> Because the government is not just a person but represents everyone.

Forgive me for giving a slight chuckle that, as a cynic and (somewhat) libertarian, and simply as someone who's been around a while.

More seriously, government has been shown repeatedly not to represent everyone, and certainly not everyone equally. Is evidence required for a statement like that? No, we don't need it because you have already provided it:

> That is also possible, but probably impossible to get through in any country. Subsidy of other transit systems is a lot easier.

It's a lot easier because of the nature of government. I assume you're in tech - is the better system the one where you do less or the one where allocate resources because one system got too many so you add more to another to balance them out?

There are companies doing that, I'd call them dysfunctional. It's also a sign they're wasteful and have too much money. Again, I'm not going to be convinced of the "government is good" argument if that's the pill I need to swallow.

> You could never build a railway, airport, subway, etc. if all it takes is one person refusing to budge.

This is not true. Even if we take NIMBYism as a perjorative, there's plenty of it about and yet things still get built. There are even NIMBYs in China[0][1]. Are you really going to claim that things don't get built quickly there? When you talk about getting things done via government and steamrollering over the property rights of people, I tend to think of China's government but I could take where I'm from as an example. In the UK, the government wants to build a new high speed rail network[2] - no one, aside from them and the people who will make money from it, seems to want it. Still they press ahead, destroying ancient woodland[3], graves[4], and people[5] as they go.

> All is being cast aside to make way for HS2’s new railway terminal at Euston to be designed by Fitzrovia firm Arup who along with other mega corporations will do very nicely from the multi-million pound contracts.

But hey, who cares about property rights and the environment, right? Who cares that this mass-transit system is being used to prop up property prices in London (along with other subsidies[6]) and will displace lower paid workers even further from their place of work?

I have an alternative idea:

- no housing benefit
- no high speed rail

because then low paid workers can't afford London. Bad for them right? No, bad for them and the businesses that require them. They'll either have to pay more - which is good for the workers - or move to cheaper areas, thus creating better paid jobs or jobs where they're needed more - again, good for the workers.

And, since government is "for everyone", all of us could enjoy a tax cut, more income equality, and better land use (i.e. lower density housing, less crime, easier commute, closer to countryside…)

[0] https://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/19/asia/gallery/china-nail-h... "China's 'nail houses': The homeowners who refused to budge"

[1] https://chinadialogue.net/en/pollution/6051-china-s-nimby-pr... "China’s ‘nimby’ protests sign of unequal society"

[2] https://apnews.com/5712b97df48434446dbf0fc3048a3f5c "UK’s Johnson backs high speed railway despite opposition"

[3] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transp... "HS2: 50 ancient woods 'under threat'"

[4] https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/50000-dead-london... "50,000 dead Londoners to be moved to a new graveyard in Surrey because of HS2"

[5] https://fitzrovianews.com/2019/05/07/demolition-theatre-how-... "Demolition theatre: how HS2 is displacing the living and disturbing the dead"

[6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06bnbpx "What's Housing Benefit For?"