30 ms·

I'm not sure if this was put here to ridicule Stallman or as a coda to his comments about Skype but this is a simple well-explained argument that I happen to ag

by sambeau 10y ago

I'm not sure if this was put here to ridicule Stallman or as a coda to his comments about Skype but this is a simple well-explained argument that I happen to agree with. If local government can't use local taxes to provide shared toilet facilities to stop us all having to defecate in the streets then what are they (and taxes) for? Community toilets (and streets clear of shit & piss) are, in my opinion, a fundamental and should be the basis of all civilised society. The fact that so many modern cities seem to have forgotten this is beyond me.

benevol 10y ago
> I'm not sure if this was put here to ridicule Stallman Almost certainly, it's a "joke". Flagged.
- oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
  You might think it's funny, but plenty of us agree with his stance and I'm sure we could have a decent discussion about it. Whether or not the fact that it's stallman makes it suitable for HN is another matter.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
himlion 10y ago
You are right this posting was a bit tongue in cheek with regards to the multiple Stallman posts already on the frontpage. But I do genuinely agree with him and this shows his uncompromising viewpoints and how he applies his ideals to topics outside of tech.
eumoria 10y ago
I know at least in my city the removal of public bathrooms is due to homeless and drug problem. If you have 24 hour public toilets they just become homeless houses. It is frustrating though to be on the train through a less-than-great neighborhood and having to go to the bathroom... knowing that there are no available public ones and all of the commercial entities either try and refuse or force you to purchase something. Bit of a nightmare when you're in that I NEED TO GO NOW emergency mode.
- jon-wood 10y ago
  Somewhat off topic, but UK law means any toilet in a licensed establishment is available for free. The law requires licensed establishment to provide free tap water to anyone requesting it. A separate law requires somewhere that serves drinks to someone to give them access to toilets. So if you ask for free tap water, you can use the toilet.
adwn 10y ago
> If local government can't use local taxes to provide shared toilet facilities to stop us all having to defecate in the streets then what are they (and taxes) for? If local government can't use local taxes to provide free food to everyone to stop us all having to starve in the streets then what are they (and taxes) for? Is access to toilets a more fundamental human right than access to food? Edit: Stallman explicitly demands that public toilets should be free to everyone, independent of their financial situation. Using his logic, we should boycot food until food is available to everyone free of charge. Of course I'm not arguing against feeding the needy, or against social nets in general.
- XorNot 10y ago
  Actually I also definitely believe this. The homeless and hungry should be sheltered by the government and I'll pay the taxes for doing so. In lieu of that I donate to charity (though finding truly effective homeless charities is tricky).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- IanCal 10y ago
  Providing food to those who would otherwise starve is an important use of taxes, and often a key part of welfare systems.
  - adwn 10y ago
    Please note the clarification to my post above.
    - IanCal 10y ago
      > Edit: Stallman explicitly demands that public toilets should be free to everyone, independent of their financial situation. Using his logic, we should boycot food until food is available to everyone free of charge. Of course I'm not arguing against feeding the needy, or against social nets in general. Food is something we spend a significant amount of money on, and have wildly different preferences in purchasing. Toilets are something we spend very little on, and all are purchasing something extremely similar. Needing to prove you require hundreds of pounds of assistance for is different from having to prove you require a few quid occasionally to not have to go and shit in an alley. The key difference here is that to give free basic food to the wealthy would be wasteful (they don't need it and it's not what they might want) as well as expensive. Giving the wealthy access to a public toilet for free is not a huge incidental cost and is likely far cheaper and easier than any kind of tokens or voucher schemes (really, how well is that going to work for the homeless?). You also cannot boycott food. Boycotting paid for toilets means those who can go somewhere else, such as at home. Boycotting food means you die. The two are not comparable.
franciscop 10y ago
Coming from Spain and having lived in Japan, I have come to believe that the US is really far away from what can be considered a civilized society. There's a huge mismatch between the public opinion (best country) and the reality that you can see through smaller things like this. Some of these things are better even in the so-called "third world countries". Note: Spain was named for the smaller things like this; public toilets are not widely available here (even though there are some).
- icebraining 10y ago
  Are there public toilets generally in Spain? I don't remember them from my stays in Galicia, Barcelona or Salamanca.
  - rahrahrah 10y ago
    They're uncommon at best. They deploy temporary ones (free) on places where large gatherings are foreseen, like big street parties.
  - haikuginger 10y ago
    Nor I in Madrid. I recall being sniggered at a little for asking someone in the tourist office. Although that may have been my Spanish.
  - franciscop 10y ago
    Not many, I was talking more about Japan for public toilets, which I certainly consider more advanced than Spain. I named Spain because of other basic things to expect in civilized countries (public and good quality health/education among others).
    - drstewart 10y ago
      But apparently having a job to make ends meet is not necessary to be considered civilized. 25% unemployment, so civilized.
ekianjo 10y ago
> Community toilets (and streets clear of shit & piss) are, in my opinion, a fundamental and should be the basis of all civilised society. The fact that so many modern cities seem to have forgotten this is beyond me. Totally agree with that and Japan and many countries in Asia really get that.
- jazoom 10y ago
  Singapore is a modern miracle
edanm 10y ago
"If local government can't use local taxes to provide shared toilet facilities to stop us all having to defecate in the streets then what are they (and taxes) for?" Well, there are many different ways to tax things. This is a pretty big area of study in e.g. economics and public polciy. Certainly, one way to tax is to e.g. collect income taxes from everyone and then use it to maintain public toilets. But another way to tax things is to directly tax the thing itself - like in this case, taxing the use of the toilet. This has some drawbacks and some benefits. One of the benefits is that you're making the toilet more akin to a regular, private good - people pay for what they use, which works pretty well in most cases. Of course you can appeal to emotion and say "what, we'll make poor people not able to use restrooms"? Clever as that is, what about the alternative appeal - are you really comfortable with a poor person's taxes going to support the public toilets of the 1%? The areas they live have public restrooms too, and I'm sure they cost a hell of a lot more to maintain than most public restrooms. I have no idea how this actually works in the real world - do rich 1%'ers public toilets cost a lot? Are they supported by taxes (at least, not on the municipal level)? Is there any amount of poor people unable to find access to restrooms that this is even a problem? I don't know. I'm just saying, the view expressed by Stallman is not nuanced, doesn't provide any data to back him up, only goes for a totally surface-level idea of the morality, and supports it with emotion. NOT everything in the world is a totally clear black & white moral issue, and not everyone that disagrees with you is necessarily morally wrong! When you make every issue a moral & emotional one, you lose out on actual thoughtful intelligence, or on the idea that smart people can think of different ways of cooperating that might make sense to them.
- omeid2 10y ago
  I can't believe you're making an argument against public toilets. > But another way to tax things is to directly tax the thing itself - like in this case, taxing the use of the toilet. That is not really Tax, but more so a Fee. > Of course you can appeal to emotion and say "what, we'll make poor people not able to use restrooms"? Clever as that is, what about the alternative appeal - are you really comfortable with a poor person's taxes going to support the public toilets of the 1%? The areas they live have public restrooms too, and I'm sure they cost a hell of a lot more to maintain than most public restrooms. I find it hard to think how the poor would use public restrooms less often than people who are more well off, considering the work environment, public transport dependency, and other factors. > I don't know. I'm just saying, the view expressed by Stallman is not nuanced, doesn't provide any data to back him up, only goes for a totally surface-level idea of the morality, and supports it with emotion. Access to public toilet in a civilized society is a matter of dignity and should not be only afford to those who can pay for it. Period.
gravypod 10y ago
"Money doesn't smell" I think was the expression.

by sambeau 10y ago

benevol 10y ago

> I'm not sure if this was put here to ridicule Stallman Almost certainly, it's a "joke". Flagged.

oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
You might think it's funny, but plenty of us agree with his stance and I'm sure we could have a decent discussion about it. Whether or not the fact that it's stallman makes it suitable for HN is another matter.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

himlion 10y ago

You are right this posting was a bit tongue in cheek with regards to the multiple Stallman posts already on the frontpage. But I do genuinely agree with him and this shows his uncompromising viewpoints and how he applies his ideals to topics outside of tech.

eumoria 10y ago

I know at least in my city the removal of public bathrooms is due to homeless and drug problem. If you have 24 hour public toilets they just become homeless houses. It is frustrating though to be on the train through a less-than-great neighborhood and having to go to the bathroom... knowing that there are no available public ones and all of the commercial entities either try and refuse or force you to purchase something. Bit of a nightmare when you're in that I NEED TO GO NOW emergency mode.

jon-wood 10y ago
Somewhat off topic, but UK law means any toilet in a licensed establishment is available for free. The law requires licensed establishment to provide free tap water to anyone requesting it. A separate law requires somewhere that serves drinks to someone to give them access to toilets. So if you ask for free tap water, you can use the toilet.

adwn 10y ago

> If local government can't use local taxes to provide shared toilet facilities to stop us all having to defecate in the streets then what are they (and taxes) for? If local government can't use local taxes to provide free food to everyone to stop us all having to starve in the streets then what are they (and taxes) for? Is access to toilets a more fundamental human right than access to food? Edit: Stallman explicitly demands that public toilets should be free to everyone, independent of their financial situation. Using his logic, we should boycot food until food is available to everyone free of charge. Of course I'm not arguing against feeding the needy, or against social nets in general.

XorNot 10y ago
Actually I also definitely believe this. The homeless and hungry should be sheltered by the government and I'll pay the taxes for doing so. In lieu of that I donate to charity (though finding truly effective homeless charities is tricky).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
IanCal 10y ago
Providing food to those who would otherwise starve is an important use of taxes, and often a key part of welfare systems.
- adwn 10y ago
  Please note the clarification to my post above.
  - IanCal 10y ago
    > Edit: Stallman explicitly demands that public toilets should be free to everyone, independent of their financial situation. Using his logic, we should boycot food until food is available to everyone free of charge. Of course I'm not arguing against feeding the needy, or against social nets in general. Food is something we spend a significant amount of money on, and have wildly different preferences in purchasing. Toilets are something we spend very little on, and all are purchasing something extremely similar. Needing to prove you require hundreds of pounds of assistance for is different from having to prove you require a few quid occasionally to not have to go and shit in an alley. The key difference here is that to give free basic food to the wealthy would be wasteful (they don't need it and it's not what they might want) as well as expensive. Giving the wealthy access to a public toilet for free is not a huge incidental cost and is likely far cheaper and easier than any kind of tokens or voucher schemes (really, how well is that going to work for the homeless?). You also cannot boycott food. Boycotting paid for toilets means those who can go somewhere else, such as at home. Boycotting food means you die. The two are not comparable.

franciscop 10y ago

Coming from Spain and having lived in Japan, I have come to believe that the US is really far away from what can be considered a civilized society. There's a huge mismatch between the public opinion (best country) and the reality that you can see through smaller things like this. Some of these things are better even in the so-called "third world countries". Note: Spain was named for the smaller things like this; public toilets are not widely available here (even though there are some).

icebraining 10y ago
Are there public toilets generally in Spain? I don't remember them from my stays in Galicia, Barcelona or Salamanca.
- rahrahrah 10y ago
  They're uncommon at best. They deploy temporary ones (free) on places where large gatherings are foreseen, like big street parties.
- haikuginger 10y ago
  Nor I in Madrid. I recall being sniggered at a little for asking someone in the tourist office. Although that may have been my Spanish.
- franciscop 10y ago
  Not many, I was talking more about Japan for public toilets, which I certainly consider more advanced than Spain. I named Spain because of other basic things to expect in civilized countries (public and good quality health/education among others).
  - drstewart 10y ago
    But apparently having a job to make ends meet is not necessary to be considered civilized. 25% unemployment, so civilized.

ekianjo 10y ago

> Community toilets (and streets clear of shit & piss) are, in my opinion, a fundamental and should be the basis of all civilised society. The fact that so many modern cities seem to have forgotten this is beyond me. Totally agree with that and Japan and many countries in Asia really get that.

jazoom 10y ago
Singapore is a modern miracle

edanm 10y ago

"If local government can't use local taxes to provide shared toilet facilities to stop us all having to defecate in the streets then what are they (and taxes) for?" Well, there are many different ways to tax things. This is a pretty big area of study in e.g. economics and public polciy. Certainly, one way to tax is to e.g. collect income taxes from everyone and then use it to maintain public toilets. But another way to tax things is to directly tax the thing itself - like in this case, taxing the use of the toilet. This has some drawbacks and some benefits. One of the benefits is that you're making the toilet more akin to a regular, private good - people pay for what they use, which works pretty well in most cases. Of course you can appeal to emotion and say "what, we'll make poor people not able to use restrooms"? Clever as that is, what about the alternative appeal - are you really comfortable with a poor person's taxes going to support the public toilets of the 1%? The areas they live have public restrooms too, and I'm sure they cost a hell of a lot more to maintain than most public restrooms. I have no idea how this actually works in the real world - do rich 1%'ers public toilets cost a lot? Are they supported by taxes (at least, not on the municipal level)? Is there any amount of poor people unable to find access to restrooms that this is even a problem? I don't know. I'm just saying, the view expressed by Stallman is not nuanced, doesn't provide any data to back him up, only goes for a totally surface-level idea of the morality, and supports it with emotion. NOT everything in the world is a totally clear black & white moral issue, and not everyone that disagrees with you is necessarily morally wrong! When you make every issue a moral & emotional one, you lose out on actual thoughtful intelligence, or on the idea that smart people can think of different ways of cooperating that might make sense to them.

omeid2 10y ago
I can't believe you're making an argument against public toilets. > But another way to tax things is to directly tax the thing itself - like in this case, taxing the use of the toilet. That is not really Tax, but more so a Fee. > Of course you can appeal to emotion and say "what, we'll make poor people not able to use restrooms"? Clever as that is, what about the alternative appeal - are you really comfortable with a poor person's taxes going to support the public toilets of the 1%? The areas they live have public restrooms too, and I'm sure they cost a hell of a lot more to maintain than most public restrooms. I find it hard to think how the poor would use public restrooms less often than people who are more well off, considering the work environment, public transport dependency, and other factors. > I don't know. I'm just saying, the view expressed by Stallman is not nuanced, doesn't provide any data to back him up, only goes for a totally surface-level idea of the morality, and supports it with emotion. Access to public toilet in a civilized society is a matter of dignity and should not be only afford to those who can pay for it. Period.

gravypod 10y ago

"Money doesn't smell" I think was the expression.