4 ms·

>How can it be that private property – the car – occupies the public space? Regardless of what you think of this policy, this is the level of reasoning of a 14

>How can it be that private property – the car – occupies the public space? Regardless of what you think of this policy, this is the level of reasoning of a 14 year old.

boobsbr 8y ago
How can it be that private property - the bicycle/the scooter - occupies the public space?
- rnatkins 8y ago
  How can it be that private property - my own body - occupies the public space?
  - detritus 8y ago
    It only occupies a small ephemeral spot in spacetime. Try lying in a single space for hours or days on end in a city and see how far your clever countering gets you. I'm sure there's many a vagrant who would rebut your thesis.
  - dao- 8y ago
    I wouldn't think of my body as private property. Leaving that aside, the answer to your question is that everybody has a body, so we're not talking about the same kind of privilege that car owners have. Nor do bodies occupy the same amount of space. Last but not least, they don't easily kill other people as they cross their way.
    - jaclaz 8y ago
      >I wouldn't think of my body as private property. Which it is fine. But unless you are totally naked, your body (not your private property) is covered by your private property and/or carries it. It is clear that a car occupies a lot more space than your clothes and carry-on belongings, but as said earlier that is only quantitative and not qualitative. And cars don't kill people (yet), their drivers may.
- dao- 8y ago
  Curious. Where are those massive bicycle and scooter dedicated roads and parking spaces that occupy our cities?
  - hesk 8y ago
    Devil's advocate: Have you been to Amsterdam? They have dedicated bike lanes and parking garages for bikes near the train stations. Of course, I would say that this is an excellent use of public space as opposed to infrastructure dedicated to cars.
    - dao- 8y ago
      I have been to Amsterdam, yes. :) That's why I asked for /massive/, i.e. a scale that's comparable to the space dedicated to cars.
adrianN 8y ago
Free parking is not a human right.
- chrisper 8y ago
  Neither is having side walks, trash cans, benches,...
michaelbuckbee 8y ago
I feel like we should be charitable on the actual wording of the statement as the speaker is being quoted in their non native language. I read this as more that we can't just default to subsidising private cars in a public space. Roads, parking and other infrastructure that de facto subsidize and encourage private car usage but which often are considered "free".
- dexen 8y ago
  The problem isn't the wording, it's the hare-brained idea that public and private shouldn't mix and cooperate. Flip the statement, make it about education - "How can it be that private benefit – the education – is financed by the public money?" - to clearly see the implications. We finance the baseline of education/transportation infrastructure from public funds because we believe that improves productivity, and performance of civic duties in a democracy across the board. Purely privately owned education/transportation is politically contentious for various reasons, right? Enclosure of the commons, economic inequality, limited avenues for upward mobility and all that, right? Lastly, a pedestrian on city-founded sidewalks is "a private citizen occupying public space" just as well. There's no moral qualitative difference between an individual pedestrian, an individual on a bicycle, an individual in a car [1], or a group of individuals in a tram or bus. We can argue about occupancy and all that, but that's just quantitative difference of maybe an order of magnitude at worst. The use of public space should should primarily support the main activities of the general public. [1] pollution from ICEs aside, but we're on track to fix that permanently.
  - claudius 8y ago
    Then as you say don’t simply ban "private property occupying public space" but require some degree of efficiency when doing so – people can occupy public space, but like with all resources, they must be considerate and efficient when doing so and not let it go to waste. A simple requirement would be a strict upper limit of 1m²/passenger at all times for vehicles and pedestrians. Trivial to fulfil for considerate means of transportation and quite impossible if you want to lug two tonnes of steel around with you.

>How can it be that private property – the car – occupies the public space? Regardless of what you think of this policy, this is the level of reasoning of a 14 year old.

boobsbr 8y ago

How can it be that private property - the bicycle/the scooter - occupies the public space?

rnatkins 8y ago
How can it be that private property - my own body - occupies the public space?
- detritus 8y ago
  It only occupies a small ephemeral spot in spacetime. Try lying in a single space for hours or days on end in a city and see how far your clever countering gets you. I'm sure there's many a vagrant who would rebut your thesis.
- dao- 8y ago
  I wouldn't think of my body as private property. Leaving that aside, the answer to your question is that everybody has a body, so we're not talking about the same kind of privilege that car owners have. Nor do bodies occupy the same amount of space. Last but not least, they don't easily kill other people as they cross their way.
  - jaclaz 8y ago
    >I wouldn't think of my body as private property. Which it is fine. But unless you are totally naked, your body (not your private property) is covered by your private property and/or carries it. It is clear that a car occupies a lot more space than your clothes and carry-on belongings, but as said earlier that is only quantitative and not qualitative. And cars don't kill people (yet), their drivers may.
dao- 8y ago
Curious. Where are those massive bicycle and scooter dedicated roads and parking spaces that occupy our cities?
- hesk 8y ago
  Devil's advocate: Have you been to Amsterdam? They have dedicated bike lanes and parking garages for bikes near the train stations. Of course, I would say that this is an excellent use of public space as opposed to infrastructure dedicated to cars.
  - dao- 8y ago
    I have been to Amsterdam, yes. :) That's why I asked for /massive/, i.e. a scale that's comparable to the space dedicated to cars.

adrianN 8y ago

Free parking is not a human right.

chrisper 8y ago
Neither is having side walks, trash cans, benches,...

michaelbuckbee 8y ago

I feel like we should be charitable on the actual wording of the statement as the speaker is being quoted in their non native language. I read this as more that we can't just default to subsidising private cars in a public space. Roads, parking and other infrastructure that de facto subsidize and encourage private car usage but which often are considered "free".

dexen 8y ago
The problem isn't the wording, it's the hare-brained idea that public and private shouldn't mix and cooperate. Flip the statement, make it about education - "How can it be that private benefit – the education – is financed by the public money?" - to clearly see the implications. We finance the baseline of education/transportation infrastructure from public funds because we believe that improves productivity, and performance of civic duties in a democracy across the board. Purely privately owned education/transportation is politically contentious for various reasons, right? Enclosure of the commons, economic inequality, limited avenues for upward mobility and all that, right? Lastly, a pedestrian on city-founded sidewalks is "a private citizen occupying public space" just as well. There's no moral qualitative difference between an individual pedestrian, an individual on a bicycle, an individual in a car [1], or a group of individuals in a tram or bus. We can argue about occupancy and all that, but that's just quantitative difference of maybe an order of magnitude at worst. The use of public space should should primarily support the main activities of the general public. [1] pollution from ICEs aside, but we're on track to fix that permanently.
- claudius 8y ago
  Then as you say don’t simply ban "private property occupying public space" but require some degree of efficiency when doing so – people can occupy public space, but like with all resources, they must be considerate and efficient when doing so and not let it go to waste. A simple requirement would be a strict upper limit of 1m²/passenger at all times for vehicles and pedestrians. Trivial to fulfil for considerate means of transportation and quite impossible if you want to lug two tonnes of steel around with you.