligations of the company in the event that these are not fulfilled.

How exactly does that give you or the government the right to at any time seize my investment? And since that definition applies to over 90% of all businesses in the US that gives an awful lot of power to the government. Power that is clearly not granted to the government in the US Constitution.

[GonzoGOP]

Oh and one other factor.

Under United States law the principal limitations on whether and the extent to which the State may interfere with property rights are set by the Constitution. The "Takings" clause requires that the government (whether state or federal----for the 14th Amendment's due process clause imposes the 5th Amendment's takings clause on state governments) may take private property only for a public purpose, after exercising due process of law, and upon making "just compensation." If an interest is not deemed a "property" right, or the conduct is merely an intentional tort, these limitations do not apply and the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes relief.[11] Moreover, if the interference does not almost completely make the property valueless, the interference will not be deemed a taking but instead a mere regulation of use.[12] On the other hand, some governmental regulations of property use have been deemed so severe that they have been considered "regulatory takings."[13] Moreover, conduct sometimes deemed only a nuisance or other tort has been held a taking of property where the conduct was sufficiently persistent and severe.[14]

There is no distinction in the law between property owned by a corporation and property owned by and individual. And if you use eminent domain to take the property you have to pay the owner for it. You better get used to it because that's the way it is in the real world.

[Willie Green]

There is no distinction in the law between property owned by a corporation and property owned by and individual.

1) Go buy 1000 shares of any Fortune 500 Company.
2) Waltz into the CEO's office and tell him/her that the desk and chair he/she is using is "your property" and you're taking it home with you.
3) Watch how fast government law enforcement officers teach you the difference between corporate and individual property.

[GonzoGOP]

1) Go buy 1000 shares of any Fortune 500 Company. 2) Waltz into the CEO's office and tell him/her that the desk and chair he/she is using is "your property" and you're taking it home with you

Well considering that I would only own <1% of that chair it would be ridiculous for me to do so. But i could sell my shares back to the company, and use the money to buy a similar chair. The shares are my property. The shares have value equal to the percentage of the company they represent. The government or some mythical "We the People" can not just take them from me or render them valueless without due process and just compensation.

And if I hold on to the shares I do get to vote in proportion to the number of shares I hold. Sure not much of a say, but I haven't put much money on the line. If i want a bigger voice, I either have to put my money where my mouth is or shut up. You seem to believe that someone who has put nothing on the line should have absolute say over the corporation. And those who have invested real tangible assets into the corporation should have no say at all. And I have been a stockholder in a company that experienced a proxy fight to fire the CEO and the board of directors. It doesn't happen very often but it does happen.

But none of this addresses my main point. The government cannot seize corporate property or private property without due process and compensation. Also and most importantly the individual shares of stock that I own are not corporate property, they are my personal property. And by law the government cannot render through seizure or regulation render an asset valueless using eminent domain without due process and compensation.

[Willie Green]

Also and most importantly the individual shares of stock that I own are not corporate property, they are my personal property.

Good, then you really DO understand the limitations of your property rights as a stockholder. You were really looking like a silly blowhared back in reply #69 when you were trying to imply that the RR right-of-way was your personal property. Here, I'll quote you, just in case you forgot:

Again, I AM A RAILROAD STOCKHOLDER. Yet you say I am not a person. That you and "We the People" have the absolute right to come take my property.

See how irrational your argument is???
Really... you need to calm down and get a grip...
Government use of eminent domain to seize the RR right-of-way doesn't affect your personal property one iota, just as I've finally gotten you to admit.

[GonzoGOP]

Government use of eminent domain to seize the RR right-of-way doesn't affect your personal property one iota

If the government confiscates the railroad right of way they render the stock in the railroad valueless. I posted the approprpriate text in one of my earlier posts. You may no render the stock valueless without compensation.

[Mr. Lucky]

He’s funnin’ ya. But no, he won’t be taking a ferry from wherever the train leaves him off. Amtrak goes nowhere near da U.P.

[John S Mosby]

Thanks. People have been lambasting you as some kind of liberal, as if the model of railroad expansion was some sort of “free” enterprise. The history is quite otherwise, and in present time most companies in the US suck on the public teat with corporatist welfare. What interests me about Buffett is that he understands the fungible nature of money these days. Reminds me of John D. Rockefeller who muscled the railroads so much they ended up paying HIM to haul his oil. My points throughout have been that there has always been a government involvement, and usually unsavory and dirty. The term “railroaded” didn’t come out of thin air. Condemnation of private land and unfair to no compensation to landowners was greased by racketeers in government. Sound familiar— I think I smell healthcare reform!