3 ms·

That's fine, I agree with your assessment, even though you are implying that by raising a question, I have somehow lost an argument :) You say that "those push

That's fine, I agree with your assessment, even though you are implying that by raising a question, I have somehow lost an argument :) You say that "those pushing for the penalty have better PR/political muscle", and you imply that they have more muscle than groups pushing for other penalties, or maybe even against penalties. What I would like to point out is, we are assuming that the majority of citizens of Stockholm or Singapore or etc have clearly voted in favor of this execution of public policy, because if they didn't, they would just leave or rebel or something. But in reality, I dare say that all over the globe, small elite groups of people are paid exorbitant sums of money to come up with these laws and carry them out. They then use cherry-picked statistics to justify the existence of the program (and then attack any naysayers as wanting to live in polluted dystopian hell holes like some stereotypical example of a Chinese city). Would you agree then, that certain groups being able to penalize other people for the supposed "crime of driving" is not the most optimal and equitable way to balance negative externalities? Perhaps it should be the burden of other people to deal with the negative externalities of something reasonable to expect in city living, like air pollution?

evgen 10y ago
> That's fine, I agree with your assessment, even though you are implying that by raising a question, I have somehow lost an argument :) I am not implying it, I am stating it outright. Your "argument" here is so tissue-paper thin as to boggle the mind and it is not even worth wasting time doing a point-by-point refutation. It is the burden of "other people" to deal with the negative externalities of driving, specifically those "other people" who decide to get in a car and drive. Don't like it? Drive somewhere else.
- salesguy222 10y ago
  For a very long time after cars were invented, the burden was actually the reverse of what you describe. It used to be, "you don't like cars driving near you? Live somewhere else." And it seems most people were fine with that, choosing to move to rural areas, where there were still cars, just less of them. This localized tax is palatable to me because it is local and not national. But, it is still worth pointing out that the people who penalize behavior by taxing certain daily activities... may more so be in it for the money than for the social good. If you disagree, that's fine. But when people are dying and having negative quality of living for so many more serious reasons, taxing congestion with a complex technological system is, in my opinion, deck chairs on the Titanic. I hope that those who are greatly affected by it choose to move and bring their value elsewhere that welcomes them. Maybe Stockholm will feel their absence, maybe not.

evgen 10y ago

> That's fine, I agree with your assessment, even though you are implying that by raising a question, I have somehow lost an argument :) I am not implying it, I am stating it outright. Your "argument" here is so tissue-paper thin as to boggle the mind and it is not even worth wasting time doing a point-by-point refutation. It is the burden of "other people" to deal with the negative externalities of driving, specifically those "other people" who decide to get in a car and drive. Don't like it? Drive somewhere else.

salesguy222 10y ago
For a very long time after cars were invented, the burden was actually the reverse of what you describe. It used to be, "you don't like cars driving near you? Live somewhere else." And it seems most people were fine with that, choosing to move to rural areas, where there were still cars, just less of them. This localized tax is palatable to me because it is local and not national. But, it is still worth pointing out that the people who penalize behavior by taxing certain daily activities... may more so be in it for the money than for the social good. If you disagree, that's fine. But when people are dying and having negative quality of living for so many more serious reasons, taxing congestion with a complex technological system is, in my opinion, deck chairs on the Titanic. I hope that those who are greatly affected by it choose to move and bring their value elsewhere that welcomes them. Maybe Stockholm will feel their absence, maybe not.