Several have argued that access to public facilities, such as zoos, parks and museums, should be free. They take the use of these facilities for granted. Others, on the other hand, prefer that public facilities should be paid for. Both opinions are sound.
Paying for the use of public facilities is reasonable for the following reasons. One reason is that since it costs a lot to operate these facilities, it is critical to cover the costs through payments from citizens. Another reason is that by paying for the use of such facilities, the government can regulate demand through price, just as it is a common belief that those who genuinely desire to use them will pay more.Furthermore, the act of paying select citizens of great morality, taking additional responsibility for conserving the facilities.
However, despite the function of regulation and choice through payment, there are some reasons why public facilities should be free. Firstly, free access to public facilities is the birthright of all citizens. Since the government uses the taxes of all citizens to build public facilities, it is of course a matter of course to use them for free. Secondly, in economics, it is impossible to prevent the free rider problem by paying for the use of public facilities. In other words, due to the lack of exclusiveness and competitiveness in consumption, those who do not pay for public facilities can get their earnings, making it nearly impossible to truly charge for them. One final reason is that the free use of public facilities reveals the idea of equality, making it possible for all citizens, rich or poor, to hang out in the parks and admire the splendid artifacts in the museums.
To conclude, it is clear why some people support public facilities that are paid for, but it is also clear why others think they should be free to use. From my perspective, public facilities should be free because equality and human rights outweigh everything else.