3 ms·

Speaking of ethics, what’s the equilibrium here? Does it pass a Kantian categorical imperative? I think if everyone did this, the rate each person was taxed at

Speaking of ethics, what’s the equilibrium here? Does it pass a Kantian categorical imperative? I think if everyone did this, the rate each person was taxed at would fall below the current rough meter equivalent amount and the city (and LAZ Parking) would gather less revenue. Up to you if you consider that positive or negative.

bl0b 4y ago
It seems to me that if everyone did this (didn't pay the meter and just eat the cost of the tickets from time to time), the city would eventually realize it and would just ramp up enforcement and make bank for a while until people started paying the meters again. So LAZ Parking would end up getting their cut again and the city would be making no less than they are now. As a side note, I've always thought that the categorical imperative is as good of a rule to follow as any. But sometimes the 'if literally everyone behaved this way' thought experiment can get pretty silly, not to mention impossible to actually determine what would happen in such a case.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
paganel 4y ago
Not the OP, but there are some of us (I mean, I suppose I'm not the only one) who see paid street parking as unethical per se.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  > who see paid street parking as unethical per se. why?
  - nuclearnice1 4y ago
    One reason might be that it’s a lot of public space being dedicated to private purpose. Those who use public transport are paying tax to guard the private vehicles of the rich. Odd. I read somewhere that half of the space in some downtown areas is dedicated to infrastructure for cars. Seems like a lot.
    - matkoniecz 4y ago
      that would be reason to complain about use of public areas for free parking (and I do this) but someone complained about paid public parking specifically
      - nuclearnice1 4y ago
        Why? Paid or unpaid the space downtown is used for cars. OP may believe that’s wrong. I don’t think it’s the case that you can’t find a land use undesirable just because it generates income.

bl0b 4y ago

It seems to me that if everyone did this (didn't pay the meter and just eat the cost of the tickets from time to time), the city would eventually realize it and would just ramp up enforcement and make bank for a while until people started paying the meters again. So LAZ Parking would end up getting their cut again and the city would be making no less than they are now. As a side note, I've always thought that the categorical imperative is as good of a rule to follow as any. But sometimes the 'if literally everyone behaved this way' thought experiment can get pretty silly, not to mention impossible to actually determine what would happen in such a case.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

paganel 4y ago

Not the OP, but there are some of us (I mean, I suppose I'm not the only one) who see paid street parking as unethical per se.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
matkoniecz 4y ago
> who see paid street parking as unethical per se. why?
- nuclearnice1 4y ago
  One reason might be that it’s a lot of public space being dedicated to private purpose. Those who use public transport are paying tax to guard the private vehicles of the rich. Odd. I read somewhere that half of the space in some downtown areas is dedicated to infrastructure for cars. Seems like a lot.
  - matkoniecz 4y ago
    that would be reason to complain about use of public areas for free parking (and I do this) but someone complained about paid public parking specifically
    - nuclearnice1 4y ago
      Why? Paid or unpaid the space downtown is used for cars. OP may believe that’s wrong. I don’t think it’s the case that you can’t find a land use undesirable just because it generates income.