5 ms·
> Public transport is against freedom? I got to say, that is creative. It's a clever word play. > If someone has the freedom to go where they want, do what th
by ckastner 8y ago
> Public transport is against freedom? I got to say, that is creative.
It's a clever word play.
> If someone has the freedom to go where they want, do what they want [...] then they’re not going to choose public transit.
This argument is in itself probably not wrong.
Now switch the antecedent (freedom) and consequent (not public transport), and you arrive the argument "public transport is against freedom".
Anyone familiar with logic will know how wrong this is, but the other 95% won't notice.
- 0xcafecafe 8y agoIsn't freedom about letting people make their choices? Not going for public transit because people are "probably not going to choose it" sounds specious.
- TuringTest 8y agoAs is commonly the case, raising taxes would hurt those who can buy and maintain a good car properly, but benefit those who depend on quality public transport.
- mikeash 8y agoCar owners in any place which has bad traffic should be in favor of improved public transport. The more cars you take off the roads, the nicer the driving experience will be for people who want to keep driving!
- cascom 8y agoThe problem is that in many American cities it doesn’t work like that - e.g. a lane of traffic is removed for a dedicated bus lane, increasing general traffic congestion, but bus utilization does not fully replace that same number of drivers that would have used that bus lane
- mikeash 8y agoBad implementations of things are always going to be problematic. That’s an argument for doing them well, not for avoiding it completely.
- cascom 8y agoAgreed - I suppose the point I was getting at was that public transport's record in the US is very mixed, and as such, it is not unreasonable to be skeptical of proposed plans...
- mikeash 8y agoYeah, that’s quite reasonable. We kind of suck at big public projects. I just wish more people wanted to fix it instead of just giving up.
- ska 8y agoThis argument is in itself probably not wrong. That argument is almost certainly wrong. In areas with good public transit options, there are any number of examples of people choosing it over other options they very clearly have.
- ckastner 8y agoOver the limited options they clearly have. Show me the person with the freedom to go where they want, do what they want, would choose to wait for the crowded bus rather than some eco-friendly quiet car with air-conditioning and your own driver.
- mikeash 8y agoI'm married to one, and I see crowds of others every day. In a big city, public transport can be much more convenient than driving. You don't have to fight traffic, you don't have to find parking, you can read or watch videos while you travel....
- ckastner 8y ago> You don't have to fight traffic A public bus has to fight the same traffic a private car would (my example) > you don't have to find parking Neither would a car with driver (my example) > you can read or watch videos while you travel.... Same applies to a car with driver (my example). Look, I'm not defending the original argument -- I clearly stated in my original post how wrong it is. I'm just pointing out why this rhetorical bullshit works as intended.
- mikeash 8y agoSorry, I guess I misread with the assumption that the hypothetical was in some way connected to reality. I mean, if we're removing limits, show me someone who would ever take a car anywhere, as opposed to sitting on the beach of their own private island sipping cocktails made by their butler.