Who was the biggest arsehole?

[Fife]

[Montegriffo]

Great rebuttal. I'm going to change my whole perspective now some anarcho-capitalist has laughed at me.

[Fife]

Just learn some high school economics and you needn't fret about what I say or do.

[Speaker to Animals]

They clearly are. Without car parks the streets would be blocked by parked cars and you'd get the sort of situations the stop a douchebag movement fights against in Russia where self-entitled pricks hold up traffic by double parking and inconvenience others without a second thought. The most common excuse they use is ''there's nowhere to park''.
If you provide only private car parking with a profit motive everybody pays more, the fines are larger and the high street suffers because people give up going into town centres.

A public good is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. A car park is both excludable and rivalrous.

An excludable resource is one where it is possible to prevent people who have not paid for it to use it. You yourself have demonstrated that this car park is excludable.

A rivalrous resource is one where consumption by one person excludes consumption by another. This also is true in the case of a car park, since parking your vehicle in a spot removes that parking spot from the total capacity of the parking garage.

[Montegriffo]

They clearly are. Without car parks the streets would be blocked by parked cars and you'd get the sort of situations the stop a douchebag movement fights against in Russia where self-entitled pricks hold up traffic by double parking and inconvenience others without a second thought. The most common excuse they use is ''there's nowhere to park''.
If you provide only private car parking with a profit motive everybody pays more, the fines are larger and the high street suffers because people give up going into town centres.

A public good is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. A car park is both excludable and rivalrous.

An excludable resource is one where it is possible to prevent people who have not paid for it to use it. You yourself have demonstrated that this car park is excludable.

A rivalrous resource is one where consumption by one person excludes consumption by another. This also is true in the case of a car park, since parking your vehicle in a spot removes that parking spot from the total capacity of the parking garage.

OK. Then I'll change my wording to ''public car parks provide a useful public resource''.
Depriving them of funds dishonestly may be edgy but it is not advantageous to the public at large.

[pineapplemike]

oilfields are a public good

[Speaker to Animals]

They clearly are. Without car parks the streets would be blocked by parked cars and you'd get the sort of situations the stop a douchebag movement fights against in Russia where self-entitled pricks hold up traffic by double parking and inconvenience others without a second thought. The most common excuse they use is ''there's nowhere to park''.
If you provide only private car parking with a profit motive everybody pays more, the fines are larger and the high street suffers because people give up going into town centres.

A public good is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. A car park is both excludable and rivalrous.

An excludable resource is one where it is possible to prevent people who have not paid for it to use it. You yourself have demonstrated that this car park is excludable.

A rivalrous resource is one where consumption by one person excludes consumption by another. This also is true in the case of a car park, since parking your vehicle in a spot removes that parking spot from the total capacity of the parking garage.

OK. Then I'll change my wording to ''public car parks provide a useful public resource''.
Depriving them of funds dishonestly may be edgy but it is not advantageous to the public at large.

I wouldn't call it dishonest either. If the police asked him whether he did it and he lied, then that would be dishonest.

I think your problem here is that you confuse legality with morality.

[Hastur]

Lame.
If you don't address what is wrong with an argument you are just creating spam and wasting electricity.

Some public run things are good, like libraries, therefore everything run by the public is good. That’s some world class reasoning right there.

[Montegriffo]

A public good is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. A car park is both excludable and rivalrous.

An excludable resource is one where it is possible to prevent people who have not paid for it to use it. You yourself have demonstrated that this car park is excludable.

A rivalrous resource is one where consumption by one person excludes consumption by another. This also is true in the case of a car park, since parking your vehicle in a spot removes that parking spot from the total capacity of the parking garage.

OK. Then I'll change my wording to ''public car parks provide a useful public resource''.
Depriving them of funds dishonestly may be edgy but it is not advantageous to the public at large.

I wouldn't call it dishonest either. If the police asked him whether he did it and he lied, then that would be dishonest.

I think your problem here is that you confuse legality with morality.

I think I've put forward a case that his offer was both illegal and immoral.
You may not agree but to suggest that I don't understand the difference is bordering on an ad-hom fallacy.

[Montegriffo]

Lame.
If you don't address what is wrong with an argument you are just creating spam and wasting electricity.

Some public run things are good, like libraries, therefore everything run by the public is good. That’s some world class reasoning right there.

Well, if at any point I had suggested that you might have a point rather than a strawman.
What I think is that the benefits of having a well funded local government outweigh the negatives of some of the dumb things they spend resources on. Therefore deliberately depriving them of resources (no matter how small) is against the public's best interests.
I turned down a small (selfish) benefit to myself in order to make a point about a benefit to all who use public services. The guy who offered me the use of his ticket was so upset that his virtue signalling had been dismissed by my virtue signalling that he lost his cool. As did the bystander who was loudly virtue signalling his support for the first guy's virtue signalling.
But somehow I'm still the biggest arsehole.
Like I say, It's baffling to me.