Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

Just in case someone wants to know:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists believe that, in the absence of statute (law by decree or legislation), society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market (or what its proponents describe as a "voluntary society").[2][3]

One aspect that concerned me:

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, would be privately and competitively provided in an open market.

Sooooooooo private security firms for law enforcement? Pretty sure we saw how that worked out in Iraq with Blackwater. No thank you. There's a ton of flaws with this philosophy once you start thinking about it and following certain aspects to their logical conclusion.

Such as:

>>> I'm an anarchocapitalist and would love to see all of these costs unbundled, so that we each pay only for what we use.

So you only use 2.5 miles of a highway to get to and back from work - right? Should you pay for the entire highway or just the parts you use? So what if other people only use "parts" of that same highway? Does that mean we suddenly have huge gaps in our highways since people are only paying for the parts they use?

And destroying the bus. Idle hands and all that...

You can definitely get a place in Minne for $1k. I was just quoting median numbers. $2k for a 2br is in some of the more posh areas. But my point was more reasonable that NYC. Much more space for much let money. And the suburbs here would be even cheaper than the $1k.

Yes it's tempting to say that but it doesn't solve the underlying problem which is the development didn't create sufficient parking space. It didn't create because the government didn't mandate. A parking lot is not a high value salable area for a property developer and so unless he is building it for the 1% who value and pay a premium for such, there is no incentive fir him to do so. So as people become wealthier and buy vehicles, they park on the street and impose negative externalities on the society.

The article appears to argues that Government mandates of parking space per bedroom etc. are wasteful and should be avoided. I'm pointing out what happens when these mandates are not put in place.

"people do find it desirable"

Americans are culturally completely blind to narrowcasting, in this case narrowcasted beliefs about lifestyle.

For example, millions of people are rabid extreme fans of the TV show "Survivor". Its economically important. Its culturally and socially relevant (well, to its super fans who insist on seeing life thru a "Survivor" lens). Enormous sums of money change hands over this one TV show, from its production to its marketing to small time betting. Large amounts of social signalling happen about this TV show. There's nothing wrong with this little hobby of theirs, and they should be left alone. And there's a lot of them.

Yet... yet 29 in 30 people won't watch that TV show for free. Regardless of its economic activity or price or value to an extremely small minority of the population, its value to 97% of the population is zero to negative. For 29 out of 30 people doing anything else is preferable to watching that free TV show.

Someone not blind to narrowcasting can hold both interpretations in their head at the same time.

I would theorize the numbers are not all that different with an analogy of urban living. You can slap any price you'd want on a NYC, SF, SV condo or house, and maybe even get it from another urbanite, but for 29 out of 30 people the value of that property would be zero to negative regardless of the price. That's kinda why almost no one lives there now. There's nothing "wrong" with living there although statistically roughly no one wants to.

I think that philosophical outlook mixes well with that 1984 style authoritarian streak that Americans have, "everything that is permissible must be compulsory" Because we're not going to disassemble and resettle the cities Pol Pot style, we must permit them, and if we permit something it must be compulsory for all, therefore all humans must be moved into cities for their own good regardless of their own opinions on the topic and any deviation from the party line that its a universal good with no downsides is double plus badthink not to be tolerated.

There is likely a lot of "crab pot" thinking where people suffering will do anything to stop others from ending their suffering. Every broken into car, every mugging, every raping, every shooting, all are proof we must stick together to keep everyone else in the city or else I'll have to run for it too. How dare he think himself better than us, we better drag him back down into this crab pot of a city.