3 ms·
> Nothing wrong with that There are many things wrong with that. Ethically, it's crap: denying people access to a pretty critical public good (and yeah, I wish
by zbentley 6y ago
> Nothing wrong with that
There are many things wrong with that. Ethically, it's crap: denying people access to a pretty critical public good (and yeah, I wish car operation wasn't as critical and mass transit was a much more viable alternative and want to make that happen, but we are nowhere near there yet) due to circumstances--"unproductivity" in your words--that are overwhelmingly shown to be outside of their control is inequitable and cruel.
From a utilitarian perspective it's also super wrong: poor people generally outnumber nonpoor people (arguably an expected behavior of capitalism), and car autonomy is pretty critical if you want to increase your income; it opens up a lot more job prospects since, at least until robots rub everything, exclusively desk-work remote-capable jobs will be dwarfed in quantity by jobs that want you there in person.
Hell, even from an elitist/aristocratic perspective that's wrong: most poor workers are employed by service industries which provide services to the nonpoor, and increasing the cost of vehicle operatorship would reduce there quality (labor shortage) or increase the cost of those services.
But really, if the argument-from-ethics does not reach you, this is probably a waste of words.
- exporectomy 6y ago> and increasing the cost of vehicle operatorship would reduce there quality (labor shortage) or increase the cost of those services. Yes. That's the solution that would naturally occur. Then those people are not wasting the roads because somebody values their use of them enough to pay for it. I'm talking about people who have no reason to be in the expensive area except aimless driving or sightseeing or whatever. Those people will be discouraged from impeding the people who have more valuable reason to be there - like all workers.