Petition against charging bicyclists and pedestrians a toll to use Golden Gate Bridge

Activists List
21

Thanks, Les.

Which aspects seem inappropriate?

Warm regards, Michael

Michael:

I have been thinking about this analogy. The more I think about it, the more inappropriate the analogy seems.

Les

Les,

I know you find my analogy to kidnapping ridiculous, yet if you follow it to the bitter end you may understand what I’m getting at. Try to regard it as a thought experiment and answer the questions: is it legitimate to charge the victim for the food? Why not?

Thank you for persisting.

Warm regards, Michael

Michael:

I find it hard to compose an answer because I find your analogy to a kidnapping to be totally incomprehensible.

Perhaps it was a violation of rights when the government built the bridge. It is not clear to me what difference that would make. It is here. Those who use it should pay the maintenance costs. Your claim that user fees are not permissible because building the bridge was a violation of rights is the most ludicrous non sequitur I have seen in long time. I suppose that, if Libertarians thought it was such an egregious violation of rights to build the GGB, they should avoid it using on the grounds that it would be sinful to profit such a rights violation.

Warmly, Les

Thank you, Les.

Since the Govt prohibits competing bridges and ferrys, the bridge stands as a rights violation so fees for using it are illegitimate. Returning to my analogy, if I kidnap you, lock you in my basement, and feed you, is it legitimate for me to charge you for the food? Why not?

Warmly, Michael

Once again, I do NOT understand your comment. No one is proposing a tax. What is proposed is a user fee!

The government des not allow private parties to build bridges! SO F******G WHAT! Do you think that, if a private party had been allowed to build the GGB, that private party would not be charges persons, including bicyclists and pedestrians, who use it???

Tepid Regards
Les

Les,

You’re right, if there’s a bridge, somebody has to pay the cost.

Since the Govt prohibits entrepreneurs from building bridges and paying the costs, why should the rest of us be penalized with a tax for the Govts arbitrary, destructive actions?

Warm regards, Michael

That the cost of collecting this user fee for cyclists and pedists to use the bridge is probably only legitimate argument against that I have heard.

I believe I had a valid point that we (Libertarians) should be opposed to tax levies and increases, but....not necessarily opposed to user fees. Bicyclists and pedestrians are after all USING something that costs money to maintain. SOMEBODY has to pay those costs.

I remember when the toll was 25 cents, although to be fair, it had to be paid in both directions, so essentially it was 50 cents. Now it's $6 if the car has a device and $7 otherwise.

And there would be a cost to the bridge district of hiring employees to collect the toll from pedestrians and bicycles. That can't be automated.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

22

The analogy between (1) being asked to pay a user fee and (2) being kidnapped.

Les

23

Les,

I revised my last email to read: The analogy is between (1) your free choice being coercively limited by the State and (2) your free choice coercively limited by the kidnapper. In both cases, the “user fee” is extracted under duress.

Michael

Thanks for explaining, Les.

The analogy is between (1) your free choice being severely limited by the State and (2) your free choice severely limited by the kidnapper. In both cases, the "user fee” is extracted under duress.

Warmly, Michael

The analogy between (1) being asked to pay a user fee and (2) being kidnapped.

Les

Thanks, Les.

Which aspects seem inappropriate?

Warm regards, Michael

Michael:

I have been thinking about this analogy. The more I think about it, the more inappropriate the analogy seems.

Les

Les,

I know you find my analogy to kidnapping ridiculous, yet if you follow it to the bitter end you may understand what I’m getting at. Try to regard it as a thought experiment and answer the questions: is it legitimate to charge the victim for the food? Why not?

Thank you for persisting.

Warm regards, Michael

Michael:

I find it hard to compose an answer because I find your analogy to a kidnapping to be totally incomprehensible.

Perhaps it was a violation of rights when the government built the bridge. It is not clear to me what difference that would make. It is here. Those who use it should pay the maintenance costs. Your claim that user fees are not permissible because building the bridge was a violation of rights is the most ludicrous non sequitur I have seen in long time. I suppose that, if Libertarians thought it was such an egregious violation of rights to build the GGB, they should avoid it using on the grounds that it would be sinful to profit such a rights violation.

Warmly, Les

Thank you, Les.

Since the Govt prohibits competing bridges and ferrys, the bridge stands as a rights violation so fees for using it are illegitimate. Returning to my analogy, if I kidnap you, lock you in my basement, and feed you, is it legitimate for me to charge you for the food? Why not?

Warmly, Michael

Once again, I do NOT understand your comment. No one is proposing a tax. What is proposed is a user fee!

The government des not allow private parties to build bridges! SO F******G WHAT! Do you think that, if a private party had been allowed to build the GGB, that private party would not be charges persons, including bicyclists and pedestrians, who use it???

Tepid Regards
Les

Les,

You’re right, if there’s a bridge, somebody has to pay the cost.

Since the Govt prohibits entrepreneurs from building bridges and paying the costs, why should the rest of us be penalized with a tax for the Govts arbitrary, destructive actions?

Warm regards, Michael

That the cost of collecting this user fee for cyclists and pedists to use the bridge is probably only legitimate argument against that I have heard.

I believe I had a valid point that we (Libertarians) should be opposed to tax levies and increases, but....not necessarily opposed to user fees. Bicyclists and pedestrians are after all USING something that costs money to maintain. SOMEBODY has to pay those costs.

I remember when the toll was 25 cents, although to be fair, it had to be paid in both directions, so essentially it was 50 cents. Now it's $6 if the car has a device and $7 otherwise.

And there would be a cost to the bridge district of hiring employees to collect the toll from pedestrians and bicycles. That can't be automated.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

24

Michael:

I cannot think of anything else to say about this.
Your analogy still seems totally inappropriate.

Les

25

Les,

Ok, thanks for trying.

Warmly, Michael

Michael:

I cannot think of anything else to say about this.
Your analogy still seems totally inappropriate.

Les

Les,

I revised my last email to read: The analogy is between (1) your free choice being coercively limited by the State and (2) your free choice coercively limited by the kidnapper. In both cases, the “user fee” is extracted under duress.

Michael

Thanks for explaining, Les.

The analogy is between (1) your free choice being severely limited by the State and (2) your free choice severely limited by the kidnapper. In both cases, the "user fee” is extracted under duress.

Warmly, Michael

The analogy between (1) being asked to pay a user fee and (2) being kidnapped.

Les

Thanks, Les.

Which aspects seem inappropriate?

Warm regards, Michael

Michael:

I have been thinking about this analogy. The more I think about it, the more inappropriate the analogy seems.

Les

Les,

I know you find my analogy to kidnapping ridiculous, yet if you follow it to the bitter end you may understand what I’m getting at. Try to regard it as a thought experiment and answer the questions: is it legitimate to charge the victim for the food? Why not?

Thank you for persisting.

Warm regards, Michael

Michael:

I find it hard to compose an answer because I find your analogy to a kidnapping to be totally incomprehensible.

Perhaps it was a violation of rights when the government built the bridge. It is not clear to me what difference that would make. It is here. Those who use it should pay the maintenance costs. Your claim that user fees are not permissible because building the bridge was a violation of rights is the most ludicrous non sequitur I have seen in long time. I suppose that, if Libertarians thought it was such an egregious violation of rights to build the GGB, they should avoid it using on the grounds that it would be sinful to profit such a rights violation.

Warmly, Les

Thank you, Les.

Since the Govt prohibits competing bridges and ferrys, the bridge stands as a rights violation so fees for using it are illegitimate. Returning to my analogy, if I kidnap you, lock you in my basement, and feed you, is it legitimate for me to charge you for the food? Why not?

Warmly, Michael

Once again, I do NOT understand your comment. No one is proposing a tax. What is proposed is a user fee!

The government des not allow private parties to build bridges! SO F******G WHAT! Do you think that, if a private party had been allowed to build the GGB, that private party would not be charges persons, including bicyclists and pedestrians, who use it???

Tepid Regards
Les

Les,

You’re right, if there’s a bridge, somebody has to pay the cost.

Since the Govt prohibits entrepreneurs from building bridges and paying the costs, why should the rest of us be penalized with a tax for the Govts arbitrary, destructive actions?

Warm regards, Michael

That the cost of collecting this user fee for cyclists and pedists to use the bridge is probably only legitimate argument against that I have heard.

I believe I had a valid point that we (Libertarians) should be opposed to tax levies and increases, but....not necessarily opposed to user fees. Bicyclists and pedestrians are after all USING something that costs money to maintain. SOMEBODY has to pay those costs.

I remember when the toll was 25 cents, although to be fair, it had to be paid in both directions, so essentially it was 50 cents. Now it's $6 if the car has a device and $7 otherwise.

And there would be a cost to the bridge district of hiring employees to collect the toll from pedestrians and bicycles. That can't be automated.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147