Who was the biggest arsehole?

[Speaker to Animals]

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.

You made no good case for it being immoral. Your argument came down to not letting the government rob us of more money is "stealing".

[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.

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.

I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, only the biggest asshole. You choose to be rude only to satisfy your inner stickler. No need for that. You were not going to convert him, only ruin his day, and you did that for selfish reasons, to be a sjw bully.

[Ex-California]

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.

If there's a market for them someone will buy private land and build a private parking lot/structure/garage

[Hastur]

Here's your new avatar.

[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.

If there's a market for them someone will buy private land and build a private parking lot/structure/garage

...and charge more for it to line their own pockets.

[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.

If there's a market for them someone will buy private land and build a private parking lot/structure/garage

...and charge more for it to line their own pockets.

Hold up.


If it's stealing to keep them from trying to maximize revenue through double charging, then it's also stealing from those same libraries or whatever if the car park charges less than market price for the parking spots.

[Montegriffo]

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.

I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, only the biggest asshole. You choose to be rude only to satisfy your inner stickler. No need for that. You were not going to convert him, only ruin his day, and you did that for selfish reasons, to be a sjw bully.

So trying to avoid a fine is SJW bullying?
OK.
Maybe he won't ever offer to pass his ticket on again because of the last ungrateful arsehole. Saving himself a fine because he might have offered it to a council worker or copper who would use it as an excuse to extort £100 off him.
If he hadn't had a sulking fit because he'd felt shamed I might have had the opportunity to explain all that. Instead, he chose to go straight to offended and give me abuse so I walked away.
Principles don't matter, after all, only someone's right not to be offended matters.
Who was the thin-skinned, SJW, virtue signaller and who was the person acting on his principles?

[Fife]

And what is the argument that supports the lo-info conclusory claim that the state charges less than "market price" anyway?

How does the state determine the "correct" price for anything it "provides?"

[Speaker to Animals]

I would have refused to give him the parking pass because I would not want to risk getting a ticket, especially with the rampant surveillance state that you have to endure. But you made it about libraries and orphans not getting their fair share of other people's money if the state couldn't double charge for parking spots.

If all you did was say I don't feel like getting a fine, no thanks, then that would be a completely different story.

[Speaker to Animals]

And what is the argument that supports the lo-info conclusory claim that the state charges less than "market price" anyway?

How does the state determine the "correct" price for anything it "provides?"

You could probably figure it out well enough by collecting data and fucking around with the rates to see how demand reacts.

Parking in a dense city like London is likely worth quite a lot of money, honestly.

In any case, my response was to Monty's claim that the private parking lots would charge more than what the city car park charges, which implies the city car park is charging less than efficient price right off the bat.