4 ms·

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 co

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).
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Suppose you distribute time slots by lottery. That's unfair because it assumes people with less luck in the lottery have less claim to the natural part of the earth that is held in common. Making people pay money, likewise, is unfair in that sense. But I'm not sure it's a different kind of unfairness. And often people have money because of positive virtues: diligence, hard work, not buying things you can't afford. Among most people visiting a national park and paying an increased peak-hours fee, my bet is there is only a small lean towards such virtues.
    - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
      A lottery is randomly distributed across all those who put in their lots in, while charging an entry fee publicly and arbitrarily discriminates against those with less money. A lottery has the merit, at least, of being procedurally fair, i.e. all those who enter have an equal chance of being chosen on non-arbitrary (random) grounds. I don't see a good reason why having less money should invalidate your claim to a national park held in common among all citizens. Consider the political equivalent: a system of sortition that elects citizens by lottery; and a system of oligarchy that elects citizens according to who is able and willing to pay. It is a question about what kind of society and public life you want to encourage: greed, productivism and hierarchy; or inclusiveness, community and equality.
      - SamReidHughes 8y ago
        > I don't see a good reason why having less money should invalidate your claim to a national park held in common among all citizens. A reason, besides fairness, is for one of the merits of charging a fee: so that people who value the experience the most are the ones that go. (In the case of campground reservations, one reason for having fees at all is to make people show up.) You could focus more closely on this metric by making the fee be paid in the form of an increase to your adjusted gross income. But the poor already underpay taxes -- fairer would be for the wealthy to get into parks for free, as thanks for paying for the infrastructure that everybody else uses.

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).
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Suppose you distribute time slots by lottery. That's unfair because it assumes people with less luck in the lottery have less claim to the natural part of the earth that is held in common. Making people pay money, likewise, is unfair in that sense. But I'm not sure it's a different kind of unfairness. And often people have money because of positive virtues: diligence, hard work, not buying things you can't afford. Among most people visiting a national park and paying an increased peak-hours fee, my bet is there is only a small lean towards such virtues.
  - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
    A lottery is randomly distributed across all those who put in their lots in, while charging an entry fee publicly and arbitrarily discriminates against those with less money. A lottery has the merit, at least, of being procedurally fair, i.e. all those who enter have an equal chance of being chosen on non-arbitrary (random) grounds. I don't see a good reason why having less money should invalidate your claim to a national park held in common among all citizens. Consider the political equivalent: a system of sortition that elects citizens by lottery; and a system of oligarchy that elects citizens according to who is able and willing to pay. It is a question about what kind of society and public life you want to encourage: greed, productivism and hierarchy; or inclusiveness, community and equality.
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      > I don't see a good reason why having less money should invalidate your claim to a national park held in common among all citizens. A reason, besides fairness, is for one of the merits of charging a fee: so that people who value the experience the most are the ones that go. (In the case of campground reservations, one reason for having fees at all is to make people show up.) You could focus more closely on this metric by making the fee be paid in the form of an increase to your adjusted gross income. But the poor already underpay taxes -- fairer would be for the wealthy to get into parks for free, as thanks for paying for the infrastructure that everybody else uses.