Originally posted by EladarI don't see what the problem is with an intermediate option. The parks are not free but subsidised. Similar with plenty of other government-funded arts and leisure services. I pay thirty or forty pounds to go to the opera in London - a reasonable sum of money, but considerably less than the market rate (if I was willing to stand through the performance or take a seat right at the side, I could pay five or ten pounds; but it still wouldn't be free). British museums are free, but in most European countries you pay a token entrance fee - again, less than the market rate. And plenty of countries subsidise public transport without making it free.
Although $25 means nothing to most people at this site, for some people that would be something that would require budgeting for or doing without. It seems to me that if the parks are supposed to be for the people, then there should be an option that is totally free.
In general you are against state funding for these kind of things. But now you appear to be advocating spending more taxpayers' money on them. Why?
Originally posted by sh76In the Ukraine I visited a nature preserve which places strict limits on the numbers of visitors allowed in per day. So I was just one of twenty who went in on the afternoon tour. The problem with this, of course, was that we had to stay with the guide, so my friend and I were surrounded by the eighteen other people on the trip. And anyway, the system is only sustainable because this wasn't a very famous national park!
I assume he means the fact that they've become tourist traps.
Personally, I disagree. The national parks that I've been to have been pristine and beautiful, for the most part. Sure there may be a cheesy gift shop or two, but nobody's forcing anyone to spend time there.
There's no ideal solution to these things. People want to visit beautiful places, so they're not going to stay untouched. But as you say, there's usually enough space to find solitude if you look carefully.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWell, there's nothing the government can do about that. If I live in New York and I want to visit the Grand Canyon, I have to get there on my own dime. The government is not going to subsidize my flight so that I can enjoy the Grand Canyon.
Getting there and staying there. Renting a cabin, hotel room, camping space, camping equipment, etc.
Originally posted by TeinosukePartly what sh76 refers to, the tourist trap thing. Like Niagara Falls, everything is packaged. Fences, safety rails, paid tours, expensive parking, and guards everywhere. What you do, and how you do it is all prepackaged, like a Big Mac. I prefer the BK approach, Have it your way.
Could you clarify what you mean by this? I've never been to any of the American national parks. What makes them so far from "real parks"? I better they're closer to the real thing than many of the Japanese ones!
Take a less well known, and less busy National Forest, the Hiawatha in the MI upper. It is largely ignored, except for Fall and Winter, deer hunting and snowmobiling, what people want to do there. However, those uses face challenges, from environmentalist who don't want gas driven vehicles in the forest.
Of course certain attractions are going to be such draws as to require the controls such as at Niagara, and the Grand Canyon, but I much prefer the free and natural park of the Hiawatha.
I can only speculate as to Japanese national parks. Given the relative smallness geographically, setting land aside has got to be challenging in Japan.
Originally posted by sh76"Take away ground keeping and regulations and national parks would turn into dumps in no time."
National parks usually charge some sort of admission; certainly for vehicles. To preserve its effectiveness as a national park requires a lot of money and many man-hours of government operation. Take away ground keeping and regulations and national parks would turn into dumps in no time. If the government temporarily has no budget to care for a national park, t ...[text shortened]... its integrity for the day (probably within a few weeks) that it can be re-opened to the public.
That is the difference between public and private property. State game areas are OK, but tend to be dumping grounds to pigs who frequent them.
On the other hand, some of the big ranches out West have been converted into hunting areas by the owners. They charge substantial fees, have great accommodations, and take great care to keep the game herds healthy and well populated. The people who frequent these, marvel at the cleanliness and untouched nature. Of course access is limited by cost.
Originally posted by TeinosukeIf you have to make something free or heavily subsidize it, then it likely isn't that important to those in that market. People don't generally value what they get free. Public education is probably the best example.
I don't see what the problem is with an intermediate option. The parks are not free but subsidised. Similar with plenty of other government-funded arts and leisure services. I pay thirty or forty pounds to go to the opera in London - a reasonable sum of money, but considerably less than the market rate (if I was willing to stand through the performance or ...[text shortened]... kind of things. But now you appear to be advocating spending more taxpayers' money on them. Why?
What I cringe at is arbitrarily saying that one form of entertainment has value, and another is worthless. Lots of Brits would spend the grocery money for a ticket to an important football game (soccer). Americans, the same for the Superbowl. Yet museums are almost desolate, but free, except for the groups of school kids. Money is a measure of value, and when people will exchange their money for entertainment they are saying what they value.
Take another example, subsidize public transportation. In NYC a subway token is probably less than 20% of the cost of the ride, but it is commonplace that people jump the turnstiles to avoid even that payment.
Originally posted by normbenignI don't know where museums are free, but it's not where I live and travel in the U.S.
If you have to make something free or heavily subsidize it, then it likely isn't that important to those in that market. People don't generally value what they get free. Public education is probably the best example.
What I cringe at is arbitrarily saying that one form of entertainment has value, and another is worthless. Lots of Brits would spend ...[text shortened]... t of the ride, but it is commonplace that people jump the turnstiles to avoid even that payment.
Many of them have free days, and programs for school groups. These are heavily used, even though they are "free" where we should acknowledge that free actually means the cost of providing a good or service is paid for from sources of revenue other than its recipient.
Originally posted by JS357I've been in perhaps a dozen museums around the US none of them had an admission charge.
I don't know where museums are free, but it's not where I live and travel in the U.S.
Many of them have free days, and programs for school groups. These are heavily used, even though they are "free" where we should acknowledge that free actually means the cost of providing a good or service is paid for from sources of revenue other than its recipient.
Perhaps things have changed it's been over 20 years since I've been to one.
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignIf you have to make something free or heavily subsidize it, then it likely isn't that important to those in that market. People don't generally value what they get free. Public education is probably the best example.
On the contrary, the things that are made free or heavily subsidised are the things that are considered priceless, or essential. Educating or at least trying to educate our young is one of those things that any modern society must do if it is to function at all. Public education has its weaknesses (more, it seems, in the US than elsewhere in the developed world, which suggests that specific issues concerning US education policy are to blame rather than "public education" per se). But the comparison between private and public education is not the one you ought to be drawing. The relevant comparison is between the universal availability of public education and a situation where many people don't get educated at all.
What I cringe at is arbitrarily saying that one form of entertainment has value, and another is worthless.
These statements, where made, are not "arbitrary"; people ascribe (non-monetary) value to certain forms of "entertainment" for numerous reasons. The idea that great art is morally improving goes back to the ancient Greeks. Nevertheless, even beyond that, an argument can be advanced that certain art forms merit some public subsidy because they can't prosper on the free market - thus, public funding widens the total amount of choice of available leisure activities for consumers.
Yet museums are almost desolate, but free, except for the groups of school kids.
I was at the Metropolitan Museum in New York on a weekday and it was packed. Even the smaller and more remote rooms were full of visitors. The Museum of Modern Art was also astonishingly busy. Incidentally, the Met (and possibly both museums) have a donation system rather than a fixed admission fee. I stumped up the recommended donation.
Take another example, subsidized public transportation. In NYC a subway token is probably less than 20% of the cost of the ride, but it is commonplace that people jump the turnstiles to avoid even that payment.
So what are you saying? That if the price was the full market price, then people would stop jumping the turnstiles? Seems most unlikely that raising fares would encourage people to pay them. But the reality is simple: there are always dishonest people who want to get something for nothing.
Originally posted by JS357The museum I last visited was the Detroit Institute of Art. There was not entry charge, although a contribution box was made available. The building was awesome, and I was there to assist with a kids chess club, which used one of the fabulous atriums.
I don't know where museums are free, but it's not where I live and travel in the U.S.
Many of them have free days, and programs for school groups. These are heavily used, even though they are "free" where we should acknowledge that free actually means the cost of providing a good or service is paid for from sources of revenue other than its recipient.
The city and the DIA have fallen on hard times, and it will probably close, unless a privateer wants to invest in it.
Another story similar is that of the Detroit Zoo, which got a grant from a rich zoo lover of $10 million. They announced the gift, and the intention to build a $20 million penguin exhibit. Does this raise any questions?
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Los Angeles Museum Of Natural History, plus about 6 other museums co-located in the Exposition Park area, Science & Industry, etc. All free.
Can you name a few? I would like to check them out.
Also Griffith Park Observatory, and the LA county museum of art.
Edit: Just out of curiosity I looked them up, times have indeed changed they now charge admission.
So sad.
Originally posted by TeinosukeOn public education. In 1961, graduation was like release from prison. In 1986, going to college was a joy, well worth what I paid for it.
[b]If you have to make something free or heavily subsidize it, then it likely isn't that important to those in that market. People don't generally value what they get free. Public education is probably the best example.
On the contrary, the things that are made free or heavily subsidised are the things that are considered priceless, or esse ...[text shortened]... the reality is simple: there are always dishonest people who want to get something for nothing.[/b]
On values, the point is that they are values determined by others, as opposed to the values of the users.
Years ago, I found the DIA similarly crowded, with a voluntary contribution rather than an admission. As the building became less shiny, and patrons began to find their cars missing, attendance diminished, and the DIA is among many Detroit institutions on the chopping block.
On the subway, if people paid the full cost, no where near as many vehicles would run, and proper security could be afforded. The low fare attracts riff raff, who don't even want to pay the subsidized amount, or who believe they are being overcharged.
Originally posted by normbenignOn public education. In 1961, graduation was like release from prison. In 1986, going to college was a joy, well worth what I paid for it.
If I'd had to pay for my university education in the late 1990s, as British students do these days, I'm sure that I'd have thought it well worth it. But I don't think I studied any less hard because it was free. Nor do I think I studied harder at the school I attended, which was private, because I knew that my parents were paying. At that age, I studied because I enjoyed studying. What certainly helped me was that in both institutions, one paying, one free, I was immersed in a community of like-minded people (both students and teachers) who were also committed to learning. I don't think my experience would have been any different in a selective state grammar school than in my selective private school; which suggests that the nub of the matter is not the issue of whether or not one is paying.
On values, the point is that they are values determined by others, as opposed to the values of the users.
So what?
Years ago, I found the DIA similarly crowded, with a voluntary contribution rather than an admission. As the building became less shiny, and patrons began to find their cars missing, attendance diminished, and the DIA is among many Detroit institutions on the chopping block.
Says more about Detroit as a city than about charging, or otherwise, for entrance fees.
On the subway, if people paid the full cost, no where near as many vehicles would run, and proper security could be afforded. The low fare attracts riff raff, who don't even want to pay the subsidized amount, or who believe they are being overcharged.
The subway is a lot cheaper in Kiev or Minsk than it is in New York, and you don't see people jumping the turnstiles in those cities. I wonder why?
In reality, a low fare attracts anyone of good sense (just as the idea of travelling by train is inevitably going to have its temptations for anyone who's driven or been driven by car into Manhattan!). But if it's really true that riff-raff, as you choose to call them, might be attracted by low fares, it's also the case that for some people in low-income brackets, a subsidised train fare might be the difference between being able to make ends meet and not. Another way in which state intervention helps people to live orderly, law-abiding lives.
Originally posted by TeinosukeNot free, but subsidized means subsidized for those who have the extra cash. As long as you are one of those with the extra cash, then I can see why you have no problem with it.
I don't see what the problem is with an intermediate option. The parks are not free but subsidised. Similar with plenty of other government-funded arts and leisure services. I pay thirty or forty pounds to go to the opera in London - a reasonable sum of money, but considerably less than the market rate (if I was willing to stand through the performance or ...[text shortened]... kind of things. But now you appear to be advocating spending more taxpayers' money on them. Why?
Charging does keep out the wrong kind of people. It is a form of segregation.