4 ms·

Tourists are human beings, same as residents. Tourists value the opportunity to visit for 2 weeks more than residents value the opportunity to live there for 2

Tourists are human beings, same as residents. Tourists value the opportunity to visit for 2 weeks more than residents value the opportunity to live there for 2 weeks (as evidenced by their willingness to pay more). Why do you believe tourists deserve fewer rights than residents? I realize that in terms of blatant power struggles to control the means of violence, tourists will lose. But lets not pretend that's anything other than the strong exploiting the weak.

janpieterz 10y ago
Generally the tourist taxes paid (if any) are considerably lower than the taxes a resident pays. Besides payments for city taxes which equal more or less what tourist taxes are (in NL), I also pay taxes (income, possessions/investments, housing) to the countries government, which distributes money to cities. If we'd all be tourists, the world would quickly look different, mostly negatively for the current tourists (tourist taxes would increase to match current resident taxes). Without having to resort to violence I think that being a resident (paying taxes) does introduce more rights. This shows in, for example, being able to vote. Next time a major wants to run, make it a point to limit AirBnb and alike and you should get the vote if it is detrimental enough.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  The city services consumed by tourists are considerably lower than those consumed by a resident. Why do you believe tourists don't pay for the services they use? Without having to resort to violence...being able to vote. You try to disclaim violence and then immediately come back to the fact that residents control the monopoly on violence. Self refuting.
  - janpieterz 10y ago
    Not so sure city services are considerably lower for a tourist than a resident. If I look to my residential usage or tourist usage, I'd venture I'm about equal, taking into account things like safety, infrastructure, city governmental services etc, if divided up by time. I'm not sure what kind of city services I'm missing that I'm suddenly not using as a tourist but am as a resident? The couple small ones are easily equaled or even outnumbered (ratio-wise) by tourist offices and other services only there for tourists. Voting and the monopoly of violence has never occurred to me that concretely, it's an interesting viewpoint. Of course the same perspective occurs directly when I become a tourist in the 'tourists' city. The 'Tourist' isn't some vague entity or a non-resident anywhere (generally) but also someone who uses their control of the monopoly on violence. Turning it around, how do you propose 'tourists' get equal rights?
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I'm not sure what kind of city services I'm missing that I'm suddenly not using as a tourist but am as a resident? Schools, welfare and similar social programs, free parking. Pretty sure those cost more than tourist offices. If you are a single worker without a car, none of that applies to you. If you are a single mother who refuses to work it's a huge benefit. Turning it around, how do you propose 'tourists' get equal rights? Government that doesn't engage in economic protectionism.
chappi42 10y ago
No good to - let tourists fly around in much too cheap airplanes (which destroy environment) and - let them live in much too cheap appartments (which destroy local communities) The weak imho are the nature and residents and not the tourists which arbitrarily come and go as they please.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  The strong are the people with the ability to threaten violence toward others (in this case people attempting to peacefully interact with other residents). Residents can do this with the power of their votes. Tourists can't.
dang 10y ago
> I realize that in terms of blatant power struggles to control the means of violence, tourists will lose. But lets not pretend that's anything other than the strong exploiting the weak. Please don't go off into ideological boilerplate, not to mention flamewar fodder, like that. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11980175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11980175 and marked it off-topic.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  How is a post claiming residents deserve special privileges not ideological, but one claiming they don't is?
  - dang 10y ago
    It's taking the thread into ideological generalities that I object to. Playing the monopoly-of-violence card is just upping the ideological ante in a way that can only polarize the argument, at the same time taking the discussion to so abstract a level that there is little of substance left to say. That combination of escalation and generality is one of the worst thing you can do in discussions like this; it's a kind of trolling whether you mean it to be or not. Similarly for taking a trope like "the strong exploiting the weak" and applying it to tourists (of all people) in a way that's guaranteed to tick off the readers who go in for that kind of phrase. That's basically just a stunt, and it's one that seems designed to offend. Why do you go out of your way to make the people you disagree with uncomfortable? Again, that's trolling whether you intend it to be or not. (I used to do this myself without realizing it. It took me a long time to see that.) The kind of discussion we want here is people trying respectfully to figure out the truth together. Your comments frequently strike me as conforming to the letter of that idea while violating its spirit—almost as if you'd discovered a loophole in the rules of discourse and were gleefully exploiting it. That's not as bad as violating the letter outright, which is what most people do who use HN as an ideological battlefield. But it's still dismaying, and it still leaves one with the feeling of being trolled. As, for that matter, do your naive-sounding "how is" questions that always seem to leave the real problem unmentioned.
cousin_it 10y ago
> Tourists value the opportunity to visit for 2 weeks more than residents value the opportunity to live there for 2 weeks We desperately need a name for the fallacy that "if Alice can afford to pay more than Bob for the same good, that means it will bring her more happiness". I'd prefer to optimize society for happiness, not income-weighted happiness.

janpieterz 10y ago

Generally the tourist taxes paid (if any) are considerably lower than the taxes a resident pays. Besides payments for city taxes which equal more or less what tourist taxes are (in NL), I also pay taxes (income, possessions/investments, housing) to the countries government, which distributes money to cities. If we'd all be tourists, the world would quickly look different, mostly negatively for the current tourists (tourist taxes would increase to match current resident taxes). Without having to resort to violence I think that being a resident (paying taxes) does introduce more rights. This shows in, for example, being able to vote. Next time a major wants to run, make it a point to limit AirBnb and alike and you should get the vote if it is detrimental enough.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
The city services consumed by tourists are considerably lower than those consumed by a resident. Why do you believe tourists don't pay for the services they use? Without having to resort to violence...being able to vote. You try to disclaim violence and then immediately come back to the fact that residents control the monopoly on violence. Self refuting.
- janpieterz 10y ago
  Not so sure city services are considerably lower for a tourist than a resident. If I look to my residential usage or tourist usage, I'd venture I'm about equal, taking into account things like safety, infrastructure, city governmental services etc, if divided up by time. I'm not sure what kind of city services I'm missing that I'm suddenly not using as a tourist but am as a resident? The couple small ones are easily equaled or even outnumbered (ratio-wise) by tourist offices and other services only there for tourists. Voting and the monopoly of violence has never occurred to me that concretely, it's an interesting viewpoint. Of course the same perspective occurs directly when I become a tourist in the 'tourists' city. The 'Tourist' isn't some vague entity or a non-resident anywhere (generally) but also someone who uses their control of the monopoly on violence. Turning it around, how do you propose 'tourists' get equal rights?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I'm not sure what kind of city services I'm missing that I'm suddenly not using as a tourist but am as a resident? Schools, welfare and similar social programs, free parking. Pretty sure those cost more than tourist offices. If you are a single worker without a car, none of that applies to you. If you are a single mother who refuses to work it's a huge benefit. Turning it around, how do you propose 'tourists' get equal rights? Government that doesn't engage in economic protectionism.

chappi42 10y ago

No good to - let tourists fly around in much too cheap airplanes (which destroy environment) and - let them live in much too cheap appartments (which destroy local communities) The weak imho are the nature and residents and not the tourists which arbitrarily come and go as they please.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
The strong are the people with the ability to threaten violence toward others (in this case people attempting to peacefully interact with other residents). Residents can do this with the power of their votes. Tourists can't.

dang 10y ago

> I realize that in terms of blatant power struggles to control the means of violence, tourists will lose. But lets not pretend that's anything other than the strong exploiting the weak. Please don't go off into ideological boilerplate, not to mention flamewar fodder, like that. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11980175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11980175 and marked it off-topic.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
How is a post claiming residents deserve special privileges not ideological, but one claiming they don't is?
- dang 10y ago
  It's taking the thread into ideological generalities that I object to. Playing the monopoly-of-violence card is just upping the ideological ante in a way that can only polarize the argument, at the same time taking the discussion to so abstract a level that there is little of substance left to say. That combination of escalation and generality is one of the worst thing you can do in discussions like this; it's a kind of trolling whether you mean it to be or not. Similarly for taking a trope like "the strong exploiting the weak" and applying it to tourists (of all people) in a way that's guaranteed to tick off the readers who go in for that kind of phrase. That's basically just a stunt, and it's one that seems designed to offend. Why do you go out of your way to make the people you disagree with uncomfortable? Again, that's trolling whether you intend it to be or not. (I used to do this myself without realizing it. It took me a long time to see that.) The kind of discussion we want here is people trying respectfully to figure out the truth together. Your comments frequently strike me as conforming to the letter of that idea while violating its spirit—almost as if you'd discovered a loophole in the rules of discourse and were gleefully exploiting it. That's not as bad as violating the letter outright, which is what most people do who use HN as an ideological battlefield. But it's still dismaying, and it still leaves one with the feeling of being trolled. As, for that matter, do your naive-sounding "how is" questions that always seem to leave the real problem unmentioned.

cousin_it 10y ago

> Tourists value the opportunity to visit for 2 weeks more than residents value the opportunity to live there for 2 weeks We desperately need a name for the fallacy that "if Alice can afford to pay more than Bob for the same good, that means it will bring her more happiness". I'd prefer to optimize society for happiness, not income-weighted happiness.