politically correct transport

I will endevour to avoid the erroneous term 'public transport'. It is neither owned by nor operated for 'the public'. and neither can it be. once you understand the falsehood that is 'public ownership' and 'democratic control' then the mythological infantile propaganda that encourages us to believe we all somehow own a tiny share of everything called 'public' and that we somehow control this through the 'democratic process' will cease to hold you under its misleading thrall.
I would revert to a slightly more old fashioned term 'mass transit'. that is to say buses, trains, trams and planes. any transportational vehicle that can convey a number of unrelated individuals from point to point. notice that this appears to be broadly the same definition as that of the more current 'public transport' however there is a very important distinction between the two. Mass transit does not imply 'public ownership'. Mass transit comes from a time before the state siezed control of mass transit. private bus companies competed for custom offering cheaper fares and better service. one did not have to lobby for a route to be created in your area. if there was a demand then an entrepreneuring firm would emerge to supply that demand in the pursuit of profit. likewise for trains and trams and the exception that proves the rule - planes. How is a plane categorically different from a bus in this context? it is not and yet you will never hear the airline industry referred to under the umbrella term 'pulic transport'.
it was realising and accepting the implications of the above history that made me examine my previously unconsidered instinctual views of mass transit. coming from the place i do during the time we live in, my view of mass transit was coloured by the socialist outcomes of 'public transport' - that is to say its miserable and complete failure. upon discovering that mass transit had once been private, thriving and successful before its socialist takeover I realised it was not necessarily the actual idea of mass transit i hated but the reality of socialism-perverted 'public transport' that i had reacted against.
i no longer feel the need to defend the car against the bus or train. shorn of their political identities and associations their significance dissipates to a more natural level somewhere alongside the choice between white or brown bread. i do not particularly bother with such debates in favour of either 'side'. if only all such options were free to develop and propser in a natural economic environment users would be free to choose, their decision based on natural merit alone rather than which has been least politically molested.

now that the intro to this blog post has exceeded in length and possibly quality what i originally had in mind let me get on with it:

the reason i digressed into semantics is because I wanted to compare a form of public mass transport, a form of private individual transport and another form of transport that politically falls somewhere between the two. the first public form is a train, the second private form the car and the third the more problematic bicycle. the politcally favoured and promoted bicycle would not fit into the category 'public transport'. my politics hating mind could not compute. how could i refer to politically favoured forms of transport if they would not all fit the categorical umbrella 'public transport'? then i hit upon 'politically correct transport'. It covers the unjustifiable idollatory of collective solutions such as public transport but can also include the Gaia worshipping unpleasantness that is commuting by bicycle (I happen to love recreational bicycle use and abuse but hated having to go to work on the fucking thing)

finally to the point...

why not use a favourite emotive opinion twister of the statists against them next time the ole 'public transport' slanging match rears its ugly head. I refer to the big bad 'Think of The Children'!

present them with the aformentioned three options - train, bicycle and car.

now consider which you would rather put your child on...

how safe will they be on a bicycle in traffic?

how secure will they be trapped on a train full of unpredictable, unpoliced strangers?

and now consider whether they might wobble into a ditch or get mugged whilst safely ensconced within the comfy private confines of a car.

which two do the state endlessly promote and subsidise and which does the state endlessly persecute and charge?

now tell me who is genuinely concerned about the fucking cheedlren