• Prunebutt@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Only if the rides are a scarce resource. Which they aren’t. Nothing that some customer could have bought is removed by jumping a turnstyle.

      • Chozo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nothing that some customer could have bought is removed by jumping a turnstyle.

        Nothing? Not even the fuel required to transport the extra weight of somebody who hasn’t paid? Not even the wages for the employees who conduct and maintain the trains?

        You can argue that the amounts are miniscule, sure. But “miniscule” does not equal “zero”.

        • Prunebutt@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          When you’re paying, you’re not buying the fuel nor are the salaries directly affected by one person is paying for riding a train.

          What you’re describing is called “marginal cost” and reducing this is the reason why the economics of any large scale business is actually working. You could argue with these marginal costs, but you’d be entering a completely different model/domain of economics. And no one uses this model which is abstract/non-abstract in any aspect that happens to make your point valid.

    • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think I figured out the disconnect here. Yes, hopping a turnstile is against the law. It is still not considered theft. It is called fare evasion, and it is more akin to a traffic violation. The reason I was confused, and why I assumed you meant morality, is that nobody is saying piracy isn’t against the law. The article never said that either.