So if you have no change you get locked out of your home?
Libertarian Police Department
I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.
“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”
“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”
“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”
The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”
“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”
“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”
He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”
“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”
I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.
“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.
“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.
“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”
It didn’t seem like they did.
“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”
Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.
I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.
“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.
Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.
“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.
I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”
He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.
“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”
“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.
“Because I was afraid.”
“Afraid?”
“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”
I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.
“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”
He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me.
what a nice AI generated article that I’ll definitely read
Hope they like slugs.
Since when was this a thing?
So, everyone seems against this. But, given that elevators are very expensive to maintain and repair, why shouldn’t the users who use it the most pay more than those who don’t? Catoblepas mentioned disability, so yes you could exempt those people. But for example in a high rise, those on a higher floor typically will have a higher market value than those on lower floors (or a higher rent, but similarly are likely to be relatively higher income). And people who are particularly heavy users will otherwise cause maintenance and repair costs to be spread over other people who aren’t heavy users, and that’s not really fair either.
Every building has numerous features. Every feature will be used by some people more than others. If you want to start charging for access to one of these features, you really should charge for all of them. And then you’ve completely dismantled the original social contract people were agreeing to when they bought their condo or signed an apartment lease. I wouldn’t mind an “a la carte” condo where you had to pay for the elevator, pay for the pool, pay for the dog park, etc. If that was how the whole building worked, and how it was announced and intended to work from the beginning? Fine. I won’t live in such a building, but if you go into it with eyes open and don’t mind? Fair enough.
The problem is the bait-and-switch. If you want to start charging for the elevator, existing condo owners or renters should be grandfathered in and be allowed to use it without a fee, perhaps through some sort of keycard system.
Or just the main charges that make sense, like the elevator and small number of big-ticket items? If charging separately for the elevator means everyone pays a reduced rent (or building costs if you own the unit), and then pays their elevator charge separately, I don’t see why this is so bad. It would only be a bait and switch if you are using the elevator more, and if so, it also provides some financial incentive to change behaviour to the extent you can.
Do you know the definition of a bait and switch?
Please enlighten me. Isn’t a bait and switch a thing only if you wind up paying more, unexpectedly and by fraudulent design?
If we could magically avoid any overhead and problems with making people who use the elevator more pay more then sure. But this just means “no change no getting home” for disabled people.
I’m sure disabled people could be exempted in such a system. Then again, a disabled person might choose to pay lower rent or ownership costs with a user fee for the elevator if they don’t use the elevator much.
Because it should be the responsibility of the landlord to maintain the property. The users are paying to rent a space within the building. They are not responsible for the building itself, outside of property damage. Property maintenance is the responsibility of the person renting out the building.
why shouldn’t the users who use it the most pay more than those who don’t?
Why should any users be paying for a common public area that they have no responsibility over? When the elevators break down do you think that the landlords refuse to have them repaired and go around door to door asking the tenants to chip in? Or do you imagine that they will lower the rent if tenants have to pay to use the elevator because that subsidizes their operating costs?
Should they also charge users for entering through automatic doors? Those wear down over time, and they could put the money towards servicing them.
What about a fee for using the stairs? They have to replace the non-slip tape on them every once in a while. And for VCT stairs, the landings need to be stripped and waxed to maintain the protective coating. That is another form of maintenance that is affected by wear and tear. So obviously those that use the stairs more often bear a heavier burden on the upkeep.
Or should people be charged a fee for walking on carpeted hallways? The carpets will get dirty over time from people walking over them, so by having everyone that walks on them chip in, it keeps things fair when it comes time for the property owner to get the carpets cleaned.
A lot of people actually own the apartments they live in, there’s no one landlord who owns the building. The apartment owners together do. If that’s how they vote to do it, who’s to say that’s wrong?
In a big enough commie block you might have over 100 “landlords” and it might be difficult to get them all to agree on increasing the maintenence fee.
I had somewhat of a longwinded reply but edited it to say it would be based on the assumption that rent is reduced about the same amount by the income received from user fees, since the owners would no longer have to pay as much to maintain the elevator. Whether that assumption holds true would be true is some cases and not true in others.
For that, people always pay a monthly maintenance fee that includes cleaning of the building and lobby and common areas. I have no problem with that. Let people on higher floor pay a little note for the extra electricity? Fine.
This though is liberal bullshit
America is becoming comedicly distopia with its pay to win.
I’m pretty sure the Tbilisi, Naples, and Shangdong being mentioned here aren’t in the US
Also the article points out that it’s illegal in the US because of disability accommodation laws
America is not featured in this article.
I’m sure you can see how people would get confused since condominium is an American term and nobody likes to read articles
O. O wow I’m shocked, for once America isn’t respocible for one of these micro toll ideas, this is still comedicly distopian in my eyes tho.
Wtf
Wow, an extra fee for the disabled to disproportionately pay.
The fuck?
Italy checks out. Their entire economy is based around creating problems that no other country has, and charging for solutions.
Meh, italians will find a way to circumvent that
Fascists doing fascist things
I really hope our boy Netanyahu strikes again in destroying these things.
What the fuck are you talking about jesse
They tried it in Naples.
5 minutes later the coin box was jemmied open.
Naples
Why am i not surprised?
Ethical Vandalism
Now do that with pay-to-use bathrooms.
We had those in the UK in the 50-60s and earlier, you would have to spend a penny for the public toilet. Which coined the term “I have to go spend a penny” as a polite way of saying you had to use the toilet
They tried those in the states too and they got widely vandalized. It was a short lived experiment. Meanwhile parts of Europe still seem to like them.
And worse, there are DEFENDERS!
As they fucking should.
Most elevators are legally required to have a fire key for fire service to be able to take over use of the elevator.
Also completely unrelated, did you know most standard keys that are legally required are often public information. You can often just find the keyring in legal documents.
Condos usually have HOA fees that pay for this…
Yes, you have a fee… But what about a second fee?
US landlords must be drooling at the idea.
It’s already illegal in the US under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Easiest lawsuit ever, depending on the state
- Destroy the coin machine
- Have the landlord grumble and disable the elevator
- Sue landlord for breaking local & state building codes
