4 ms·

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 wi

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.
- Emma_Goldman 8y ago
  This conversation is going nowhere. You clearly believe that it follows from the fact of being wealthy that you have a greater claim on collective resources, either because you manifest greater virtue than the poor, or because you have simply done more good. I don't believe that people with wealth deserve that wealth in any deep sense - because people are who they are due to external forces, genetic and social. I also don't believe that greed, acquistiveness, etc., are social virtues. Most importantly, I don't think society should be founded upon productivism (accumulating as much wealth as possible) and hierarchy (the wealthy are better and have more claims on social goods than the poor). Capitalism is based on demeaning and toxic hierarchies and inequalities, where everyone works nearly all of the time (except for those who don't work at all) in order to create masses of unnecessary commodities, that are slowly destroying the planet. I cannot credit the view that wealth per se is good, or that we should bow before those who are lucky and oblivious enough to stand at the top of this scheme of things.

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.

Emma_Goldman 8y ago
This conversation is going nowhere. You clearly believe that it follows from the fact of being wealthy that you have a greater claim on collective resources, either because you manifest greater virtue than the poor, or because you have simply done more good. I don't believe that people with wealth deserve that wealth in any deep sense - because people are who they are due to external forces, genetic and social. I also don't believe that greed, acquistiveness, etc., are social virtues. Most importantly, I don't think society should be founded upon productivism (accumulating as much wealth as possible) and hierarchy (the wealthy are better and have more claims on social goods than the poor). Capitalism is based on demeaning and toxic hierarchies and inequalities, where everyone works nearly all of the time (except for those who don't work at all) in order to create masses of unnecessary commodities, that are slowly destroying the planet. I cannot credit the view that wealth per se is good, or that we should bow before those who are lucky and oblivious enough to stand at the top of this scheme of things.