3 ms·
> That's fine, I agree with your assessment, even though you are implying that by raising a question, I have somehow lost an argument :) I am not implying it,
by evgen 10y ago
> That's fine, I agree with your assessment, even though you are implying that by raising a question, I have somehow lost an argument :)
I am not implying it, I am stating it outright. Your "argument" here is so tissue-paper thin as to boggle the mind and it is not even worth wasting time doing a point-by-point refutation.
It is the burden of "other people" to deal with the negative externalities of driving, specifically those "other people" who decide to get in a car and drive. Don't like it? Drive somewhere else.
- salesguy222 10y agoFor a very long time after cars were invented, the burden was actually the reverse of what you describe. It used to be, "you don't like cars driving near you? Live somewhere else." And it seems most people were fine with that, choosing to move to rural areas, where there were still cars, just less of them. This localized tax is palatable to me because it is local and not national. But, it is still worth pointing out that the people who penalize behavior by taxing certain daily activities... may more so be in it for the money than for the social good. If you disagree, that's fine. But when people are dying and having negative quality of living for so many more serious reasons, taxing congestion with a complex technological system is, in my opinion, deck chairs on the Titanic. I hope that those who are greatly affected by it choose to move and bring their value elsewhere that welcomes them. Maybe Stockholm will feel their absence, maybe not.