3 ms·

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

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.

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.