4 ms·

There is only one Yosemite.

by joshuamcginnis 8y ago

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).
    - Marazan 8y ago
      How does it solve the 'access allocation' problem better than a random lottery?
  - 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.

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).
  - Marazan 8y ago
    How does it solve the 'access allocation' problem better than a random lottery?
- 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.