A Thought Experiment, Or… How Far Does Your Philosophy Take You?
In a recent post of mine a frequent commenter and I went back and forth for a awhile about the legitimacy that cyclists have to the public’s roadways. His argument, a fairly common one, was that cyclists have no “moral standing” in wanting additional facilities because they are “freeloaders” sucking at the teet of motorists. Essentially what the commenter was expressing was ownership and entitlement… motorists pay for the majority of road infrastructure through gas taxes so they have more of a right than anyone else to use said infrastructure and freeloaders should be marginalized or required to pay for use.
Freeloaders really irritate him
So in trying to comprehend the idea of exterminating freeloaders I was just wondering how far such a philosophy should be taken using some of the below extremes examples.
WARNING: Very blunt and poorly chosen satire follows… not to be consumed by the literal minded.
- All handicapped persons should be made to pay directly for the installation of ADA approved facilities
- All renters should be banned from using 911, rather they can call the new pay-per-minute 800 number service if there is an emergency, you know… since they don’t pay property taxes that goes towards our local police force.
- All renters should have to buy a yearly pass from the city/county for the use of our area parks since they don’t contribute through property taxes.
- Homeowners assessed a tax bill to install sidewalks in front of their house will be allowed to put up a toll booth to recoup the costs and prevent freeloading pedestrians using something they didn’t pay for.
- Get rid of free or subsidized school lunches for the impoverished… make those kids earn their lunch, they can skip an hour of class and work in the kitchen… like they need to learn how to read anyway.
- All those freeloaders in jail living off the largesses of the government should be set free… let the free market decide what to do with them… posse, mount up!
- Fires occurring at unassessed properties will no longer be responded to
Can you, good reader, think of anywhere else we should be looking to eliminate freeloaders?
Like this:
-
Recent Comments
Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… coppertop on Rape is not “knucklehead… coppertop on Rape is not “knucklehead… Buzz Feedback on Rape is not “knucklehead… lizard19 on Rape is not “knucklehead…
September 13, 2010 at 10:32 am
Well, those free-markteer anti-freeloaders should be charged per read and per comment here. They need to leave their CC on file, cause, you know, this ain’t an ad-supported blog. Somebody’s got to pay for its existence
September 13, 2010 at 5:25 pm
You mean none of us are getting paid to write this bs? I think jhwygirl did a little false advertising when I was recruited. I want to get PAID like the rock star journalist wanna-be I am! ;)
September 13, 2010 at 10:32 am
Well, I’d just like to say that I just bought a bike, but I didn’t know that while riding it, I’d be sucking the teets of motorists. Thank you for that revelation, though what if some motorists don’t have any teets to suck? And then what if I add a 2 cycle mini engine? Am I then off the teet, or am I just sucking hind teet, or are ordinary bicycle riders now sucking my teets? I think my teets wouldn’t qualify for sucking, at least I hope not. And I was also thinking that my portion of the road is awfully small in comparison. If I were to use a bit of gas to clean the chain on my bike, that ought to cover my share of the tax. Just some thoughts.
September 13, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Alan: You raise so many teet-sucking points that it’s tough to know where to begin. It might be prudent to refer all teet-sucking questions to Wyoming’s Alan Simpson, as he is the reigning expert. Also, isn’t “teet” spealled t-e-a-t? Better ask Big Al.
December 28, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Well, that wasn’t my spelling. If he meant teats and not teets, well then, that’s a cow of a different color. I no longer live in Montana. In a more serious vein, I was done in by pedophiles and dope dealers after my family was wiped out by the lies of vaccinations and amalgams, so I live in SE Asia now, wiser I hope. The ratio of non contributing bikes/cycles to cars here is probably 100 times that in Montana. I suppose we’re all a bunch of teat suckers, but the cost of living is about 1/5 that of Missoula, the roads are a miracle of engineering in comparison, perverts are easily avoided, you won’t end up in jail for double parking, and I don’t have FBI agents stalking me in hopes of selling me illegal drugs. I could even get a real job using my 30 year old degree from MSU and really help the world, but social security is good enough, and after yanking out the amalgams my kidneys are back in production and I’m enjoying life too much. Try to understand that bikes are for people who can’t afford cars or care about mother nature and proper exercise, so they contribute far more to the economy and culture, just not in terms of cash or consumption of pharmaceuticals and oil. People here appreciate the benefits of tolerance and cooperation, which is why the SE economy is booming and the value of the dollar sinking into oblivion. And, yes, I might add that Montana wasn’t all bad, you could outlive your enemies by waiting for their obituary to appear in the paper after a drunk driving binge.
September 13, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Great observations… I’m sure sucking teet while moving in a vehicle or on a bike is probably prohibited.
September 13, 2010 at 3:42 pm
And that’s assuming that bikers don’t pay more taxes than the value of the infrastructure they consume. After all, bikers don’t account for much, if any, of the wear-and-tear of roads. And law enforcement and first responders — most of whose calls involve motor vehicle accidents — are paid by property, sales, and state income taxes. And let’s not forget that road and highway projects aren’t solely funded by the gas tax. And how much of valuable city property — which could be used productively — is set aside for cars? Not just roads, but parking spaces & garages, etc & co. And don’t get me started about the health care costs tallied by up drivers and their victims — 40K+/year — which contribute to taxes and rising health care costs.
September 13, 2010 at 4:21 pm
you gotta build em before you consume them yaj. you’ve got it bassackwards.
Instead of fighting this, get on board and show you’re all for users paying for those bike lanes and shared use paths to be built.
Unless we start a gvw per mile tax, instead of a gas tax, your argument doesn’t hold up well when considering electric and hybrid and tiny gas sipping cars because they aren’t going to pay enough to build roads.
as for carefree stupidity, I’m reminded of goofy as the grasshopper. or, as bob weir said, “if you want something for nothing….”
September 13, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Point of sale tax on bikes or bike components… I’m all for it.
September 13, 2010 at 4:18 pm
As the guy who first raised the question in the previous thread, I would point out that trying to equalize cost to value is misguided, even more so when one tries, poorly, to tie it to ‘philosophy’. The facts are these; roads are a socialist construct, yet they are dealt with in manners that are not equitable at all. Bikers frequently claim rights of vehicle use and then violate the law at will. Many neighborhood roads are paid for by SIDs and special assessment to those who live there, yet bike riders benefit with no assessment to themselves. Charging for ‘wear and tear’ is a ridiculous idea on it’s face. If one takes that seriously, trucking companies should pay 20 times the fuel tax they do. Most municipalities require a certain degree of business parking, paid for by business owners. Bozeman seems a little twisted on the idea, but still, owners are required to pay for access with a hit to the cost of goods sold. Bicyclists do pay these higher costs of goods, but contribute nothing to relieve them and yet expect a voice in the requirements. That’s not socialist; it’s taking advantage.
A better hypothetical than any of the quaint little ‘scenarios’ posited by CFS is this. People without kids pay mils for school levies. How ’bout road levies based on all within the district, even bicyclists. Let’s get rid of the gas tax altogether. If we want a road over ground X, everybody pays. We can make that road bike friendly, but everybody pays. There’s some y’all who want to claim that bicyclists pay more than there fair share. No they don’t; and if they do then why wouldn’t they favor a more equitable system of mils? Renters too. Gotta pay if you want the road. Right?
I think we all know that that would lead to much more of what we see in Montana. Dirt roads, even in town, poor travel, dust and businesses screaming about up keep or delivery ways. (To be honest, that sounds great to me.)
What Mr. Benson was reacting to is the same as what I react to. I have no damned obligation to planet earth or drunk bicyclists to pay for the smooth asphalt they expect me to pay for. You want me to pay? Fine, pay your share. Socialize the roadways. I don’t find socialism an evil; I find it a huge boon. But it’s a bit unsavory when applied as for us driving schmucks and not really for you healthy planet loving bicyclists who only sometimes ride drunk and follow laws when it’s convenient.
September 13, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Say goodbye to freeways in this state with your idea Wulfgar.
And thanks for saving the personel shit till the end of your comment, I’ll remember next time that Montana roads @ 3am are only meant for drunk drivers and not the likes of me since they are getting taxed twice, once with gas and once with alcohol. Add in talking on a cell phone and a smoke and that’s four kinds of tax all at once.
September 13, 2010 at 6:07 pm
No, CFS. You’re going to miss the point completely. I expected nothing less.
September 13, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Yes, because landlords don’t account for property taxes when figuring out what to charge for rent. *eye roll* LOL
September 13, 2010 at 4:39 pm
I do know of a house fire not being put out in a RFD because they had not paid their taxes. That’s happened at least a few times nationwide. It’s wrong of course, but a word to the wise…
Renters pay property taxes, and street assessments through their rents. College students at dorms pay all theirs through the bars, I guess.
County residents pay a higher rate for a swim pass or to rent a park facility than do city residents.
ADA is an unfunded federal mandate which should be funded by them.
Paying for sidewalks is always a tough sell. Presumably, my neighbor in my neighborhood walking by is also paying for his/her portion, so actually, we trade the use of bits of the transportation system that WE PAY FOR! But if you’re paying for nothing, care free stupidity, I can see why you couldn’t make that connection.
September 13, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Obviously none of you read my little warning…
September 13, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Except that I obviously did. Do you care to leave the victim mode to the side? There’s a real discussion to be had here.
September 13, 2010 at 6:57 pm
“Bikers frequently claim rights of vehicle use and then violate the law at will.”
So paying for the “majority” of something gives motorist the exclusive right to violate traffic laws? And we don’t “claim” rights… they are right their in the traffic code.
“Many neighborhood roads are paid for by SIDs and special assessment to those who live there, yet bike riders benefit with no assessment to themselves.”
So Wulfgar, are you saying that no cyclists own any property or that those roads don’t also benefit other motoring non-residents?
Roads provide one of the most essential social services for any community, they connect people and places together, they allow for commerce to take place, and are a part of how a place develops an identity. Because of the important function they serve, no individual group should be marginalized… for if that happens it means that the marginalized group cannot fully participate within society as a fully functioning member with all the responsibilities and benefits. Just because one group doesn’t seem to sufficiently contribute, as you seem to think, doesn’t mean that their voice is any less important.
September 14, 2010 at 3:12 pm
As I wrote, CFS, you’re going to spectacularly miss the point, and indeed you did. Of course to do so you had to turn the point on it’s head and shout through the large end of the funnel.
You’re whole reason for posting this was to accuse drivers of marginalizing cyclists, so that you could marginalize drivers. It isn’t drivers who expect special treatment; it’s rather a given for cyclists to expect it, however. Look at your response here:
I wrote nothing of the sort, yet you willfully misunderstand it as such to avoid what I did write, which is that cyclists *do* expect to flaunt traffic code with impunity. Stop signs to car mean stop or be ticketed. To a bike they mean look if something large is coming and then go like hell if not. Try driving a car on a sidewalk sometime. Right turn lanes mean you must turn right, unless you’re a bicyclist.
When signs are put up to encourage sharing the road, they picture a cyclist. Who’s being marginalized? When demands for cycling lanes are made, who’s being marginalized? Drivers are required by law to purchase vehicle license and liability insurance should they be at fault in an accident. Bike’s don’t cause accidents? Who’s being marginalized here?
CFS, since your very first post here, you have claimed special status. In this post you claim special victim status, all because someone else challenged you to be responsible. I mean, you talk a great game about how all you want is to be a fully participating member of society “as a fully functioning member with all the responsibilities and benefits.” You want a loud voice. I get that and agree. You want a good headcount of those you think like-minded so that your voice will be heard. I definitely get that and agree. See, it’s that responsibility thingie that’s problematic. When it’s called for, you don’t want to cowboy up. You’d rather make fun of the people who call for it. That’s not engendering a whole lot of sympathy for the cause.
September 14, 2010 at 9:16 pm
If the victim role is getting a little old and opaque let me try the clown role. That’s one I know coach will put me in for!
September 13, 2010 at 7:01 pm
How about then bike riders don’t have to pay the portion of taxes needed for the military to secure our oil supplies? Maybe its not fair that gas taxes pay for the roads…they ought to pay for our wars. (And no, I’m not just complaining about Iraq. We have invested billions in keeping the Middle East nominally stable to keep the oil flowing, and I frankly think that’s a good idea. But I won’t have drivers complaining as if they are the ones getting ripped off by the tax structure.)