3 ms·

Low cost travel & tourism are _not_ rights. They're privileges. Seems fair to include negative externalities in the cost. If that excludes some people, so be it

Low cost travel & tourism are _not_ rights. They're privileges. Seems fair to include negative externalities in the cost. If that excludes some people, so be it. They can travel closer to home.

dredmorbius 7y ago
And again: why should those privileges be reserved to the wealthy?
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  There are much more basic rights not being met across the globe before we can afford worrying about everybody having a yacht, a personal jet and close up time with Mona Lisa.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    That's not answering the question.
    - mogadsheu 7y ago
      The other options besides increasing price would be: - lottery (example: powerball) - waiting list (case: Alcatraz, Coachella) - application based on xx criteria (case: Antarctica?) or... a combination of the five (price being #5). In most of these cases, money is still involved. Why? I think it's b/c it takes funding to administer, maintain, and improve the attractions. So maybe pricing isn't the only option.
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        Right. These are at least fair relative to wealth / income. And are frequently used for access to overutilised natural areas (e.g., lotteries, day-of-activity permits, waitlists). Though the question about fairness of price-based rationing still hasn't been answered ;-)
    - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
      That is more of an indication that this unfairness exist in areas significantly more critical than ability to travel to popular spots than an answer, yes. I think we should be looking for answers in those areas (closer to being "rights") instead. This is not a whataboutism either, unless you can put that label on trying to focus on major showstoppers that bring whole system down before light cosmetic defects.
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        The specific proposal, price-gating of access to notable tourist landmarks, directly and out of no fundamental necessity simply creates yet another wealth-based inequality. There's a difference between addressing greater wrongs, and questioning the creation of yet another instance.

Low cost travel & tourism are _not_ rights. They're privileges. Seems fair to include negative externalities in the cost. If that excludes some people, so be it. They can travel closer to home.

dredmorbius 7y ago

And again: why should those privileges be reserved to the wealthy?

UnFleshedOne 7y ago
There are much more basic rights not being met across the globe before we can afford worrying about everybody having a yacht, a personal jet and close up time with Mona Lisa.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  That's not answering the question.
  - mogadsheu 7y ago
    The other options besides increasing price would be: - lottery (example: powerball) - waiting list (case: Alcatraz, Coachella) - application based on xx criteria (case: Antarctica?) or... a combination of the five (price being #5). In most of these cases, money is still involved. Why? I think it's b/c it takes funding to administer, maintain, and improve the attractions. So maybe pricing isn't the only option.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Right. These are at least fair relative to wealth / income. And are frequently used for access to overutilised natural areas (e.g., lotteries, day-of-activity permits, waitlists). Though the question about fairness of price-based rationing still hasn't been answered ;-)
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
    That is more of an indication that this unfairness exist in areas significantly more critical than ability to travel to popular spots than an answer, yes. I think we should be looking for answers in those areas (closer to being "rights") instead. This is not a whataboutism either, unless you can put that label on trying to focus on major showstoppers that bring whole system down before light cosmetic defects.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      The specific proposal, price-gating of access to notable tourist landmarks, directly and out of no fundamental necessity simply creates yet another wealth-based inequality. There's a difference between addressing greater wrongs, and questioning the creation of yet another instance.