3 ms·
I think you've missed the point of the article. People who don't use public transportation subsidize those who do, but we're OK with that as a society in large
by tgb 10y ago
I think you've missed the point of the article. People who don't use public transportation subsidize those who do, but we're OK with that as a society in large part because many need to use public transportation; the young, the disabled, anyone who can't afford a car and or to live next to their work and a grocery store. Similarly, we subsidize schooling and school lunches. But subsidizing parking is the opposite of that: the poorer pay for the richer. No one would be concerned that the ultra-rich are forced to subsidize parking they're not using when they take their private jets instead of road-tripping.
- tjic 10y agoNo, you're doing EXACTLY what I was calling out. You've got your own ethical / utility function and are explaining to me that basket of goods X is ideal bc it's exactly the basket that your ethical / utilitarian code wants, and basket Y is very bad, because it's the basket that other people want. This is special pleading.
- tgb 10y agoI find your argument utterly bizarre. You're saying "these are all members of a category, therefore you must accept ALL of them or NONE of them". But your choice of category is arbitrary! Why make it "currently executed subsidies" instead of "all possible subsidies" instead of "subsidies that were done in ancient Sumeria" instead of "subsidies that primarily aid those less well off"? I have no problem doing what you're calling out because what you're calling out is reality. You're proving far too much.
- wodenokoto 10y agoBy that logic the current basket is special pleading and any basket is as good as the other.