3 ms·

What I don't understand is why they are so cheap, especially in places like California where certain weekends are so crowded that trails get quota and lottery a

• Marazan 8y ago
  And then poor people couldn't afford to go.
  • nickpp 8y ago
    Why? The less wanted parks or time slots could bid even under current costs.
    • joshuamcginnis 8y ago
      There is only one Yosemite.
      • nickpp 8y ago
        Indeed. And it certainly can't fit all 8 billion of us during the same 4th of July weekend.
        • CobrastanJorji 8y ago
          Right. But your proposal maximizes profit but minimizes access for the poor. It's a good choice for a business, but profit isn't really the goal of national parks.
          • nickpp 8y ago
            No, my proposal just solves the access allocation problem using the only mechanism we known for finding out the actual value of things: free markets. Profit is just a nice side benefit which you can use any way you like: to build more parks, improve access to existing ones or simply subsidies access for the poor during less requested periods.
            • ip26 8y ago
              Why do we need to know the market value of visiting public land?
            • CobrastanJorji 8y ago
              You propose that your solution is the only mechanism for finding out the actual monetary value of visiting a park. Let's say that's true. But why is knowing the actual monetary value of the park good, and why is it so good that it outweighs the downside of preventing the poor from visiting the national parks?
              • SamReidHughes 8y ago
                What's the downside? For every poor person that can't go, a rich person can go in their place. So we get equally many people enjoying the parks. Unless a poor person is more worthy to you, I don't see what the big deal is.
                • Emma_Goldman 8y ago
                  I can't tell if you're being serious, but the downside is that there would be egregiously unequal access to an important and collectively owned part of their country. Why should how much money you have determine whether you can step foot in a national park? That would be horrifying.
                  • SamReidHughes 8y ago
                    It's not how much money you have, it's how much you pay. Money is generally gotten by having done useful stuff for other people. If you're going to limit access, it's more fair that people who sacrifice some of that money get priority. It's not egregiously unequal -- it's a fair admissions fee that everybody (visiting during peak season) has to pay.
                    • Emma_Goldman 8y ago
                      "Money is generally gotten by having done useful stuff for other people." I do not agree. I think there is a very wide divergence between what is of exchange value and what is socially valuable. Capitalism is a system with its own structural tendencies and deformations. It cannot reduced down to just so many bilateral exchanges in which both parties achieve utility-improvements. "It's not egregiously unequal -- it's a fair admissions fee that everybody (visiting during peak season) has to pay." It is unfair because: (i) it assume that people with less money have less claim to a natural part of the earth that is held in common; (ii) most - maybe all - of the reason that some people have more money than others is, (a) because they were born with genes with a set of highly determinate propensities, with a determinate family and social configuration, that made them who they are (i.e. it's not within their control, and so they can hardly claim credit for it), (b) they exhibit various vices, like greed, covetousness, ruthlessness, etc., and so spend more time doing worse things to make money (of course, this is a little polemical, and I only mean for it to apply to a certain class of people who are particularly zealous and proud of money-making).
          • njarboe 8y ago
            You know that year in advance auctions really does deny access to the majority of poor people. They don't plan vacations a year in advance. They have a little extra cash for gas money one weekend and head out. This situation is sort of like rent control in Berkeley. The poor people are always moving around for various reasons and don't benefit much from it. It mostly benefits the white progressive-voting Berkeley-grad trustifarian hippy living in the same apartment for 50 years. Not people currently struggling to make ends meet.
• qlm 8y ago
  Only on HN will you see somebody unironically suggest a bidding system for access to a park.
  • nickpp 8y ago
    Oh, I am in favor of bidding systems for access to everything, but especially for government held, "public" resources. Such systems would point out things people find valuable and encourage entrepreneurs and markets to create and offer alternatives. I am still interested in hearing why this is such a bad idea (other than not being a very popular one, of course).
    • timmaah 8y ago
      Going for a hike or camping in on land preserved for the people by the people owned by the people should now be an exclusive playground for the rich? No. Just no.
      • nickpp 8y ago
        Well, let it be the exclusive playground of the lucky (winners of the lottery) then. I am resigned to the fact that I won't reach Mt Whitney's summit during summer again in my lifetime...
        • njarboe 8y ago
          You can do it as a day hike from the Mitre basin to the south. I was there in Sept, no people, amazingly beautiful. Send me an email (see profile) for details.
        • timmaah 8y ago
          That is basically how campsites in crowded national parks operate. I'm ok with it.
        • int_19h 8y ago
          I'd much rather it be the playground of the lucky, than the playground of the rich. Public lands are held in common trust in the name of all citizens equally, not in proportion to their wealth. If there's not enough access time to go around, then a lottery is an obvious way to approximate equitable access.