4 ms·
the point is that you are claiming that they are being vandalized despite having demonstrated great social good, which, like cars, is the very notion under disp
by ouid 8y ago
the point is that you are claiming that they are being vandalized despite having demonstrated great social good, which, like cars, is the very notion under dispute with that vandalism.
- imgabe 8y agoVandalism is not an appropriate way to express your opinion about whether something is a great social good. It's also very difficult for something to become a social good, if it's unavailable because of unchecked vandalism. Also, they are not being only vandalized, but stolen, which would imply that the perpetrators do believe the scooters are quite useful, but simply don't want to pay for them.
- ouid 8y agoI'm not saying that vandalism is a good or proper way to respond to something. I'm saying that their vandalism is directly correspondent with the fact that they are a nuisance rather than a boon. It doesn't matter if they are being appropriate about it, it's simply NOT a tragedy of the commons situation.
- imgabe 8y agoYou are assuming that the motivation of the vandals is to protest the presence of the scooters because they dislike them. That is an unfounded assumption on your part. I don't know if you've ever been in a city or been a teenager, but generally vandals vandalize stuff because they enjoy doing so, not to make any kind of political statement. You're also ignoring that many of the scooters are being stolen not vandalized, or the vandalism is part of the theft (ripping off the GPS unit so the scooter can't be tracked). Besides nuisance/boon is not a binary switch. Even if the vandals were a handful of angry cranks who were annoyed by the scooters, that doesn't imply that the scooters aren't overall beneficial to the city.
- ouid 8y agoI have made no such assumption. ALL I am saying is that you have not made a "tragedy of the commons" argument.