Then the price for fuel use would drop, but the cost for running large vehicles would increase dramatically to make up for the difference. Which will be passed on to consumers. Possible kill transit in some areas that already get questioned on cost. I’m more for spreading the cost over everyone using the road than giving more excuse for price increases on everything.
The point is that costs should be applied fairly so that people will make decisions that are also rational at the system level. The system isn’t rational now so fixing that will change things. You can have principles or you can maintain the status quo but you can’t have both.
If your principle is everything should be cheap you’ll say you don’t want to pay taxes and the roads will go unmaintained and you’ll pay in accidents and delays and insurance and repairs. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
Shouldn’t the cost be spread to consumers though? Shouldn’t we try to encourage people purchasing products that created less damage to infrastructure? Buying local would be made cheaper, in comparison, and so would products that do a better job with shipping. That’s good, isn’t it?
Instead, we spread the cost evenly so there’s no reason to minimize this. That’s wasteful and antithetical to any argument that capitalism can effectively encourage beneficial behaviors. (I’m not a fan of capitalism, but as long as we’re stuck with it the things it does well should at least be used.)
Then the price for fuel use would drop, but the cost for running large vehicles would increase dramatically to make up for the difference. Which will be passed on to consumers. Possible kill transit in some areas that already get questioned on cost. I’m more for spreading the cost over everyone using the road than giving more excuse for price increases on everything.
The point is that costs should be applied fairly so that people will make decisions that are also rational at the system level. The system isn’t rational now so fixing that will change things. You can have principles or you can maintain the status quo but you can’t have both.
If your principle is everything should be cheap you’ll say you don’t want to pay taxes and the roads will go unmaintained and you’ll pay in accidents and delays and insurance and repairs. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
Shouldn’t the cost be spread to consumers though? Shouldn’t we try to encourage people purchasing products that created less damage to infrastructure? Buying local would be made cheaper, in comparison, and so would products that do a better job with shipping. That’s good, isn’t it?
Instead, we spread the cost evenly so there’s no reason to minimize this. That’s wasteful and antithetical to any argument that capitalism can effectively encourage beneficial behaviors. (I’m not a fan of capitalism, but as long as we’re stuck with it the things it does well should at least be used.)