I've been hearing for years what a genius this guy is. He seems, however, everytime I read something he's written or listen to him, to be nothing more than a California kook with entirely the wrong ideas and next to zero understanding of anywhere except highly crowded areas like Los Angeles. He seems to place very little value on individual rights. "Almost everybody will drive everywhere they go and park for free when they get there"...he actually said this as though it was a bad thing.
I go to Michigan State University and there is a huge shortage of parking even if you pay. I don't want to pay $25 a day to park when I can't walk to class. Sorry but in this country I'm allowed to be lazy and uppity and if I wanna drive and park for free I should be able to so suck SHOUP.
How much is the cost of the meter? How long until this space makes its money back to cover the cost of the meter? What is the maintenance cost of the meter? Maybe I'm a socialist in regard to this, but I like free parking. I like not having to get out of my car and immediately make a transaction while also worrying about if I'll get back to my car before the meter runs out. I could put more money in the meter to prevent this...but then I'd be putting more money in the meter!
People wouldn't be mindlessly driving and parking so much if it wasn't for those stupid zoning laws. Do a study on how much money, energy, time and lives THAT wastes.
Whaaa? Paying more for parking is the solution? How many times have we all heard "Nah, I don't want to go downtown, parking is terrible."?! Higher meter prices would encourage all people to just avoid visiting urban areas and worse, would only make things harder for cash-strapped drivers (read: college students and working and lower class individuals). I like the solution above: let the closest business rent the lot from the local government each year. They can manage parking, local gov profits.
@nly8nchz But it gvmt does have to tax someone in order to provide free public parking. Free parking isn't free - someone is already paying for it. Your insistence that it not be the person who uses it is puzzling and very anti-libertarian.
@wetwingnut You could also argue that gov't doesn't tax to provide free parking. It taxes to build and maintain roads and it's just a convenience that you can park on the side of them as well. There is no extra cost when people park on them
I'd say parking fees are more fair than taxing the residents but it's a too great temptation for governments to start using the revenues for other purposes than road maintenance and parking facilities
@asalade When gvmts use this as a way to "enhance" their revenues I'm with you. I'm just saying that I like the guy's idea that in places where demand is high - like Chicago - parking rates should reflect "the value" i.e. demand - and revenues should offset other revenue sources. It is more fair.
@wetwingnut Another thing is that with city parking fees the government can enhance it's own profits by planning the city in such way that parking prices rise. I.e. building public facilities in already highly congested areas
@nly8nchz I'm not talking about giving gvmt more money - just where the money comes from. Fact - Building streets and maintaining them costs money. Fact - Right now people who don't own automobiles are paying to provide parking for people who do. Your insistence on free parking as an entitlement is no differnt than any other govmt entitlement. If you've got a way to privatize it I'm all ears - then you'll be paying market rates for your parking for sure.
how does free parking cost the city money? the streets are paid for by tax money i though. and what about all the tickets they write people. more meters = more tickets = more of your money going to a place you have NO CONTROL OVER
@nly8nchz Do you think of oil leases as taxes on the oil companies? I don't. To me it is government using the free market to maximize the income from public assets. What would you say if instead of bidding oil leases out they just gave them to the person who showed up first? I would call it a waste of public resources. By insisting that you are entitled to free public parking you are no different than someone who insists on free food, housing, education, or healthcare.
@nly8nchz I'm sure that in practice that is how governments would attempt to implement these reforms. But the principles of letting the free market determine the value of the resource and making the person who uses the resource pay for it is still sound. This about how we pay for government, not how much we pay. Shrinking and limiting government is a separate battle.
The negative reaction to this video is fascinating. A basic moral principle is that resources should go where they are valued most and in capitalism that means to the person who will pay the most for them. In many areas of Chicago where curb parking is free, or even where it is inexpensively metered it is impossible to find an available space in any reasonable distance or time. This means, a priori, that the resource is priced below its value, and "reason would call for pricing it higher."
@nly8nchz That is exactly his point! Money is already being taken from citizens to provide parking - he is just advocating taking it from the citizens that use it rather than from those who don't.
@TreachMarkets Collectivism is about getting everyone to pay for the needs of everyone regardless of who reaps the benefit. As this video points out, this pretty well describes the state of parking in the US right now. Making someone pay the fair market value of the resource that they use represents a move away from collectivism and to capitalism.
@wetwingnut Capitalism, I missed that. If he was for privatizing the road, or even privatizing maintenance and servicing of the road, then I stand corrected.
@TreachMarkets It doesn't have to be private to follow a free market. Lots of public resources are leased to the high bidder for use, but still publically owned. I don't know how you privatize something like a city street that has public utilities under it, over it, public safety ramifications, and provides citizens free right of way. If we're going to let individuals stash their vehicles along the public thoroghfare I'd rather see the marketplace determine who does so.
@wetwingnut A free market doesn't mean taking money from people by force to pay other people to maintain and service something. For example, buying oranges at the market is free market. If the market grocer showed up at your door, demanded $2 at gunpoint, and then handed you a bag of oranges, that would not be free market.
Read Murray Rothbard for details on how something like private roads could work.
@TreachMarkets I'm sorry, you lost me. I have never had anyone force me to park my car somwhere and pay them for it.. But if I choose to park it anywhere but on my own property I understand that I may have to pay for that priviledge. Before I bought my car I considered the ancillary costs such as maintenance and insurance and parking to make sure a could afford them. Do expect the government to provide you with free auto maintenance? Insurance? You have misused the concept of force.
@wetwingnut If we're going to have this toll system, we should privatize the whole thing, read Rothbard. Govt's purpose is to spread the cost, yes by force, of things that most people think can't be paid for and maintained by the private sector. So anything that people will pay for voluntarily as they use it should be privatized.
@TreachMarkets I'm open to ideas like this. Since you mentioned him, I Iooked up Rothbard. At first glance on Wiki he seems a bit out there - but that's what everyone says about Ayn Rand. Thanks for the reference.
I don't care what this guy is saying, i could listen to him speak for days! He has one of the most interesting voices i've ever heard. It's some where between a sick cat and a drunken sailor.
Come on Reason, a central planner, really? How about the solution be privatizing the roads and getting rid of zoning laws instead? I had to give this one a thumbs down.
@Spideynw Do you really want to privatize all the roads? I'm all for privatizing as much as possible, but I can't see how this would work. How many tolls would one have to pay to drive across town? Would I run the risk of being stuck on my own land if my neighbors refused to grant me right of way? And how would utilities get distributed? I need to see how this would work.
@wetwingnut Excellent! Do you agree that government provides services at the threat of violence? If so, then you would have to agree that they should not be in charge of providing parking or roads or anything else. I myself am not really worried about how people would agree to voluntarily provide those services or goods. I believe there is a demand, and as such, entrepreneurs would figure out how to make it work.
@Spideynw Parking a car is a voluntary activity. I agree with entirely when it comes to gvmt, say, requiring you to buy health insurance. We all have the gvmt gun at our heads there. I've already said I'm in favor of privitazing as much as possible. The fact is that free parking is provided now at the muzzle of the gvmt gun - pointed at people who don't use or want it. I say let the guy behind the wheel take the bullet.
This bloke prolly received a 1 million dollar grant by da gubbermint to figur out how to jam his roll of dimes into a coin slot, wiffout touching da sides.
@liquidflorian Case evaluations have generally found that parking turnover increases; increasing customer access to businesses. Furthermore, the additional revenue is spent locally: helping to bring more amenities & facilities to customers & visitors to those same businesses.
@thisisbossi That high turn over may or may not be beneficial. Just because their are more cars moving through an area doesn't mean that more money is being spent. Correlation does not equal causality. All increased meter rates are is a back door tax on commerce, I would rather they not look for ways to take money from their citizens to waste of pet projects.
sorry I don't like this video... i figured the reason way would be to let each building owner own the curb parking in front of their shops and let them rent em out.
So Shoup is for gov't central planning. Isn't this the opposite of the libertarian views for which Reason is known?
The free market dictated that free or cheap parking wins out. The point of meters was to encourage short-stays, but the act of making it easier to pay for long stays with a credit card ruined this idea.
Wouldn't the libertarian idea be for the parking to be owned by the building and business owners and they charge what they want, funneling the revenue into their rent & taxes?
I don't know...A professor at UCLA saying paid parking will work? Speaking as someone who had to park at UCLA for 4 years...I can tell you paid parking at UCLA is awful and despite price increases, still remains bad. Parking at UCLA's parking structures is $9 or $10 now. Metered parking at UCLA only takes Quarters and it only gives you 5 minutes!
let's tax people even more. Let's make sure our children don't live as good as we are until no one can afford a place to live. Yes, let's put taxes on everything until our salary can't provide us with food and selter. Im sure the bilderburg and cfr will be happy, us doing the job for them
The cost of parking is paid for by businesses in the form of rents paid to the landowner which is relaid to the consumer when they purchase products with those businesses.
Schoup is off. Surprising that Reason would have this guy.
His book, "Free Parking", can be analyzed & refuted his points, to show how wrong he is.
Part of the allure is that he talks about free market principles & many truths, but he has many flaws, including bad data.
Consider this: Over 85% of adults have cars. Who pays for these "uncharged" costs for 85% of people? Those 85%, mostly, perhaps they pay 92% of the costs. Those 15% have much lower incomes & don't pay for much.
This guy is a liar. The services he talked about in Old Pasadena came from the Old Pasadena Management District. The OPMD gets its money from PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS, not parking income. You can read it in their annual reports.
This guy makes some excellent points, but the idea of any central body distributing money is always problematic.
.
A better system would be if people had a choice as to where their parking money goes to.
.
Hence, they'd be able to fund the organization they felt did the best job in improving their streets. In the era of digital parking meters, this sort of payment system would be easy to implement and would be met with less resistance by drivers.
Shop on line and you don't have to pay for parking. Traffic cameras also are encouragement for me to skip going to Chattanooga, etc., to shop. High sales taxes also . . .
I own a parking company with over 20 locations. Professor Shoup speaks the truth. Further distorting the situation is the insane requirements and regulations and taxes and bureaucratic hoops parking companies have to jump through which ends up making it very unprofitable to operate without charging significantly over the price of curbside parking.
when i first moved to los angeles 4 years ago, i hated the idea of paying for parking. then, i majored in economics, and now i have finally given into the beauty of paying for parking that is available right next to where you want to go (although still not sure how i feel about valet). considering tens to thousands of other people may want to be where i am going (mostly in cars, of course), competition for free parking in LA is fierce to say the least. when paying, however, no problem.
All he is saying is that we need more people to purchase empty lots and build parking garages. No police needed. You pay to park and it is safe and guarded on private property. When census is high, price go up, when census is low, prices go down. Natural and Govt. free.
All Donald Shoup can do is point me towards the privately owned parking garage. No Govt. needed, not Donald Shoup needed, no Govt. funds to UCLA needed.
What?! You mean libertarians actually stick to economic principles in all aspects of our lives? So maybe they don't hate poor people when they argue against Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security! What a concept!
Bikes are so cute except in the rain, in the cold, when you have to carry passengers. Be sure to charge for bike parking too. They are smaller but they still take up land and add in the extras such as illness for exposure to weather, extra traffic congestion because bikers drive slower than cars and keep cars on roads longer. Charge for all vehicles, motorized or not. Bike owners need to pay license fees for use of the public roads too. No more free rides, extra beaurocracy! Wheee!
maybe we should charge you for crossing the street ... all that time you make us wait to make a turn waiting for you to saunter over to the other side of the street.
Helsinki is varied on how people get around. I use the metro, city trams and walking. Many use bikes in the summertime. Young Finnish men try surfing behind their old cars when in the countryside and one turned a junky car into a moving sauna. True!
I think he was trolling himself. I just instigated a brilliant counter troll that left me hearing the lamentations of his women and his cities in ruin! ... or he got bored and went to bed. I prefer the former.
You both sound like children when you talk about 'trolling". I got tired of of the straw man arguments and uneducated comments. it felt like arguing politics with middle schoolers which you probably are so i just stopped responding.
You were an alright fuck, but I could have done with out the screaming every time I twisted your nipples and the part where you broke down and sobbed.
A straw man argument is when you say someone has a position that they don't and then attack it. You don't know the correct use because you're a moron that doesn't know what he or she is talking about.
@zetsway5000 You are wrong, because no one is attacking an imaginary position. You have made a claim that governments only 'count' when within X framework. We have been trying, through questioning, to deduce what that framework is. You answered once that it was when a government has sole (centralized) control over an 'established state', but I shouldn't have to tell you how that answer is not satisfactory. Immediately after that you began calling strawman when your argument was dismantled.
no it's you who is wrong. You have made a claim that any group with power can be classified as a country's government if a centralized government does not exist which is not true. The vast majority of your posts have been straw man arguments which anyone with half a brain can go see for themselves. Also, that not what i said. I said anarchy is when a centralized government is dismantled which then results in another form of anarchy with feuding decentralized powers.
@zetsway5000 How exactly is my point not true, though? At it's most basic state, are not all governments just men through use of force telling other people what to do? A chieftain of a tribe with handful of warriors under him would be the leader of a tribal government. It might only consist of a few dozen individuals and their territory may not be any more defined than "that patch of land by the river", but it does not mean they are do not have a government.
@MakarisX A primitive government is a government regardless. At some vague point you have switched your arguments from referring to all governments to speaking only about 'centralized' governments... but how are they different, in exact terms?
And before you bring it up, saying that centralized governments are different by controlling an 'established state'... well, that is merely begging the question "what exactly makes a state more 'established' than another.
We were always talking about centralized state governments of established nations. You can find what you would call "government" on even the smallest of scales. We aren't talking government in that context.
Because if a group with power doesn't have control over the entire state and is not recognized by the majority of people(through democratic institutions or by force) as the government they are not the government of said state. Tribalism isn't a government in the sense that we are talking about. We are talking about governments of established states not small lawless territories.
Donald Shoup comes off as a harmless thinker, but he really is a social sadist, whose existence is justified by the desire to micro-mismanage everyone.
This is quite interesting. I live in Sydney, AU where parking is near impossible in the city. The Mayor is very anti-car and the city will not approve proposed buildings with "too much" parking planned. I don't know, but I suspect that the revenue from meters does not go to street related serviced (because Sydney streets are not very good) Im a big fan of money coming from the user, going directly where the "use" took place, rather than general tax money or fund diversion.
It hasn't functioned well is the point. you can point to as many examples as you want but you won't find a single one that shows private law in addition with anarchy functioning well. When it comes to fraud in anarchy the man with the bigger gun is always right even if he did just rip you off.
@zetsway5000 Man, do you suffer from short term memory loss? We aren't using strawman arguments. You did say exactly what Silvsilvchan is calling your out on.
"When he establishes a central government with full control of the state."
You didn't explicitly express that 'state' referred to control over a certain amount of territory but... you really haven't defined exactly what you mean. What else is there to conclude?
That is what I am getting out of you. Try defining when a government is a legitimate government.
You did say that you didn't think the medieval European kingdoms were governments because they weren't centralized. By that same reasoning when the United States split in half it failed to be centralized and there for ceased to be a government.
You are also using Strawmans as well. You should know they aren't defining anarchy the same way you are and are using it subjectively.
No, i didn't. I said that they weren't legitimate government because there were more then one trying to take control of an established state that had it's central government dismantled. if one of those warlords took control of the established state and formed a government body it would be a legitimate government. Again, learn how to read.
@zetsway5000 What is an established state? You do realize that territoriality borders change all the time, right? States are not objective entities as you seem to think, they ebb and flow into each other. A state can split and become two separate, internationally recognized countries. Do they both lose the status of government because neither centralized around the original established state?
Just because they used those systems of law does not mean they were efficient. You can't compare enforcement of laws from hundreds of years ago to now because the game of governance has changed beyond recognition.
Are you actually comparing examples of self enforced laws which are hundreds of years old and before the technological revolution to modern national laws? You think the laws you mentioned weren't extremely flawed and poorly enforced?
@zetsway5000 Of coarse, because we all know that fraud never happens under strong government control and that the government itself isn't the biggest perpetrator of fraud. (sarcasm)
I live just outside of Boston. (i know libertarian in MA...weird right?) and the entire area is a parking battle with me. i'll take the bus to the trains then around the city to avoid worrying about and/or paying for parking (sometimes it pre planned, alcohol related) it not a question of finding places (prudential center garage= arm and leg) its the cost and the and ignorance ordnance which gets getting tickets and towed.
Mark 1:06 Cost of Free Parking!?! This guy is a Joke!
Parking just like the economy is market driven. If someone is inconvenienced enough that person will just take their money and go somewhere where their spending dollars are more welcomed.
I hate a lot of the horrible ideas that usually comes out of California.
Curbside parking is fine when there is only a few people who are not going to stay long. I'd rather there be a fixed price 24hr parking garage with free shuttle or free light rail stops near by.
Lmfao this guy wants me to pay 10 dollars every time i park and then pay a 200+ dollar fine if I'm one minute late coming back to my car? Government should be limited but it has it's roles, and one of those roles is infrastructure.
No, if we give govt yet another revenue stream then they will only spend it on what they want. Look at social security, it was meant to be a trust fund and now it's raided every year as a routine, here in FL every single trust fund set up over the past 50+ years was raided to balance the budget last year and they still doubled tag fees, tripled beer taxes and cigarette taxes among others.
No, we have to cut govt off that is the only way we will stop runaway spending, no more taxes less taxes.
As a libertarian, I think people should pay to the government exactly what they use in government services, no more, no less. Therefore, paying for parking is perfectly okay with me, as long as the revenue generated goes towards paying the upkeep costs associated with parking, and not into some general fund for a politician to funnel to his rich business buddies.
Portland, OR has a different idea on how to reduce the number of miles driven whilst looking for a parking spot. Instead of pricing it so that supply and demand will be equal, they set it such that there won't be even remotely close to enough room. Like, make everyone drive around for 20 minutes, not enough. This makes everyone so disgusted, that downtown is now ruled by bicycles, buses, and the light rail. Of course this makes downtown a miserable place to be, but that's their plan I guess.
It's called socialism for the rich. This way the rich folks have the power to discriminate, all under good intentions and using the force of law to make all of our lives better.
In other words, the rich get to park their cars and the poor folk must take the bus.
@Shadizar666 Because it's a separate cost from the things you already pay for. You could arbitrarily stop that sentence anywhere and it would make just as much sense:
"I pay for my license, I pay for my insurance, I pay for my car, I pay for my repairs. Why the hell should I have to pay to put gas in the damn thing???"
@Shadizar666 Because otherwise you are forcing 'me' to pay for 'your' parking, at the point of a gun. It's your car, you pay for the bloody thing. If I don't own a car, why the bloody hell should 'I' be paying for 'your' parking space? Not to mention that the lack of direct cost creates all sorts of skewed behavior that would not exist if the actual cost was borne by the people using the service.
considering that I can easily spend more than $500 in gas per month, your whining about my parking cost falls on deaf ears
people pay taxes to pay for this shit, if I have to pay directly for what taxes should take care of, then perhaps we can do this in ALL aspects and remove taxes all together
I would gladly pay directly for my kids education, and contribute to the military, and hospital fees, if it means that >I< can control where my money goes
@Shadizar666 "if I have to pay directly for what taxes should take care of, then perhaps we can do this in ALL aspects and remove taxes all together"
Prices for parking would have to change during special events. Will there be some kind of software that will adjust the prices during the day, in order to make sure there is always few parking spaces open on every block? Seems like a cool idea.
I get anxious when using parking meters that will only accept 2 hours worth of money at once and worry about my time expiring. Then it's also inconvenient having to run back to your car if you're over the 2 hour mark to top it up.
Hah! Look at all the so-called libertarians in the comments who want to keep nanny-state parking entitlements and ignore the benefits of market-valued pricing just to protect their "free" parking!
@sharrynuk Well it's a PUBLIC ROAD! I understand the benefits but it sacrifices freedom... there benefits to everyone having healthcare but should we force it on people are have it be free by the government? We should have more private parking businesses not more government taxing us for simply using public streets. I disagree with this..
Being a libertarian doesn't mean you're against every aspect of government you flaming idiot. Infrastructure such as roads and bridges should be one of the roles of government just like the military and police.
@zetsway5000 A Libertarian covers a spectrum, including Anarchists. Read Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto you "flaming idiot". You can download the audio book mises(dot)org/rothbard/newlibertywhole(dot)asp And try not to be an jerk next time.
You were trying to suggest that people that want government on some level weren't real libertarians. So no you flaming retard, you need to stop putting words in my mouth, reread your own retarded fucking comments.
@zetsway5000 I wasn't the OP. What gives you the right to make me pay for your roads and parking? How is that more legitimate than forcing me to pay for your food/rent/healthcare? If you are willfully ignorant, than that's fine, but know that you come off as such when you call people retarded. The only reason I responded to you was because you were being an unbelievable jerk.
No one is making you pay for anything. You choose to pay the fees/taxes when you choose to participate in a society. Whether or not you think it’s beneficial to you or not is a completely different subject. There is a huge difference between government defense and infrastructure spending and outright European style socialism which the comment section is too small to explain. To ask what the difference is shows that you’re a political illiterate.
@zetsway5000 Don't regurgitate the same old rhetoric that you learned in public school. If I don't pay my property tax men with guns will force me out of my home, and if I try to defend my property I can be killed. That sounds like force to me. If you haven't read Rothbard than you're the political illiterate one. Just admit that you're a Republican.
I just said you choose to pay the taxes by participating in society. You need to stop regurgitating talking points that you don't understand like you flaming imbecile you've already proven to be. If you don't want to pay taxes move to Somalia. Again, stop talking politics you political illiterate.
You are truly a moron. Somalia has anarchy. They don't have a centralized government which has control over the state. To say that there aren't forms of control in a society with anarchy is to be a moron.
I've been hearing for years what a genius this guy is. He seems, however, everytime I read something he's written or listen to him, to be nothing more than a California kook with entirely the wrong ideas and next to zero understanding of anywhere except highly crowded areas like Los Angeles. He seems to place very little value on individual rights. "Almost everybody will drive everywhere they go and park for free when they get there"...he actually said this as though it was a bad thing.
rfwbuck 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck you stupid old man,
StiansNorskeNyheter 3 months ago
I go to Michigan State University and there is a huge shortage of parking even if you pay. I don't want to pay $25 a day to park when I can't walk to class. Sorry but in this country I'm allowed to be lazy and uppity and if I wanna drive and park for free I should be able to so suck SHOUP.
albasaurasrex 1 year ago
@kristopheraugust Sure.
032125 1 year ago
@kristopheraugust I do, and I am an anarchist (Rothbardian, not the wild eyed bomb throwing socialist type).
Read Lysander Spooner.
032125 1 year ago
How much is the cost of the meter? How long until this space makes its money back to cover the cost of the meter? What is the maintenance cost of the meter? Maybe I'm a socialist in regard to this, but I like free parking. I like not having to get out of my car and immediately make a transaction while also worrying about if I'll get back to my car before the meter runs out. I could put more money in the meter to prevent this...but then I'd be putting more money in the meter!
liOVERLOADil 1 year ago
People wouldn't be mindlessly driving and parking so much if it wasn't for those stupid zoning laws. Do a study on how much money, energy, time and lives THAT wastes.
RodCornholio 1 year ago
Whaaa? Paying more for parking is the solution? How many times have we all heard "Nah, I don't want to go downtown, parking is terrible."?! Higher meter prices would encourage all people to just avoid visiting urban areas and worse, would only make things harder for cash-strapped drivers (read: college students and working and lower class individuals). I like the solution above: let the closest business rent the lot from the local government each year. They can manage parking, local gov profits.
Nonoyawns 1 year ago
Very repetitive Elliott Smith melody. Please rectify this.
xmnemonic 1 year ago 2
This is so strange, Reason TV being reasonable for a change!
Intransitman 1 year ago
@nly8nchz But it gvmt does have to tax someone in order to provide free public parking. Free parking isn't free - someone is already paying for it. Your insistence that it not be the person who uses it is puzzling and very anti-libertarian.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
@wetwingnut You could also argue that gov't doesn't tax to provide free parking. It taxes to build and maintain roads and it's just a convenience that you can park on the side of them as well. There is no extra cost when people park on them
I'd say parking fees are more fair than taxing the residents but it's a too great temptation for governments to start using the revenues for other purposes than road maintenance and parking facilities
For proof: see Europe
asalade 1 year ago
@asalade When gvmts use this as a way to "enhance" their revenues I'm with you. I'm just saying that I like the guy's idea that in places where demand is high - like Chicago - parking rates should reflect "the value" i.e. demand - and revenues should offset other revenue sources. It is more fair.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
@wetwingnut Another thing is that with city parking fees the government can enhance it's own profits by planning the city in such way that parking prices rise. I.e. building public facilities in already highly congested areas
asalade 1 year ago
@asalade You're right, much better to build public facilities far away from congestion, i.e. where the public is.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
@nly8nchz I'm not talking about giving gvmt more money - just where the money comes from. Fact - Building streets and maintaining them costs money. Fact - Right now people who don't own automobiles are paying to provide parking for people who do. Your insistence on free parking as an entitlement is no differnt than any other govmt entitlement. If you've got a way to privatize it I'm all ears - then you'll be paying market rates for your parking for sure.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
@nly8nchz "the government has to tax the citizens to pay for the latter"
What? Government *has* to tax us for food? Housing? Education? Healthcare?
If that's the case there is no difference with parking. Parking facilities are the same as healthcare or educational facilities
But no, government doesn't *have* to tax us for any of those. But it of course very much likes to do it anyway because that's what government does
asalade 1 year ago
how does free parking cost the city money? the streets are paid for by tax money i though. and what about all the tickets they write people. more meters = more tickets = more of your money going to a place you have NO CONTROL OVER
sanewave 1 year ago
i think this guys full of shit :D
sanewave 1 year ago
@nly8nchz Do you think of oil leases as taxes on the oil companies? I don't. To me it is government using the free market to maximize the income from public assets. What would you say if instead of bidding oil leases out they just gave them to the person who showed up first? I would call it a waste of public resources. By insisting that you are entitled to free public parking you are no different than someone who insists on free food, housing, education, or healthcare.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
@nly8nchz I'm sure that in practice that is how governments would attempt to implement these reforms. But the principles of letting the free market determine the value of the resource and making the person who uses the resource pay for it is still sound. This about how we pay for government, not how much we pay. Shrinking and limiting government is a separate battle.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
The negative reaction to this video is fascinating. A basic moral principle is that resources should go where they are valued most and in capitalism that means to the person who will pay the most for them. In many areas of Chicago where curb parking is free, or even where it is inexpensively metered it is impossible to find an available space in any reasonable distance or time. This means, a priori, that the resource is priced below its value, and "reason would call for pricing it higher."
wetwingnut 1 year ago
@nly8nchz That is exactly his point! Money is already being taken from citizens to provide parking - he is just advocating taking it from the citizens that use it rather than from those who don't.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
I clap for this guy - he pays for our parking spaces... since he doesn't use a car ;-)
grraadd 1 year ago
Friedman's No Free Lunch really should have been No Free Parking
richardcadbury 1 year ago
Btw I flagged this video, obviously some collectivist has hacked Reason's YouTube account and posted this. Someone should tell them.
TreachMarkets 1 year ago
@TreachMarkets Collectivism is about getting everyone to pay for the needs of everyone regardless of who reaps the benefit. As this video points out, this pretty well describes the state of parking in the US right now. Making someone pay the fair market value of the resource that they use represents a move away from collectivism and to capitalism.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
@wetwingnut Capitalism, I missed that. If he was for privatizing the road, or even privatizing maintenance and servicing of the road, then I stand corrected.
TreachMarkets 1 year ago
@TreachMarkets It doesn't have to be private to follow a free market. Lots of public resources are leased to the high bidder for use, but still publically owned. I don't know how you privatize something like a city street that has public utilities under it, over it, public safety ramifications, and provides citizens free right of way. If we're going to let individuals stash their vehicles along the public thoroghfare I'd rather see the marketplace determine who does so.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
@wetwingnut A free market doesn't mean taking money from people by force to pay other people to maintain and service something. For example, buying oranges at the market is free market. If the market grocer showed up at your door, demanded $2 at gunpoint, and then handed you a bag of oranges, that would not be free market.
Read Murray Rothbard for details on how something like private roads could work.
TreachMarkets 1 year ago
@TreachMarkets I'm sorry, you lost me. I have never had anyone force me to park my car somwhere and pay them for it.. But if I choose to park it anywhere but on my own property I understand that I may have to pay for that priviledge. Before I bought my car I considered the ancillary costs such as maintenance and insurance and parking to make sure a could afford them. Do expect the government to provide you with free auto maintenance? Insurance? You have misused the concept of force.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
@wetwingnut If we're going to have this toll system, we should privatize the whole thing, read Rothbard. Govt's purpose is to spread the cost, yes by force, of things that most people think can't be paid for and maintained by the private sector. So anything that people will pay for voluntarily as they use it should be privatized.
TreachMarkets 1 year ago
@TreachMarkets I'm open to ideas like this. Since you mentioned him, I Iooked up Rothbard. At first glance on Wiki he seems a bit out there - but that's what everyone says about Ayn Rand. Thanks for the reference.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
Great, let's create a Bureau of Parking and make this guy a Parking Czar, maybe a 5 Year Parking Plan, this is awesome!
Wait, this is a Reason video?
TreachMarkets 1 year ago
I don't care what this guy is saying, i could listen to him speak for days! He has one of the most interesting voices i've ever heard. It's some where between a sick cat and a drunken sailor.
He should be a voice actor.
ablemike 1 year ago
Figuring out what do with the 95% of sitting cars would be the most significant change.
mathers3000 1 year ago
Come on Reason, a central planner, really? How about the solution be privatizing the roads and getting rid of zoning laws instead? I had to give this one a thumbs down.
Spideynw 1 year ago
@Spideynw Do you really want to privatize all the roads? I'm all for privatizing as much as possible, but I can't see how this would work. How many tolls would one have to pay to drive across town? Would I run the risk of being stuck on my own land if my neighbors refused to grant me right of way? And how would utilities get distributed? I need to see how this would work.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
@wetwingnut Do you think any service should be provided at the threat of violence?
Spideynw 1 year ago
@Spideynw Of course not.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
@wetwingnut Excellent! Do you agree that government provides services at the threat of violence? If so, then you would have to agree that they should not be in charge of providing parking or roads or anything else. I myself am not really worried about how people would agree to voluntarily provide those services or goods. I believe there is a demand, and as such, entrepreneurs would figure out how to make it work.
Spideynw 1 year ago
@Spideynw Parking a car is a voluntary activity. I agree with entirely when it comes to gvmt, say, requiring you to buy health insurance. We all have the gvmt gun at our heads there. I've already said I'm in favor of privitazing as much as possible. The fact is that free parking is provided now at the muzzle of the gvmt gun - pointed at people who don't use or want it. I say let the guy behind the wheel take the bullet.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
@palookabutt Why would sitting on your ass cost money and working out be free
World upside down!
asalade 1 year ago
Comment removed
ZombiedustXXX 1 year ago
4:40 parallel parking fail
anryth 1 year ago
This bloke prolly received a 1 million dollar grant by da gubbermint to figur out how to jam his roll of dimes into a coin slot, wiffout touching da sides.
jag10 1 year ago
Did he do a study to see how much business was lost due to these meter increases?
liquidflorian 1 year ago 3
@liquidflorian Case evaluations have generally found that parking turnover increases; increasing customer access to businesses. Furthermore, the additional revenue is spent locally: helping to bring more amenities & facilities to customers & visitors to those same businesses.
thisisbossi 11 months ago
@thisisbossi That high turn over may or may not be beneficial. Just because their are more cars moving through an area doesn't mean that more money is being spent. Correlation does not equal causality. All increased meter rates are is a back door tax on commerce, I would rather they not look for ways to take money from their citizens to waste of pet projects.
liquidflorian 11 months ago
Try your study in a city like SF... Parking dynamics aren't the same as your local petri dish...
liquidflorian 1 year ago
sorry I don't like this video... i figured the reason way would be to let each building owner own the curb parking in front of their shops and let them rent em out.
forgottenman7 1 year ago 5
So Shoup is for gov't central planning. Isn't this the opposite of the libertarian views for which Reason is known?
The free market dictated that free or cheap parking wins out. The point of meters was to encourage short-stays, but the act of making it easier to pay for long stays with a credit card ruined this idea.
Wouldn't the libertarian idea be for the parking to be owned by the building and business owners and they charge what they want, funneling the revenue into their rent & taxes?
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
I don't know...A professor at UCLA saying paid parking will work? Speaking as someone who had to park at UCLA for 4 years...I can tell you paid parking at UCLA is awful and despite price increases, still remains bad. Parking at UCLA's parking structures is $9 or $10 now. Metered parking at UCLA only takes Quarters and it only gives you 5 minutes!
Thorbie 1 year ago
This seems too easy to demagogue. I remember when parking was free!!!!
qadison 1 year ago
let's tax people even more. Let's make sure our children don't live as good as we are until no one can afford a place to live. Yes, let's put taxes on everything until our salary can't provide us with food and selter. Im sure the bilderburg and cfr will be happy, us doing the job for them
Veikra 1 year ago 2
@Veikra exactly. who can afford all these new taxes?
throwntomato 1 year ago
The cost of parking is paid for by businesses in the form of rents paid to the landowner which is relaid to the consumer when they purchase products with those businesses.
residentzombie 1 year ago
Schoup is off. Surprising that Reason would have this guy.
His book, "Free Parking", can be analyzed & refuted his points, to show how wrong he is.
Part of the allure is that he talks about free market principles & many truths, but he has many flaws, including bad data.
Consider this: Over 85% of adults have cars. Who pays for these "uncharged" costs for 85% of people? Those 85%, mostly, perhaps they pay 92% of the costs. Those 15% have much lower incomes & don't pay for much.
Scottit 1 year ago
This guy is a liar. The services he talked about in Old Pasadena came from the Old Pasadena Management District. The OPMD gets its money from PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS, not parking income. You can read it in their annual reports.
Timasion 1 year ago 2
This guy makes some excellent points, but the idea of any central body distributing money is always problematic.
.
A better system would be if people had a choice as to where their parking money goes to.
.
Hence, they'd be able to fund the organization they felt did the best job in improving their streets. In the era of digital parking meters, this sort of payment system would be easy to implement and would be met with less resistance by drivers.
schulwitz 1 year ago 2
This guy is full of shoup.
ClockworkHobo 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
If you are a governor's wife, maybe you can just park by fire hydrants for free in your Escalade.
oilhammer04 1 year ago
Comment removed
oilhammer04 1 year ago
Shop on line and you don't have to pay for parking. Traffic cameras also are encouragement for me to skip going to Chattanooga, etc., to shop. High sales taxes also . . .
oilhammer04 1 year ago
Hey Don, how about you advocate privatizing roads? Statist bastard.
032125 1 year ago
How Donald Shoup Will Find You a Parking Spot--whether or not you can afford it, that's another story.
vinoberg 1 year ago
@vinoberg Probably in theory: tax the rich, subsidize the poor
Which in reality always translates to: tax the poor, subsidize the rich
asalade 1 year ago 2
I own a parking company with over 20 locations. Professor Shoup speaks the truth. Further distorting the situation is the insane requirements and regulations and taxes and bureaucratic hoops parking companies have to jump through which ends up making it very unprofitable to operate without charging significantly over the price of curbside parking.
juddweiss 1 year ago
this guy's ideas only work in highly congested areas where you probably don't need a car anyway.
for those of us who live elsewhere, i definitely don't ever want to see them implemented. fortunately, they won't be.
suitandtieguy 1 year ago
when i first moved to los angeles 4 years ago, i hated the idea of paying for parking. then, i majored in economics, and now i have finally given into the beauty of paying for parking that is available right next to where you want to go (although still not sure how i feel about valet). considering tens to thousands of other people may want to be where i am going (mostly in cars, of course), competition for free parking in LA is fierce to say the least. when paying, however, no problem.
redrajani 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All he is saying is that we need more people to purchase empty lots and build parking garages. No police needed. You pay to park and it is safe and guarded on private property. When census is high, price go up, when census is low, prices go down. Natural and Govt. free.
SharronLiberty 1 year ago
Comment removed
SharronLiberty 1 year ago
All Donald Shoup can do is point me towards the privately owned parking garage. No Govt. needed, not Donald Shoup needed, no Govt. funds to UCLA needed.
SharronLiberty 1 year ago
What?! You mean libertarians actually stick to economic principles in all aspects of our lives? So maybe they don't hate poor people when they argue against Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security! What a concept!
Megabyxos 1 year ago
Bikes are so cute except in the rain, in the cold, when you have to carry passengers. Be sure to charge for bike parking too. They are smaller but they still take up land and add in the extras such as illness for exposure to weather, extra traffic congestion because bikers drive slower than cars and keep cars on roads longer. Charge for all vehicles, motorized or not. Bike owners need to pay license fees for use of the public roads too. No more free rides, extra beaurocracy! Wheee!
cloudberry121 1 year ago
@cloudberry121
maybe we should charge you for crossing the street ... all that time you make us wait to make a turn waiting for you to saunter over to the other side of the street.
:D
Robert697 1 year ago
@Robert697
Well I was hoping to be carried. :-)
Helsinki is varied on how people get around. I use the metro, city trams and walking. Many use bikes in the summertime. Young Finnish men try surfing behind their old cars when in the countryside and one turned a junky car into a moving sauna. True!
cloudberry121 1 year ago
featured vid: Shoop Shoop song by Cher.
kingcherub 1 year ago
Arguing with three idiots at once is time consuming and counterproductive.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
This discussion has done nothing but lead me to even more strongly hate how Straw Man fallacies entered common use. It is so rarely used correctly.
MakarisX 1 year ago
@MakarisX
Just for the record, I've mostly just been trolling him. How mad he's gotten over simple questions is hilarious to me on so many levels.
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
@Silvsilvchan I'm the one that feels trolled :(
MakarisX 1 year ago
@MakarisX
I think he was trolling himself. I just instigated a brilliant counter troll that left me hearing the lamentations of his women and his cities in ruin! ... or he got bored and went to bed. I prefer the former.
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
@Silvsilvchan
You both sound like children when you talk about 'trolling". I got tired of of the straw man arguments and uneducated comments. it felt like arguing politics with middle schoolers which you probably are so i just stopped responding.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@zetsway5000
You were an alright fuck, but I could have done with out the screaming every time I twisted your nipples and the part where you broke down and sobbed.
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
@Silvsilvchan
Lol, you just proved that you're a child and a fool with that comment. enjoy your stupidity.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@Silvsilvchan
You haven't gotten me mad. Your simple questions were questions about positions i didn't have. In the end you're still a retard.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
Comment removed
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
I dunno. I think when you start calling people a retard and constantly cut them down it is a good sign you're mad.
And getting under your skin is amusing to no end to me.
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
@MakarisX
A straw man argument is when you say someone has a position that they don't and then attack it. You don't know the correct use because you're a moron that doesn't know what he or she is talking about.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@zetsway5000 You are wrong, because no one is attacking an imaginary position. You have made a claim that governments only 'count' when within X framework. We have been trying, through questioning, to deduce what that framework is. You answered once that it was when a government has sole (centralized) control over an 'established state', but I shouldn't have to tell you how that answer is not satisfactory. Immediately after that you began calling strawman when your argument was dismantled.
MakarisX 1 year ago
@MakarisX
no it's you who is wrong. You have made a claim that any group with power can be classified as a country's government if a centralized government does not exist which is not true. The vast majority of your posts have been straw man arguments which anyone with half a brain can go see for themselves. Also, that not what i said. I said anarchy is when a centralized government is dismantled which then results in another form of anarchy with feuding decentralized powers.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@zetsway5000 How exactly is my point not true, though? At it's most basic state, are not all governments just men through use of force telling other people what to do? A chieftain of a tribe with handful of warriors under him would be the leader of a tribal government. It might only consist of a few dozen individuals and their territory may not be any more defined than "that patch of land by the river", but it does not mean they are do not have a government.
MakarisX 1 year ago
@MakarisX A primitive government is a government regardless. At some vague point you have switched your arguments from referring to all governments to speaking only about 'centralized' governments... but how are they different, in exact terms?
MakarisX 1 year ago
And before you bring it up, saying that centralized governments are different by controlling an 'established state'... well, that is merely begging the question "what exactly makes a state more 'established' than another.
MakarisX 1 year ago
@MakarisX
We were always talking about centralized state governments of established nations. You can find what you would call "government" on even the smallest of scales. We aren't talking government in that context.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@MakarisX
Because if a group with power doesn't have control over the entire state and is not recognized by the majority of people(through democratic institutions or by force) as the government they are not the government of said state. Tribalism isn't a government in the sense that we are talking about. We are talking about governments of established states not small lawless territories.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
I love Reason TV BUT...
Holy shit was that boring and a supposition of epic proportions!
papeluso 1 year ago
Donald Shoup comes off as a harmless thinker, but he really is a social sadist, whose existence is justified by the desire to micro-mismanage everyone.
ZombiedustXXX 1 year ago
This is quite interesting. I live in Sydney, AU where parking is near impossible in the city. The Mayor is very anti-car and the city will not approve proposed buildings with "too much" parking planned. I don't know, but I suspect that the revenue from meters does not go to street related serviced (because Sydney streets are not very good) Im a big fan of money coming from the user, going directly where the "use" took place, rather than general tax money or fund diversion.
kev3d 1 year ago
@TheQuestioner132
It hasn't functioned well is the point. you can point to as many examples as you want but you won't find a single one that shows private law in addition with anarchy functioning well. When it comes to fraud in anarchy the man with the bigger gun is always right even if he did just rip you off.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@zetsway5000
So a government can't use the fact that they have the bigger gun to enforce how right they are?
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
@Silvsilvchan
Again, stop using a straw man argument. I never said that.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zetsway5000 Man, do you suffer from short term memory loss? We aren't using strawman arguments. You did say exactly what Silvsilvchan is calling your out on.
"When he establishes a central government with full control of the state."
You didn't explicitly express that 'state' referred to control over a certain amount of territory but... you really haven't defined exactly what you mean. What else is there to conclude?
MakarisX 1 year ago
@zetsway5000
That is what I am getting out of you. Try defining when a government is a legitimate government.
You did say that you didn't think the medieval European kingdoms were governments because they weren't centralized. By that same reasoning when the United States split in half it failed to be centralized and there for ceased to be a government.
You are also using Strawmans as well. You should know they aren't defining anarchy the same way you are and are using it subjectively.
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
@Silvsilvchan
I said they weren't central governments. I didn't say they weren't governments. learn how to read.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@zetsway5000
But earlier you said that tribal governments and those headed by warlords were not legitimate governments because they weren't centralized.
I can only assume not being centralized means not being a government in you view.
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
@Silvsilvchan
No, i didn't. I said that they weren't legitimate government because there were more then one trying to take control of an established state that had it's central government dismantled. if one of those warlords took control of the established state and formed a government body it would be a legitimate government. Again, learn how to read.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@zetsway5000
So when two members of a royal family go to war and contest the crown it is an anarchy?
Again, how does this apply to a pair of republics as was the case in the civil war?
What if the warlords make peace and remain fractional instead of one claiming everything? What if they go back to war later?
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
@zetsway5000 What is an established state? You do realize that territoriality borders change all the time, right? States are not objective entities as you seem to think, they ebb and flow into each other. A state can split and become two separate, internationally recognized countries. Do they both lose the status of government because neither centralized around the original established state?
MakarisX 1 year ago
Jawgape!
The cost of free parking is somewhere between Medicare and National Defense!
This was 'very' enlightening. Thank you.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@TheQuestioner132
Just because they used those systems of law does not mean they were efficient. You can't compare enforcement of laws from hundreds of years ago to now because the game of governance has changed beyond recognition.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
Just like words can never evolve, change or gain additional meanings.
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
This guy is a huge booger. Ok ok, maybe he's not, but I really felt like typing 'booger'. It's a funny word!
Don't eat them though.
blogegog 1 year ago
This guy is a Commie
Trapster99 1 year ago
@TheQuestioner132
Are you actually comparing examples of self enforced laws which are hundreds of years old and before the technological revolution to modern national laws? You think the laws you mentioned weren't extremely flawed and poorly enforced?
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@zetsway5000 Of coarse, because we all know that fraud never happens under strong government control and that the government itself isn't the biggest perpetrator of fraud. (sarcasm)
shelly8510 1 year ago
@shelly8510
Stop using straw man arguments because I've already proven that you're an idiot. Anti-fraud laws help discourage fraud by providing consequence.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@zetsway5000
How have you proven he is an idiot?
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
@Silvsilvchan
The same way I've proven that you're an idiot. Your retarded comments that showcase your lack of education on the subject.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@TheQuestioner132
The same reason why we need anti-fraud laws.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
I live just outside of Boston. (i know libertarian in MA...weird right?) and the entire area is a parking battle with me. i'll take the bus to the trains then around the city to avoid worrying about and/or paying for parking (sometimes it pre planned, alcohol related) it not a question of finding places (prudential center garage= arm and leg) its the cost and the and ignorance ordnance which gets getting tickets and towed.
scalp340 1 year ago
This guy is an idiot. Remember the pavillion in San Jose, Ca? They charged for parking and nobody came. It went bust.
truthsabre7 1 year ago
What a nice old man. He's got good ideas!
asphyxiafeeling 1 year ago
ReasonTV is amazing!
yojimbo81 1 year ago
Mark 1:06 Cost of Free Parking!?! This guy is a Joke!
Parking just like the economy is market driven. If someone is inconvenienced enough that person will just take their money and go somewhere where their spending dollars are more welcomed.
I hate a lot of the horrible ideas that usually comes out of California.
Joell5678 1 year ago 3
Move to a SMALLER TOWN! End of STORY. Who wants to live in a shit hole full of bastards and bitches?
BabylonsKing 1 year ago
I love this dudes voice!
Graffight 1 year ago 2
Curbside parking is fine when there is only a few people who are not going to stay long. I'd rather there be a fixed price 24hr parking garage with free shuttle or free light rail stops near by.
fegolem 1 year ago
That's a great idea but, here in Cleveland, Ohio the city/county governments would not want to give it back like that (unfortunately).
djben1977 1 year ago
oh yeahh i concieved some babys in a parked car thats not uncomfotable at all
rrush2214 1 year ago
Lmfao this guy wants me to pay 10 dollars every time i park and then pay a 200+ dollar fine if I'm one minute late coming back to my car? Government should be limited but it has it's roles, and one of those roles is infrastructure.
zetsway5000 1 year ago 2
Wow. What an Exciting . . . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
averagejoe040 1 year ago
government parking is innefficiant? im shocked!... sigh why don't we just privatise the bloody roads and get good public services?
evilsceptic 1 year ago
The way he says parking is incredible
taylort123 1 year ago 2
No, if we give govt yet another revenue stream then they will only spend it on what they want. Look at social security, it was meant to be a trust fund and now it's raided every year as a routine, here in FL every single trust fund set up over the past 50+ years was raided to balance the budget last year and they still doubled tag fees, tripled beer taxes and cigarette taxes among others.
No, we have to cut govt off that is the only way we will stop runaway spending, no more taxes less taxes.
getnick77 1 year ago
As a libertarian, I think people should pay to the government exactly what they use in government services, no more, no less. Therefore, paying for parking is perfectly okay with me, as long as the revenue generated goes towards paying the upkeep costs associated with parking, and not into some general fund for a politician to funnel to his rich business buddies.
SaroDarksbane 1 year ago
Portland, OR has a different idea on how to reduce the number of miles driven whilst looking for a parking spot. Instead of pricing it so that supply and demand will be equal, they set it such that there won't be even remotely close to enough room. Like, make everyone drive around for 20 minutes, not enough. This makes everyone so disgusted, that downtown is now ruled by bicycles, buses, and the light rail. Of course this makes downtown a miserable place to be, but that's their plan I guess.
JETZcorp 1 year ago
I pay for my license, I pay for my insurance, I pay for my car, I pay for my gas, I pay for my repairs.
why the hell should I pay to park the damned thing???
Shadizar666 1 year ago
@Shadizar666
It's called socialism for the rich. This way the rich folks have the power to discriminate, all under good intentions and using the force of law to make all of our lives better.
In other words, the rich get to park their cars and the poor folk must take the bus.
Peace
truefictions 1 year ago
@Shadizar666 Because it's a separate cost from the things you already pay for. You could arbitrarily stop that sentence anywhere and it would make just as much sense:
"I pay for my license, I pay for my insurance, I pay for my car, I pay for my repairs. Why the hell should I have to pay to put gas in the damn thing???"
SaroDarksbane 1 year ago
@Shadizar666 Because otherwise you are forcing 'me' to pay for 'your' parking, at the point of a gun. It's your car, you pay for the bloody thing. If I don't own a car, why the bloody hell should 'I' be paying for 'your' parking space? Not to mention that the lack of direct cost creates all sorts of skewed behavior that would not exist if the actual cost was borne by the people using the service.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper
considering that I can easily spend more than $500 in gas per month, your whining about my parking cost falls on deaf ears
people pay taxes to pay for this shit, if I have to pay directly for what taxes should take care of, then perhaps we can do this in ALL aspects and remove taxes all together
I would gladly pay directly for my kids education, and contribute to the military, and hospital fees, if it means that >I< can control where my money goes
Shadizar666 1 year ago
@Shadizar666 "...people pay taxes to pay for this shit, if I have to pay directly for what taxes should take care of..."
'Please' don't tell me that you think of yourself as a Libertarian.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper
what has that got to do with anything?
quite frankly, I think the monetary system should be abolished outright, is that libertarian? I doubt it, they like to spend money
Shadizar666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shadizar666 "if I have to pay directly for what taxes should take care of, then perhaps we can do this in ALL aspects and remove taxes all together"
Yes please!
SaroDarksbane 1 year ago
These videos are always so interesting
lonercarrot 1 year ago
I almost killed myself listening ta' this man speak. DID HE PAY TO PARK DURING THIS INTERVIEW ?
:)
mosquewatcher 1 year ago
Prices for parking would have to change during special events. Will there be some kind of software that will adjust the prices during the day, in order to make sure there is always few parking spaces open on every block? Seems like a cool idea.
saper321 1 year ago
"Public" roads are government roads which are COMMUNIST roads! They need to be PRIVATIZED!
PureLiberalFire 1 year ago
@PureLiberalFire Agreed.
Why should we have government roads and not government shoes or cars?
MortuusTyrannus 1 year ago
@MortuusTyrannus -- Indeed. Roads serve only two purposes: parking and driving. Gov't or commie roads are HELL in both regards!
PureLiberalFire 1 year ago
Comment removed
PureLiberalFire 1 year ago
I get anxious when using parking meters that will only accept 2 hours worth of money at once and worry about my time expiring. Then it's also inconvenient having to run back to your car if you're over the 2 hour mark to top it up.
Yarcofin 1 year ago
I don't see how it is a problem and why it should be applied to public roads ?
You can do it to private roads all you want
mwangolatrue 1 year ago
Hah! Look at all the so-called libertarians in the comments who want to keep nanny-state parking entitlements and ignore the benefits of market-valued pricing just to protect their "free" parking!
sharrynuk 1 year ago
@sharrynuk Well it's a PUBLIC ROAD! I understand the benefits but it sacrifices freedom... there benefits to everyone having healthcare but should we force it on people are have it be free by the government? We should have more private parking businesses not more government taxing us for simply using public streets. I disagree with this..
safewaysecurity 1 year ago
@sharrynuk
Being a libertarian doesn't mean you're against every aspect of government you flaming idiot. Infrastructure such as roads and bridges should be one of the roles of government just like the military and police.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@zetsway5000 A Libertarian covers a spectrum, including Anarchists. Read Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto you "flaming idiot". You can download the audio book mises(dot)org/rothbard/newlibertywhole(dot)asp And try not to be an jerk next time.
shelly8510 1 year ago
@shelly8510
You were trying to suggest that people that want government on some level weren't real libertarians. So no you flaming retard, you need to stop putting words in my mouth, reread your own retarded fucking comments.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@zetsway5000 I wasn't the OP. What gives you the right to make me pay for your roads and parking? How is that more legitimate than forcing me to pay for your food/rent/healthcare? If you are willfully ignorant, than that's fine, but know that you come off as such when you call people retarded. The only reason I responded to you was because you were being an unbelievable jerk.
shelly8510 1 year ago
@shelly8510
No one is making you pay for anything. You choose to pay the fees/taxes when you choose to participate in a society. Whether or not you think it’s beneficial to you or not is a completely different subject. There is a huge difference between government defense and infrastructure spending and outright European style socialism which the comment section is too small to explain. To ask what the difference is shows that you’re a political illiterate.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@zetsway5000 Don't regurgitate the same old rhetoric that you learned in public school. If I don't pay my property tax men with guns will force me out of my home, and if I try to defend my property I can be killed. That sounds like force to me. If you haven't read Rothbard than you're the political illiterate one. Just admit that you're a Republican.
shelly8510 1 year ago
@shelly8510
I just said you choose to pay the taxes by participating in society. You need to stop regurgitating talking points that you don't understand like you flaming imbecile you've already proven to be. If you don't want to pay taxes move to Somalia. Again, stop talking politics you political illiterate.
zetsway5000 1 year ago
@zetsway5000
Stop mentioning Somalia. They aren't an anarchy. The country is ran by warlords. They instigate their rules, ergo they are a governing force.
Which is the real reason anarchy doesn't work.
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
@Silvsilvchan
You are truly a moron. Somalia has anarchy. They don't have a centralized government which has control over the state. To say that there aren't forms of control in a society with anarchy is to be a moron.
zetsway5000 1 year ago