Is Amtrak worth conserving? Some writers with The American Conservative magazine say it is – and they have some well-reasoned arguments. But they’re not economic arguments, and that’s why they fall short. Amtrak remains an economic boondoggle, for all its charm.

“At root, conservatism is about preserving good things from the past and, where they have been lost, restoring them,” write William S. Lind and Glen Bottoms. “Conservatives know that life in the past was in many ways better than life at present; morals and manners both come to mind. So, as some of us are old enough to remember, was travel.”

Stop right there – that’s a simplistic take on the word. The conservative movement isn’t merely about nostalgia; indeed, there are plenty of things conservatives are glad to see gone – such as the Soviet Union, scurvy and saber-tooth raccoons.

The conservative movement is really about expanding freedom by limiting government. Conservatives understand taxes are necessary, but the higher taxes go, the less freedom Americans have. And because Amtrak is subsidized to the tune of $1 billion per year, it’s a valid target for tax cutters.

“Yes, Amtrak is subsidized,” the writers respond. “So are all competing forms of transportation. Highways cover only 51 percent of their costs from all user fees, including the gas tax. The rest is paid by subsidies of one form or another, especially from local property taxes. Airlines receive massive subsidies in the form of airports and the air traffic control system. The day after 9/11, the airlines ran to Capitol Hill and were immediately given billions of dollars in additional taxpayer money, no questions asked.”

That’s true – but it’s not an argument for subsidizing Amtrak, it’s an argument for not subsidizing the airlines.

“Ultimately, the Republican Party’s efforts in Congress to deny Americans the choice of travel by rail come down to two different visions of America,” Lind and Bottoms write. “The first is a vision of the America we once had and conservatives still want, an overwhelmingly middle-class country with lots of nice things available at prices the middle class can afford. The other is an America where the 1 percent lounge in Neronian splendor while the middle class sinks into poverty, where everything they can afford is unpleasant.”

Like their definition of conservative, this is a straw man argument. Of course there aren’t two visions of America, one blissful and full of old-timey trains, the other Dickensian in its lonely automotive bleakness.

Nor is it accurate to say there are two visions of America, with one centered on government-subsidized everything, the other a libertarian free-for-all.

The truth is that Amtrak has a broken business model. Fixing that by bringing free market principles into play doesn’t necessarily mean the death of passenger rail in the United States.

Want to see what successful rail looks like? Look at our freight-rail system.

It was deregulated by the 1980 Staggers Rail Act. Now it’s world-class.

We can do the same with passenger rail – and we’ll let the market decide if it’s worth conserving.