7 ms·

Why does the slippery slope concept surprise you? It actually happens often - banning smoking indoors, for example - started in just one city, once they tweaked

Why does the slippery slope concept surprise you? It actually happens often - banning smoking indoors, for example - started in just one city, once they tweaked the model and overcame the legal challenges, it spread rather quickly. Legalized casinos, same thing. Uber, drinking age, pot legalization, more. Why would toll roads or congestion pricing be different? (Idaho's Sun Valley probably already implements something similar). And ICE vehicles are definitely in many politicians' crosshairs, if you don't already see that coming in the next decade, you aren't really looking.

woodruffw 1y ago
These would be examples of normalization, not a slippery slope. The OP's example makes this clear (from "congestion pricing in NYC" to "they're going to take my car," not "congestion pricing in NYC" to "congestion pricing elsewhere"). (Regardless, I think the answer is simple: congestion pricing is only economically viable when an area is simultaneously congested and has alternative transportation methods that would prevent the local economy from collapsing. NYC is one of a very small handful of cities in the US where this is true, although that's largely a function of 80 years of car-centric design. Maybe it will change.)
- listenallyall 1y ago
  Numerous politicians and advocates have suggested exempting electric vehicles from the NYC congestion pricing. Such vehicles are exempt in London. It isnt unusual for governments to start a program with one goal or purpose, then expand it (or use as a launching point) to achieve further goals, such as banning ICE vehicles. This is currently happening with cigarettes. Banning them at workplaces and other public places is one thing. But we live in a capitalist country that celebrates individual freedom. Or do we? Beverly Hills CA and Manhattan Beach CA have both banned the sale of cigarettes entirely. Massachusetts banned all flavored cigarettes and is trying to permanently ban the sale of cigarettes to anyone a born after a certain date. These go beyond "normalization", it is exactly slippery slope... get a small foothold then keep expanding the position.
  - Symbiote 1y ago
    Note that from 2026, electric vehicles will no longer be exempt from the London congestion charge.
  - woodruffw 1y ago
    People suggest all kinds of things. Just about every special interest group in the city wanted a congestion exemption; most did not get it. I don’t think this itself makes for good evidence of a slippery slope.
    - listenallyall 1y ago
      New York's congestion pricing was just implemented. It's far too early to know whether it will, or to claim it won't, lead to further restrictions, such as banning some vehicles altogether.
  - jampekka 1y ago
    Over 300 recreationally used molecules have been banned outright by UN conventions alone. Not saying this is good, but cigarettes are very much an exception to the norm.
- jasonfarnon 1y ago
  "normalization, not a slippery slope" Sounds like an arbitrary distinction, but in any event, it was the OP who used "slippery slope" to refer to going from "congestion pricing in NYC" to "they're going to take my car."
  - woodruffw 1y ago
    The distinction is important: a change in a law isn’t always a slippery slope towards other things. Implementing congestion pricing isn’t a slippery slope towards seizing peoples’ cars, which was GP’s point (which I agree with). To make it obvious: universal suffrage is a change that happened, but it wasn’t a slippery slope towards giving dogs the right to vote. Some changes result in new stases.
    - listenallyall 1y ago
      But nobody was claiming congestion pricing would absolutely lead to seizing cars. The OP was talking about the fear that more things may happen, which is perfectly logical. Today, nobody (including you) can say whether 10 or 20 years from now, ICE cars will be banned. But observing steps that appear to lead in that direction, and being concerned or fearful, is rational and logical.
  - bongodongobob 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - almosthere 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - superblas 1y ago
        Could you please expand on how that is murder?
        almosthere 1y ago
zuminator 1y ago
The argument that because a few things have spread, things in general are likely to spread is itself a slippery slope argument.
gjsman-1000 1y ago
> Why would toll roads or congestion pricing be different? The answer is actually quite simple: It won't be different. Prove to me it won't spread, because almost every new tax spreads. When is the last time a tax has existed in one state, and not spread to other states within 5 years?
- listenallyall 1y ago
  You and I are in agreement
- ackfoobar 1y ago
  I'm generally sympathetic to arguments that are "we will fall down the slippery slope." But as someone who has spent too much time stuck in traffic, I WANT congestion pricing to spread. It's just basic economics that people end up paying for a "free" resource with time - grossly inefficient.
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - zhivota 1y ago
      The trains and subway are right there...
      - gjsman-1000 1y ago
        [flagged]
        joshuamorton 1y ago
        The fun question of course is, are you actually safer on the road, or does it just feel safer? Which is more likely, a subway assault or a dangerous road-rage incident? There's tons of examples of road rage incidents in NYC where people have guns pulled on them or worse. But that isn't a particular visceral fear folks have (and you shouldn't!), but the likelihood of you getting shot on the subway is about the same, if not lower, than being shot elsewhere.
lesuorac 1y ago
I think the slippery slope has long happened and also gone away. There are a ton of roads with "turnpike" or "pike" in their name. Some cost money [1] others are free. What's the big difference between NYC's congestion pricing and the Florida Pike? I guess you can fight congestion pricing in order to slow the spread of toll roads but it's not the beginning of a slipper slope. Usage fees are a very old concept (price discrimination by time is pretty old as well). [1]: https://floridasturnpike.com/system-maps/ https://floridasturnpike.com/system-maps/
- listenallyall 1y ago
  New York State already has a major toll road (NY Thruway) and tolls to enter New York City. So do New Jersey and Connecticut, the other states you must drive through to enter New York City. The congestion pricing is a new charge on top of longstanding toll roads and bridge/tunnel tolls, so it feels like a new category and the start of something new, rather than being equated to "usage fees" as you state, at least in the minds of many drivers.
  - dml2135 1y ago
    It's new yes, but the comment you are replying to asked how it is different. It's simply another toll.
    - listenallyall 1y ago
      The people's intense response - from supporters to opponents - plus the media coverage and political posturing, demonstrates that it's not "simply another toll"
- josephcsible 1y ago
  With regular toll roads, if you don't want to pay the toll, you can drive on a different road instead and still get to the same place at the same time.
  - walthamstow 1y ago
pjc50 1y ago
Well, yes. Once you demonstrate that a good idea works and the doom doesn't come to pass, it gets copied. It's easy to claim that something doesn't work when nobody's doing it. Making the same claims when someone nearby is doing it and it works requires a higher level of reality-denial. Now, there's a lot of reality-denial to go round in politics these days, but occasionally a good policy slips through. The EU ICE phaseout is set for 2035.

woodruffw 1y ago

These would be examples of normalization, not a slippery slope. The OP's example makes this clear (from "congestion pricing in NYC" to "they're going to take my car," not "congestion pricing in NYC" to "congestion pricing elsewhere"). (Regardless, I think the answer is simple: congestion pricing is only economically viable when an area is simultaneously congested and has alternative transportation methods that would prevent the local economy from collapsing. NYC is one of a very small handful of cities in the US where this is true, although that's largely a function of 80 years of car-centric design. Maybe it will change.)

listenallyall 1y ago
Numerous politicians and advocates have suggested exempting electric vehicles from the NYC congestion pricing. Such vehicles are exempt in London. It isnt unusual for governments to start a program with one goal or purpose, then expand it (or use as a launching point) to achieve further goals, such as banning ICE vehicles. This is currently happening with cigarettes. Banning them at workplaces and other public places is one thing. But we live in a capitalist country that celebrates individual freedom. Or do we? Beverly Hills CA and Manhattan Beach CA have both banned the sale of cigarettes entirely. Massachusetts banned all flavored cigarettes and is trying to permanently ban the sale of cigarettes to anyone a born after a certain date. These go beyond "normalization", it is exactly slippery slope... get a small foothold then keep expanding the position.
- Symbiote 1y ago
  Note that from 2026, electric vehicles will no longer be exempt from the London congestion charge.
- woodruffw 1y ago
  People suggest all kinds of things. Just about every special interest group in the city wanted a congestion exemption; most did not get it. I don’t think this itself makes for good evidence of a slippery slope.
  - listenallyall 1y ago
    New York's congestion pricing was just implemented. It's far too early to know whether it will, or to claim it won't, lead to further restrictions, such as banning some vehicles altogether.
- jampekka 1y ago
  Over 300 recreationally used molecules have been banned outright by UN conventions alone. Not saying this is good, but cigarettes are very much an exception to the norm.
jasonfarnon 1y ago
"normalization, not a slippery slope" Sounds like an arbitrary distinction, but in any event, it was the OP who used "slippery slope" to refer to going from "congestion pricing in NYC" to "they're going to take my car."
- woodruffw 1y ago
  The distinction is important: a change in a law isn’t always a slippery slope towards other things. Implementing congestion pricing isn’t a slippery slope towards seizing peoples’ cars, which was GP’s point (which I agree with). To make it obvious: universal suffrage is a change that happened, but it wasn’t a slippery slope towards giving dogs the right to vote. Some changes result in new stases.
  - listenallyall 1y ago
    But nobody was claiming congestion pricing would absolutely lead to seizing cars. The OP was talking about the fear that more things may happen, which is perfectly logical. Today, nobody (including you) can say whether 10 or 20 years from now, ICE cars will be banned. But observing steps that appear to lead in that direction, and being concerned or fearful, is rational and logical.
- bongodongobob 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - almosthere 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - superblas 1y ago
      Could you please expand on how that is murder?
      - almosthere 1y ago

zuminator 1y ago

The argument that because a few things have spread, things in general are likely to spread is itself a slippery slope argument.

gjsman-1000 1y ago

> Why would toll roads or congestion pricing be different? The answer is actually quite simple: It won't be different. Prove to me it won't spread, because almost every new tax spreads. When is the last time a tax has existed in one state, and not spread to other states within 5 years?

listenallyall 1y ago
You and I are in agreement
ackfoobar 1y ago
I'm generally sympathetic to arguments that are "we will fall down the slippery slope." But as someone who has spent too much time stuck in traffic, I WANT congestion pricing to spread. It's just basic economics that people end up paying for a "free" resource with time - grossly inefficient.
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - zhivota 1y ago
    The trains and subway are right there...
    - gjsman-1000 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - joshuamorton 1y ago
        The fun question of course is, are you actually safer on the road, or does it just feel safer? Which is more likely, a subway assault or a dangerous road-rage incident? There's tons of examples of road rage incidents in NYC where people have guns pulled on them or worse. But that isn't a particular visceral fear folks have (and you shouldn't!), but the likelihood of you getting shot on the subway is about the same, if not lower, than being shot elsewhere.

lesuorac 1y ago

I think the slippery slope has long happened and also gone away. There are a ton of roads with "turnpike" or "pike" in their name. Some cost money [1] others are free. What's the big difference between NYC's congestion pricing and the Florida Pike? I guess you can fight congestion pricing in order to slow the spread of toll roads but it's not the beginning of a slipper slope. Usage fees are a very old concept (price discrimination by time is pretty old as well). [1]: https://floridasturnpike.com/system-maps/ https://floridasturnpike.com/system-maps/

listenallyall 1y ago
New York State already has a major toll road (NY Thruway) and tolls to enter New York City. So do New Jersey and Connecticut, the other states you must drive through to enter New York City. The congestion pricing is a new charge on top of longstanding toll roads and bridge/tunnel tolls, so it feels like a new category and the start of something new, rather than being equated to "usage fees" as you state, at least in the minds of many drivers.
- dml2135 1y ago
  It's new yes, but the comment you are replying to asked how it is different. It's simply another toll.
  - listenallyall 1y ago
    The people's intense response - from supporters to opponents - plus the media coverage and political posturing, demonstrates that it's not "simply another toll"
josephcsible 1y ago
With regular toll roads, if you don't want to pay the toll, you can drive on a different road instead and still get to the same place at the same time.
- walthamstow 1y ago

pjc50 1y ago

Well, yes. Once you demonstrate that a good idea works and the doom doesn't come to pass, it gets copied. It's easy to claim that something doesn't work when nobody's doing it. Making the same claims when someone nearby is doing it and it works requires a higher level of reality-denial. Now, there's a lot of reality-denial to go round in politics these days, but occasionally a good policy slips through. The EU ICE phaseout is set for 2035.