RE: Stonehenge at 60 mph!
(Edited)
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I sort of understand charging if the money is going to be put to preserving the site and keeping vandals away. Having said that, the prices seem very steep. Maybe there wouldn't be so many charges of profiteering if the prices were reasonable.
!hivebits
0
0
0.000
Success! You mined .9 HBIT & the user you replied to received .1 HBIT on your behalf. mine | wallet | market | tools | discord | subscribe | <>< daily
This is the main criticism that is levelled at English heritage. It seems to price according to demand which makes perfect business sense but this is not a business. It's a national monument that is restricting access to those that can afford it.
When I was a kid all UK museums, monuments and art galleries were free as they were seen as public goods.
In recent years they are seen as profit centres that need to be self sustaining.
Its basically a stripping away of the cultural heritage of this country for the pursuit of profits.
This is the real vandalism that is being promoted. The UK has become a joke with it's cultural heritage available... at a price.
In the U.S. it is kind of a mixed bag. The Smithsonian museums in Washington D.C. are free and those are certainly among the biggest and best. National Parks usually have an admission fee but they average a somewhat lower price than Stonehenge and i'm guessing there is a lot more to see and do. State and local museums and parks depend on the state and locality and may be free or have a fee (though usually a small fee in the $5 to $10 range for a car load of people).
I would love to see Stonehenge up close one day. On the other hand, that's damn expensive to go look at a pile of rocks and at the end of the day, whatever else they may add, that's really what you are there to see.
I suppose it comes down to a philosophical perspective on what are seen as public goods vs private property.
Museums, national art galleries and national parks are part of a country's cultural heritage and as such should be accessible by all.
Entry prices were introduced in the UK by stealth over the last 40 years. It started with people being asked to make a voluntary donation which was ramped up slowly over the years to the crazy price we see today.
These places are part of our education in my view should be free for everyone as these institutions belong to the people. Maybe it's an old idea but one that makes sense to me.
Donations I can live with. Each according to their means but a blanket price is going to exclude a lot of people.
The Smithsonian is brilliant and an example of how it should be. Free 👍🏼
I guess the one thing to keep in mind is that nothing is free. It's just a matter of how you pay for it. Donataions? User fees? Taxes? Some combination? But in any case, I think it is obvious that Disney World like prices to see ancient standing stones is a bit much.
I looked it up and apparently more than $1 billion in tax money is spent on Smithsonian museums every year (and I'm sure they get donations too). That's...a lot.
Whilst the above statement is commonly used in discussing economic ideas it is not factually true but more a philosophical position that has become dominant in the last 50 years.
There had been community or public goods for centuries which were owned and maintained by the community for the community.
Of course there is the infamous 'Tragedy of the commons' scenario which is always used as an economic excuse for profit making citing the selfishness of individuals over community assets.
'People can't be trusted to do the right thing for the community'
This argument breaks down everytime we see a disaster. People actually flock to help out.
Cultural enrichment from our shared history is a human resource and should not be subjected to the same market forces as say pork bellies or soy beans. Public goods are not supposed to make a profit.
Traditionally public goods were paid for by taxes. Many English heritage properties were donated to the charity or left to them in wills. I'd assume that the same thing happened in the USA?
I absolutely agree. Trying to turn everything into a variant of a Disney theme park is ridiculous.
Where's the civic pride or cultural enrichment in that? 🤦♂️😂👍🏼
I think it is observationally true. Helping out in disasters is not the same thing as a permanent volunteer effort to maintain something. I wholly support getting government out of maintaining "public" things but I don't think the result will end up with everything being maintained for free or on an entirely volunteer basis.
At the end of the day, there is a limit to the amount of effort people are willing to expend to maintain things that are not "theirs". This isn't necessarily selfishness, there's just a practical limit. Your labor is valuable and typically you need to use it to maintain your own household and extra time you have is better spent with your family and in doing other things you enjoy.
You see this in public housing and almost any poorly funded "public" facility. I agree that in many regards its a philosophical viewpoint but I base mine on what I observe. I tend to be libertarian in my thinking and think private ownership is better because it is more efficient. Having "public" places run by non-profit organizations might make sense but they are likely to still need to raise money for maintenance and security. Donations and volunteers may exist but will not be enough in all cases (probably not in most cases). I think the fact that Stonehenge was vandalized is evidence of that.
Going back to the Smithsonian, that's a billion dollars a year equivalent you would have to find in volunteer manpower and donations to maintain it as it is. Good luck with that. I think it could be run privately for less but I don't think it could be run for "free". Part of the problem is that for some things, a particular skill set is needed. It's not true that any volunteer can do any job. Passing out water bottles, donating food, or moving rubble in a disaster isn't the same is having an architect to design a building, skilled construction workers to build it, museum curators and the appropriate equipment to take care of exhibits, etc.
I'm not against using volunteer effort, I just don't think it would be enough in most cases.
While in theory, saying these things shouldn't be subject to market forces sounds nice, it's just not true. What happens when 10x more people want to visit Stonehenge than it can reasonably handle? You can charge an increasing amount of money until you weed out enough people or you can put people on a waiting list (effectively creating a shortage). The market forces are always there when a resource is limited. You can only choose between price and availability. Perhaps for something like Stonehenge a waiting list is better as it at least gives everyone an opportunity as opposed to not being able to afford it. You still need funds for whatever costs are involved that volunteer effort is insufficient for though.
In the U.S. how such things started varies. Things like the Smithsonian and Library of Congress were started with private donations but have since been maintained primarily with tax dollars though there are donations also. National parks were created by the government as the U.S. expanded westward. Most are quite large with the largest being in Alaska and is over 33,000 square kilometers in size. These are funded through a combination of taxes, donations and entrance fees (usually these are reasonable). There are tons of other museums, parks, historic buildings etc. but there is no one size fits all approach. Some involved donation, some are private, some are entirely government operated, some are a combination...