Parking Chairs - Cornerstone of civic virtue or melanated behavior?

[ellroy]

I'm having a spirited debate with a friend of mine about the idea of "parking chairs."

Introduction to the phenomena.

The short of it is, if you shovel out a spot on the street where it is public parking, the spot belongs to you until presumably the street is completely cleared of snow and ice. If someone takes this spot then retribution is justified whether it is leaving notes on the windshield, burying the car in snow, deflating tires, or property damage.

I'm against this. I think it is melanted behavior to have some loose framework of rules that aren't written, don't have a governing body for oversight, nor any formal enforcement beyond people doing it themselves. I think the sense of entitlement to a public parking spot and the assumption that anyone who has parked in it somehow did not have to dig their own car out of snow themselves is the wrong attitude to have especially if escalates to people's vehicles getting vandalized.

I agree that if one takes a spot and didn't likewise clear out the spot they left then it is rude but retribution is even ruder. I think the problem compounds itself with bad faith actors, such as people who place chairs in spots they did not clear themselves and then claim that did. Also how much labor does one have to put in to claim a spot? Put in 30 minutes worth of work and it's yours until the snow melts? I also think this informal system is analogous to the idea of the social contract, the same concept that forced COVID vaccinations. If you didn't sign a piece of paper that makes you bound to these societal rules why should you follow them?

In general I have a problem with people claiming ownership or dominion over public areas just because they did something. We wouldn't care for someone who picked up trash at a park and then claimed a picnic spot for their exclusive use just because they picked up trash.

I'm interested in reading other people's opinions on this.



FYI: I own home with a driveway and this is not based on any personal experience of mine.

 

[REGENDarySumanai]

This is a Midwestern custom.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

At its core, the issue is allocation under scarcity
A street parking space is a rivalrous resource, for only one car can occupy it at a time. Given this rivalrousness, conflict is possible. As soon as people start arguing about who "deserves" the spot, they are already acknowledging that there is no clear rule for who gets it

In general I have a problem with people claiming ownership or dominion over public areas just because they did something.

I agree. Like, shoveling snow changes the physical state of the spot, but it does not establish a boundary, a title, or an exclusion rule that other people can recognize without guessing motives or histories. That's why such systems quickly degenerate into "how much labor counts?" or "how long does the claim last?" or "who decides whether it was really shoveled?" or "what penalties are 'justified'?". When there is no ownership rule to manage expectations, that's the inevitable result
Retaliation comes with that too. If there is no recognized allocator, then enforcement becomes a personal issue. Once the rule is "people who feel wronged may punish", things like slashed tires become the only available enforcement mechanism. A norm under which escalation and bad faith are structurally selected for.

We wouldn't care for someone who picked up trash at a park and then claimed a picnic spot for their exclusive use just because they picked up trash.

This here is a good point. Effort alone does not define boundaries. Without boundaries, every claim is contestable and every such contest provokes reprisal.

I also think this informal system is analogous to the idea of the social contract, the same concept that forced COVID vaccinations.

100%
Relying on obligations that were never consented to, enforced after the fact, justified by appeals to fairness, and policed by whoever feels entitled to punish.
The disagreement about parking chairs is a case study in why unowned scarce resources reliably and consistently lead to norm-warfare rather than coordination

If the goal is to have fewer fights, less vandalism, and fewer moralized vendettas, the missing key isn't better manners or less melanin, rather it's a rule that answers impersonally and in advance who may exclude whom. Or the honest admission that no such rule exists.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

Thanks, but I have a driveway.

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

Space savers are based and redpilled. Anyone who disagrees is a communist faggot who loves sucking cock.