5 ms·

The problem with that is that many, if not all, people have the attitude of: that is a publicly funded good, paid for in part with my money, so why shouldn't I

The problem with that is that many, if not all, people have the attitude of: that is a publicly funded good, paid for in part with my money, so why shouldn't I have access to it? What you seem to argue for with this is the privatization of our public spaces. Otherwise how do you ensure access to the publicly funded public good? Or am I way off base with this?

jcranberry 7y ago
There are still entrance fees for national parks in the United States, for example. It would just be part of the cost. The auctioned tickets would probably still feel unfair as the rich would be more likely to enjoy the benefits of public funding. So you're not that off base.
gralx 7y ago
> ... a publicly funded good, paid for in part with my money, so why shouldn't I have access to it? This obviously doesn't apply to certain areas of police stations and other publicly funded goods. Maybe elaborating a bit more will clear up the distinction.
- Loughla 7y ago
  I have access to the police, regardless of whether or not I have access to their weapons or evidence room. Shutting off the park limits access to a public good. It would be like the city police not responding to one part of town, and in this case (lotteries or patronage) ensures that the rich get served first. That would rub people the wrong way, I think. Does that clarify?
  - FeloniousHam 7y ago
    National parks are not a perfect public good since they do have a practical limit on usage, unlike say, a lighthouse or clean air. Given this scarcity, a pricing mechanism such as tdaltonc suggests is reasonable solution.
tdaltonc 7y ago
As others have pointed out: Parks already have patchwork fees, lotteries, and day-pass limits. This would just be a more holistic version of that patchwork. As far as "whenever I want it" public access, I think that most parks, and even some parts of every park, would be open to car traffic. So if you're willing to pay with your time, under this system (same as under the current system), you can go whenever.
wasdfff 7y ago
At least with parks, they are an area of conservation before they are a tourist attraction. You are paying for this land to be conserved in its natural state. Traffic to the park must therefore be limited to ensure the park is actually preserved and not destroyed by human activity. Visiting the park is a privilege, not a right. The right is that the park exists at all.
- casefields 7y ago
  You need to watch Ken Burns The National Parks: America's Greatest Idea because the parks are to be conserved for future generations in hopes that they can enjoy the public good just as we get to.

jcranberry 7y ago

There are still entrance fees for national parks in the United States, for example. It would just be part of the cost. The auctioned tickets would probably still feel unfair as the rich would be more likely to enjoy the benefits of public funding. So you're not that off base.

gralx 7y ago

> ... a publicly funded good, paid for in part with my money, so why shouldn't I have access to it? This obviously doesn't apply to certain areas of police stations and other publicly funded goods. Maybe elaborating a bit more will clear up the distinction.

Loughla 7y ago
I have access to the police, regardless of whether or not I have access to their weapons or evidence room. Shutting off the park limits access to a public good. It would be like the city police not responding to one part of town, and in this case (lotteries or patronage) ensures that the rich get served first. That would rub people the wrong way, I think. Does that clarify?
- FeloniousHam 7y ago
  National parks are not a perfect public good since they do have a practical limit on usage, unlike say, a lighthouse or clean air. Given this scarcity, a pricing mechanism such as tdaltonc suggests is reasonable solution.

tdaltonc 7y ago

As others have pointed out: Parks already have patchwork fees, lotteries, and day-pass limits. This would just be a more holistic version of that patchwork. As far as "whenever I want it" public access, I think that most parks, and even some parts of every park, would be open to car traffic. So if you're willing to pay with your time, under this system (same as under the current system), you can go whenever.

wasdfff 7y ago

At least with parks, they are an area of conservation before they are a tourist attraction. You are paying for this land to be conserved in its natural state. Traffic to the park must therefore be limited to ensure the park is actually preserved and not destroyed by human activity. Visiting the park is a privilege, not a right. The right is that the park exists at all.

casefields 7y ago
You need to watch Ken Burns The National Parks: America's Greatest Idea because the parks are to be conserved for future generations in hopes that they can enjoy the public good just as we get to.