3 ms·

You do realize that this is how access is granted to pretty much everything else in this world, and with huge benefits. Why not have the same benefits for the

by nickpp 8y ago

You do realize that this is how access is granted to pretty much everything else in this world, and with huge benefits. Why not have the same benefits for the national parks? Some are in desperate need of work and financing.

ghaff 8y ago
OK. This is something worth spending a few downvotes on. Are you simply stupid or are you just an unempathetic ahole? Since you're on HN, I'm guessing the latter. Even speaking as someone who is relatively more conservative in economic matters than most here, this is just obnoxious. I have zero issue with charging a reasonable use fee on federal lands. There are costs associated with using those lands and, as I wrote elsewhere, double-digit dollars are not any real deterrent to using those public lands. But now we get to rationing. Yes. It's sometimes necessary. We do it all the time based on price and it's a very efficient market-based mechanism. And I usually favor it. But it's not a great mechanism for public lands. Partly this is just an issue of fairness. We don't (theoretically) allocate votes on the basis of income. We shouldn't allocate park access either. There's also just a pragmatic matter of creating a perception that the national parks are only for the rich. To be sure, they're not really for the poor in any case. But it's not a good look to rub that in anyone's face.
- nickpp 8y ago
  Call me stupid if you want, but I am actually convinced that the poor's access to national parks would be improved under my scheme. Just not during the most requested times, when rich aholes betting each other would easily make enough cash to subsidize access for free plenty of other (less popular) times. Certainly not a politically popular opinion though, you are very right on that one...
thatfrenchguy 8y ago
No
shaki-dora 8y ago
To use an argument that has a chance to convince even you (i. e. to appeal to naked greed, opportunism, and selfishness): If you were to actually get your wish, you would arrive at a pretty accurate remake of Europe around the 18th or 19th century[0]. Only with money being passed down from generation to generation, not land of title of nobility. Many of those who didn't quite appreciate the genius and efficiency of this God-given system left Europe in those times to seek their luck in...America! That wouldn't quite work today, what with no more continents available for settlers, not even those willing to ignore a few existing people already living there. Which brings us to the second great idea some European at that time had, the guillotine... 0: Not saying that national parks alone would do this. There are actually far more resources that people like you thankfully don't even recognize as escapees from capitalism, to varying degrees. Among those are police protection, basic education, the right to use even crowded sidewalks, clean air and water, etc.
- delian66 8y ago
  Well, reality seems to disagree with your bleak hypothesis about possession of money becoming strongly correlated with heredity/nobility: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-to-riches-to-rags.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-... https://taxfoundation.org/income-mobility-and-persistence-millionaires-1999-2007 https://taxfoundation.org/income-mobility-and-persistence-mi... Just a reminder - you are talking about access to a freaking park, and not to a gold mine.
int_19h 8y ago
> You do realize that this is how access is granted to pretty much everything else in this world, and with huge benefits. And yet several other countries have free access to national parks, museums etc. Of course nothing is free. But the question of who pays, when it comes to public lands and public property, is a question of public policy. If the citizens decide that it is important to keep those things available to all, then it is certainly doable. Even in US we have quite a few things like that (e.g. beaches in most states). There's no reason why it can't apply to the parks.

by nickpp 8y ago

ghaff 8y ago

OK. This is something worth spending a few downvotes on. Are you simply stupid or are you just an unempathetic ahole? Since you're on HN, I'm guessing the latter. Even speaking as someone who is relatively more conservative in economic matters than most here, this is just obnoxious. I have zero issue with charging a reasonable use fee on federal lands. There are costs associated with using those lands and, as I wrote elsewhere, double-digit dollars are not any real deterrent to using those public lands. But now we get to rationing. Yes. It's sometimes necessary. We do it all the time based on price and it's a very efficient market-based mechanism. And I usually favor it. But it's not a great mechanism for public lands. Partly this is just an issue of fairness. We don't (theoretically) allocate votes on the basis of income. We shouldn't allocate park access either. There's also just a pragmatic matter of creating a perception that the national parks are only for the rich. To be sure, they're not really for the poor in any case. But it's not a good look to rub that in anyone's face.

nickpp 8y ago
Call me stupid if you want, but I am actually convinced that the poor's access to national parks would be improved under my scheme. Just not during the most requested times, when rich aholes betting each other would easily make enough cash to subsidize access for free plenty of other (less popular) times. Certainly not a politically popular opinion though, you are very right on that one...

thatfrenchguy 8y ago

shaki-dora 8y ago

To use an argument that has a chance to convince even you (i. e. to appeal to naked greed, opportunism, and selfishness): If you were to actually get your wish, you would arrive at a pretty accurate remake of Europe around the 18th or 19th century[0]. Only with money being passed down from generation to generation, not land of title of nobility. Many of those who didn't quite appreciate the genius and efficiency of this God-given system left Europe in those times to seek their luck in...America! That wouldn't quite work today, what with no more continents available for settlers, not even those willing to ignore a few existing people already living there. Which brings us to the second great idea some European at that time had, the guillotine... 0: Not saying that national parks alone would do this. There are actually far more resources that people like you thankfully don't even recognize as escapees from capitalism, to varying degrees. Among those are police protection, basic education, the right to use even crowded sidewalks, clean air and water, etc.

delian66 8y ago
Well, reality seems to disagree with your bleak hypothesis about possession of money becoming strongly correlated with heredity/nobility: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-to-riches-to-rags.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-... https://taxfoundation.org/income-mobility-and-persistence-millionaires-1999-2007 https://taxfoundation.org/income-mobility-and-persistence-mi... Just a reminder - you are talking about access to a freaking park, and not to a gold mine.

int_19h 8y ago

> You do realize that this is how access is granted to pretty much everything else in this world, and with huge benefits. And yet several other countries have free access to national parks, museums etc. Of course nothing is free. But the question of who pays, when it comes to public lands and public property, is a question of public policy. If the citizens decide that it is important to keep those things available to all, then it is certainly doable. Even in US we have quite a few things like that (e.g. beaches in most states). There's no reason why it can't apply to the parks.