4 ms·

The difference is that there isn't a limited number of ferry licenses. They aren't rivalrous. Sure the government is paying for one to make sure there's at leas

• ViewTrick1002 2mo ago
  Of course they are rivalrous. Contracts change, boats get laid up and people are forced to change employers. You can imagine on popular routes where you get to keep the proceeds that you instead pay for the right to operate it. What’s the difference to paying for being allowed a quota to fish in the waters said ferry service runs a passenger service in?
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    Why would there be a limited number of ferry licenses?
    • ViewTrick1002 2mo ago
      Limited port capacity? Erosion? Limit disturbance of wild life? Either way it is a public resource. On one side access to a countries fishing grounds to make money from it. On the other side access to a countries tax money to make money from it. I get a feeling that you think fishermen should have some special heritage rights guaranteeing large profit margins rather than having to pay the public for the access to a shared resource.
      • runarberg 2mo ago
        Iceland already has fishing fees, which is effectively a tax to use the national resource. If you introduce capitalism into the equation you are just opening the doors for the rich to exploit the workers in a systemic manner, and the workers in this case are fishermen. Just do a standard fishing license you apply for and pay a nominal fee which can be refunded after some conditions are met, and then hand out quota evenly (or based on capabilities, history, etc.). Iceland already has a system similar to that called Strandveiðar for small fishing boats during a small window. OR (and I like this better) ban trawling.