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.
@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.
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!
I like this idea. I am sick of people who wait for people to come out a a store so they can get a closer spot. Charge them twice as much for closer parking places. :D
I wish it wasn’t a death sentence in my city to do that. I’d consider it if the infrastructure was safer but I’m not going on streets with only a line of paint between me and a dude texting in his SUV.
@@spacetoast7783 my state legislature tried to preemptively block municipalities from doing “road diets” and bus lanes and have successfully banned light rail. Not gonna happen here
@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.
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
@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 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 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.
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?
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.
@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.
@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.
@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?
@zetsway5000 Violence is bad no matter if it is a tribal warlord or a central government. Just because you think there would be more violence without a central government doesn't mean that government violence became morally acceptable. I don't believe that would be the case anyway. Somalia had less violence after the fall of the central government, even with warlords fighting. The same way slavery was destined to fail, so is statist.
@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.
@zetsway5000 Straw Man!? Do you even know what that term means? I asked for a definition, you gave one, and I attacked your definition because it was garbage. Define exactly how a warlord organization (a power structure with monopoly on force) isn't a form of government. Is it because they (can) be short term affairs? Is it the lack of uniforms? A seat on the UN? I really don't think you have a point here. And that is no straw man.
@zetsway5000 Alright then. According to you during the Civil War the United States ceased to be a government. According to you there were no governments before the league of nations as there was not a single centralized government in the world. You are essentially defining rather or not something was a legitimate government based on its size, which is ignorant beyond belief.
@zetsway5000 So the kingdoms of medieval Europe were not governments? There was more than one and no centralized control of the continent. As to me not knowing what I am talking about and needing to research the applications of anarchy I have only one retort. Libertarian at one time was a term used to mean some one that advocated leftist economic practices and liberal used to mean what libertarian does today. Deal with it.
Demanding he admit to his alleged Republicanism is getting as old as listening to him prattle on about how I am a moron. Repetition doesn't make something true, just the speaker obnoxious. He's a minarchist, if I am gauging him correctly. Though judging from his profile he also could be a Zionist, but I don't have enough information to make that call. If he is the chance of his being a 'Republican' in the pejorative sense you mean it increases substantially. By the way, I'm a Republican.
@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.
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!
@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?
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.
@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???"
@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.
@zetsway5000 This is a poor come back. Clearly your words suggested you held the position you do. You say you are a libertarian. You must be for drug legalization. If some one asked you if you thought doing drugs wasn't unhealthy it is not an unreasonable assumption.
@zetsway5000 Funny thing is, I sort of agree with you in my belief that it boils down to human nature. That agreement doesn't change the fact that you 'debate' like a petulant child and I don't think your reached your conclusions based on well considered lines of thought, given your ranting heres.
@zetsway5000 Hahahahahaha! By "participating in society" I never gave anyone permission to steal my money. The same argument could be used against you in favor of socialism. Just admit that you are a Republican. You like government as long as it's doing what YOU want it to do.
@zetsway5000 So a monarchy doesn't count as a form of government if the king is called a warlord instead? Good to know! Oh wait, that's dumb. Any body that attempts to monopolize force can easily be considered a form of government without the term losing meaning.
@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.
@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?
@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.
@zetsway5000 One does not "incorporate" anarchy because it is merely the non-existence of government. Government of coarse is a group of people with a monopoly on force. If you want to persuade anyone you have to give REASONS for things, not just name call.
This guy has a good idea about an important issue. The business owners should be able to set the prices, though. Too high, and customers will find other places to park (and other stores to shop at). Too low, and the space is undervalued.
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 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.
@zetsway5000 Well, as long as you are advocating for those limited powers to be used against me than I will speak up and tell you why you are wrong. Violence is bad no matter who does it, government employee or not.
@zetsw5000 But when do states/governments 'count'? Are you suggesting that feudal england didn't count as a state/government because of it's land disputes with Scottish tribesmen? Your definition is garbage.
@zetsway5000 I could easily say the same thing of you. You never did answer half my questions. Which were just that, questions. Not attacks, not arguments, not counterpoints. Inquiries into the details.
@Silvsilvchan This whole things started because he was offended by the implication that he was not a libertarian. So that's why I'm calling him a Republican. My favorite politician is a Republican.
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!
@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)
@zetsway5000 Fair enough. But accusing some one of failing English then making a grammatical error yourself is something you should avoid. Or do more as I find it hilarious.
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 . . .
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.
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.
@@eriklakeland3857 The weather in Portland is such that using public transit or cycling involves getting very very wet most of the time. It's also excruciatingly slow; the transit coverage is thorough but it turns a 10 minute drive into a 40 minute quest. Another issue that wasn't present when I originally posted this, is the homeless population which today completely block the sidewalks of whole city blocks and leave unbelievable amounts of trash and heroin needles everywhere. In a car it's sad to look at; on foot it's downright unsafe to be around.
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.
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.
@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.
@zetsway5000 So give me a time frame here, help me understand your frame of thought. How long does it take for a tribal warlord to magically upgrade and become the head of a legitimate government? Specically, at what point do territorial lines become state borders? I suspect that your definition of government lacks consistency.
@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.
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.
@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.
You could do that, but you'd have to sell the rights to the businesses (or better yet, to any private individual or other business). Otherwise, the rights to that area (it being part of the street) still belong to the government. You can't just hand over the rights to the curb (and thus the parking spot) to the business.
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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
