>Regarding the pay-as-you-go urban transpo scheme.
>
>First: Some toll bridges in the US use this tech already, reading barcodes
>on side windows as you pass.
This is more advanced. Microwaves and two-way communication. You may pass the sensor at over 200 km/h and still be correctly debited.
>Second: YIKES! While I'm basically one of those anti-car types, this shit
>sets alarm bells ringing! I am also against putting a price tag on
>everything and levying user fees as a solution to the world's ills.
Both under capitalism and socialism (of all stripes) there will be resources that are obviously scarce. Electricity is one, smoked salmon another, urban environment a third. There are three ways for society to ensure the neccessary control with consumption of scarce resources:
(1) Selling them
(2) Rationing them
(3) Individuals voluntarily abstaining
I am perfectly open to a scheme with rationing instead of selling city environment consumption quotas (CECQs). You could give every inhabitant (including children and old people and people without cars) a number of points for free. Those not in need of driving a car in urban areas could sell their points to those who needed more than they got. This could be mediated by banks or the Post Office, where one could have "accounts" with CECQs, and transfer CECQs between people.Technically a bit more complex than pure selling, but more fair in a society with big income disparities. Not needed in a society with a reasonable income distribution.
Btw, this would not give as big a cash flow for funding public transport as a simpler system with pure selling of points. And I think the system should be simple. Reducing disparities in living standard should in general be done through the tax system and specific subsidies for the elderly, disabled etc., not by different prices for the same good. There are no one advocating progressive petrol prices based on the buyer's income level, are there?
Concerning (3), this is perhaps possible in a future society where citizens on the average have a much more mature mentality. But not today. IMO saving the environment is paramount, and it must be done now, under capitalism.
>And I am definitley against more data on my activities being scanned into
>someone's database.
The system may be implemented as an anonymous pre-paid "phone card" that is debited each time you pass a sensor. Thus neither you or your movement patterns are in any way identified. And the system is so transparent that you can't implement a hidden "big brother" scheme in it.
Admittedly, there are also *other* technical solutions where there is a *theoretical* possiblity of tracking your movements. We have had these in full use in Norway for around ten years, but no one has been able to point at examples of mis-use (and believe me, the journos love to be able to do exactly that type of story - the 1984 cliche!). I find this scepticism a bit on the hyper-sensitive side. People who think that such considerations override the very important benefits of such systems should stop using the telephone, the mobile, and the Internet. Because the possibilities for abuse by Big Brother are far greater there.
My main point is that here we have an important component for solving one of the gravest worldwide pollution and health problems there are. And if the profits of such pricing systems go to fund public transport, we are even further on towards the solution.
The Americans should be especially willing to implement such solutions, since you burn much more fossil fuel per capita and pollute the world correspondingly, than any other country.
This is to me much more important than what should a true marxist mean about the cultural significance of the 4WD, or whether it is permissible (again: for us marxists) to personally like driving and still support restrictions on cars in cities. I drive a car, have done so on and off for 32 years, and sometimes enjoy it. But, boy, am I willing to go along with harsh restrictions to save our urban areas and the rest of nature.
Trond Andresen