--- Dwayne Monroe <dwayne.monroe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Considering the way Jordan and James have presented
> their cases, this
> is an astoundingly wrong thing to say.
>
[WS:] Why? The original argument was whether congestion pricing has any effect on behavior. I proposed a model specifying conditions under which it would or would not (hence the distinction between utlitarian and non-utilitarian motivation.) That was dismissed as "philosophy" with red herrings about effciency of different finacing mechanisms (onwhich i said that I agree but this not what I am arguing), regressive or "punitive" aspect of user fees, potential for surveilance.
None of this speaks to the proposition that most people do respond to price signals and therefore they will likely respond to congestion price signals. This proposition has not been refuted in this debate. What was alleged instead is that taking such measures is politically incortrect for a variety of reasons.
Now, if we want to discuss the morality or politics of behavioral modification - that is an altogether different subject. Quite frankly, I think that most such arguments are disingenuous, at the very least. They provide rationalizations that are untrue or misleading, most likely to justify value judgments of thier proponents.
J&J are known fans of the status quo on this list - from gun ownership, to health care, to housing speculations, to suburban sprawl, to auto-based transportation. That is their value judgment - just as it is my value judgemtn to dislike these things. Both are a matter of personal preference to which everyone is entitled. Desgutibus non est disputandum.
But shedding crocodile tears that small car user fee will negatively impact the poor, while ignoring the heavy cost that cars have already imposed on that population group to justify one's value judgement strikes me as disingenuous, at the very least. It is no different than the right wing propaganda line claiming that union membership is bad for the working class, because some union officials are corrupt and misappropriate union dues. Or that government regulation is bad, because it increases the price or forces the bosses to move jobs overseas. These canards focus on small short term costs while ignoring much greater long term benefits.
One final comment, if you get annoyed by what I write - what forces you to read it or react to it? Your peace of mind is just one click of the delete button away.
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com