Red_Army wrote:you should at least practice brevity if you don't have anything to say.
I don't know what central planning has to do with free use public transportation and can't think of a circumstance where it would be bad. I assume that the right would say that it is too expensive, but I think the benefits outweigh that cost.
I just wanted to see if you had it in you to think for yourself and weigh pros and cons impartially but apparently you can't do that and I wouldn't take that as a point of pride if I were you. All you can do is assume what the "right" would say and then pretend that the reflexive uncritical taking of an opposite opinion to that which you imagine your imaginary opponent would say counts as "thinking".
Since you can't do it I'll give you a few potential contraries:
1. Providers of services are incentivised by those who reward them. In the case of normal transport (it doesn't matter whether we are talking about cars, buses, trains or planes) the incentiviser is directly the user of the service. In the case of a government subsidised transport that incentiviser is directly the government in proportion to the % they reward which for "free" fully tax funded transport would be 100% the government. What this means is that the actual users of the service will be marginalised from influencing the suitability of the service. The only voice that will have influence on the service providers will be those agents who pass on the tax acquired funds, who even if they are unrealistically benign overlords with a perfect understanding of everyone's unique preferences and interests will tend to produce a less than optimal incentive to the providers simply because they are not identical with the users. A simple example of this would be popular routes getting too few buses resulting in crowding and unpopular routes getting too many buses rolling around with no one onboard because the service provider wants show the central planner that he has certain routes that the central planner favours covered in order to get his budget approved and doesn't care at all about satisfying the people on popular routes by laying on more buses because they aren't paying him or saving resources from being wasted on unpopular routes because that doesn't result in loss of income for him.
2.. Well let's do one at time and the above is general enough to cover multiple points if presented differently. Can you even understand this point of view?
Just to show that I can do for your position what you cannot do for mine...
Potential benefits of "free" fully tax funded transport
1. Payment simplification. There is a certain amount of administrative overhead in managing payments for a service provider. Where a service provider takes payment directly from the users and there are potentially thousands or even millions of users each making potentially many uses of the service over the course of a day that will be a very large number of relatively tiny payments that must managed and accounted for. Where a service provider takes his payment from a single payer like a tax dispensing authority then those payments may be very few but large which potentially has a much lower administrative overhead compared with the former situation.
See was that hard for me?
---
Another thought: if all you do is automatically turn left then won't you just go round in circles like a dog chasing his tail?