The subtle shift of "we'd"

One of the quiet ways the progressive left undermines individual freedom is by treating all money as if it first belongs to the government. A recent example comes from a newsletter called Along for the Ride, which typically argues on behalf of government controlling our means of movement. The author writes:

“We need to think about if [autonomous vehicles] are actually going to help cities be better places to live. That if the $30 billion spent by Waymo thus far is going to reap better results than if we’d invested that money in much needed public transportation infrastructure.” [Emphasis added]

It’s the subtle insertion of “we’d” that matters. The author seamlessly shifts from noting what a private company has spent to imagining how we—presumably society or government—could have allocated those funds instead. But Waymo is not a public agency. It is a private company. That $30 billion wasn’t public capital; it was private investment.

To suggest “we” could have invested it differently only makes sense if you believe Waymo’s money is the government’s to permit, revoke, or reallocate. That belief carries real implications—not just for economics, but for freedom.

Let’s extend the logic:

• The government doesn’t allow Waymo or its investors to spend $30 billion on autonomous vehicles.

• Instead, it channels that money into public transit.

• It then gives preferential treatment to the transportation systems it controls.

• Anyone needing to move in a way the state doesn’t favor fewer options, longer trips and other negative outcomes for not following what we the government want them to do.

This isn’t just a philosophical disagreement about infrastructure. It’s a deeper ideological push to collapse the boundary between public and private capital. And once that line erodes, so does freedom of movement. The more government controls the means of transit, the more it can shape how, where, and when you move.

The irony? Centralizing control over movement doesn’t just empower liberal urban planners—it empowers whoever holds office next. If you worry about authoritarianism, handing the state control over both the purse and the pavement is a curious form of resistance. A better one is still the oldest: limit what government can control in the first place.