From: snail@lsl.co.uk
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: Transport subsidies - Was: Car Parking
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:29:36 GMT
Organization: Laser-Scan Ltd., Cambridge

In article <29432@castle.ed.ac.uk>, fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
> snail@lsl.co.uk writes:
> 
> ~In article <29320@castle.ed.ac.uk~, fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
> ~~~Then you are 'forcing' people who need to use those roads to pay for
> ~~~them whether they wanted them unclogged or not. 
> ~~ 
> ~~ No, they don't have to use the roads if they don't want to.
>
Amazing how people choose to ignore the real meaning of words. It all boils
down to money. Money is power.

> ~Right, and they don't have to breathe if they don't want to.
> 
> I suppose you'd force them to keep breathing? Figures.
> 
> ~If they want or
> ~need (shock) to go somewhere, how are they going to do it?

*NEED* to go somewhere, and they haven't the resources (money to you and I) to
pay for it. Currently they can get in a car (assuming they have one) and drive
it there. If they have to pay for all the roads they use and they have no money
to pay they can't get where they *NEED* to go. I'm not saying want to go, I'm
saying *NEED* to go, ie they may be very ill, or pregnant or whatever. No
I'll just let them stay there and die.
 
> However they want, but if they use a resource then they pay for it. When
> the land or the road they cross belongs to someone else, and they
> require a fee for the use of it, then it's up to the user whether or not
> it is worth the fee to use the resource.
> 
> Why is it that you believe that the owner should let you have that
> resource for nothing?

Roads, you may realise are owned by the government (in the majority of cases)
and as such I own a bit of them, just like you. You're entitled to use my
bit and vice versa. Why is it you want to remove my right to this?
 
> Is everyone permitted to freely walk through your property?

Not the same argument. Road is a public right of way, my house (and your flat)
isn't.
 
> ~ Fly - magically
> ~grow wings? Walk - don't worry dear it's only fifty miles (and of course they
> ~won't use the roads, no they'll walk over fields and rivers).
> 
> If someone figures that the inconvenience of walking is outweighed by
> the road charge then they're entitled to do that. Most people will
> probably figure that the cost in their time to do this is more than the
> road fee and will pay. That's a rational economic decision.

Unless they have no money, which is what your idea of freedom is based upon.

> ~Don't say use
> ~public transport, because surprise it uses roads (unless it's a train :-) )
> ~and that will be forcing them to pay the toll because the bus will also
> ~pay the toll.
> 
> People are already asked to pay bus and rail fares. Do you believe they
> should be free too? 
> 
> Strangely, most of them pay, there aren't many people walking Edinburgh
> to London. Maybe they figure the rail fare is cheaper than the time lost
> to walking.

Again you miss the point. Of course they already pay bus fares and train
fares. But if the roads (etc) are toll roads then the bus fare will include
a toll fare - that is what I was getting at in the post above. In many
articles you overlook simple little details like this, because it
helps your argument. Other people have already done a very good job (today)
on the net of destroying your argument, such people are better than myself
at constructing arguments.
 
> ~Some idea of freedom:- You can only go anywhere by any means as long as you've
> ~got the toll money.
> 
> Unles you walk or go by bicycle (or, ok, magic carpet) then travel
> already costs money. Since money is a measure of resource usage, and
> resources are used when you travel, that's not entirely surprising is it?

Why is it that you assume walking or bicycling along a toll road is free?

> ~Great, I prefer my current form of freedom.
> 
> What you really mean here is that you prefer the current system whereby
> someone else pays for your "free" road use.

I pay my taxes, like evryone else.
I regard toll roads are more selfish, since it removes peoples individual
freedom (that word again) of movement - unless of course they have that key
ingredient MONEY.

> Strange that I was the one called "greedy and selfish" really.

If you want to keep all your money and not contribute to society you are, if
not you are not. If you want to advocate systems that restrict peoples freedom
of movement, then yes you are - this I find hard to believe since you have
said in previous posts that you are a believer of the big brother state rearing
it ugly head. Implement restriction of movement subtly with toll roads. Nice.

You are the one who opposes taxes, not me.

Does anyone remember what happened last time taxes were reduced? And only
reduced by 10% from 50% to 40% / 2% from 27% to 25%. Can you imagine what'd
happen here if all taxes disappeared?

Do you really believe that vendors of products and services (such as health
care) wouldn't just push their prices up (out of line with product cost)
in order to soak up our extra disposable income? Do you really believe that?
-- 
snail@lsl.co.uk      

muso/unix joke: "which debugger do you use?"
                "I use dbx..."
                "Oh really, we use Dolby C..."
Motorola inside.
Newsgroups: uk.misc