5 ms·

I'm afraid you don't have an individual choice to dictate the type of world your children grow up in, as far as the rest of us are concerned.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
plufz 8y ago
Same can be said for not having the individual choice to destroy the climate for the next generation. Right?
- kareemsabri 8y ago
  To some extent. It's a hard problem. As I mentioned originally, it's difficult to get a bunch of non-cooperating people to share things that are collectively owned (like air). People want to move themselves and their stuff around, which pollutes. I genuinely don't know the answer, but there are a lot of things that damage the environment for future generations (who, I agree, are not represented well enough in our decision making). If this is a climate change thing, there's a lot of things to do. If it's a congestion/quality of urban life thing (as I read it), it's a bit of a different discussion. Here are a few options that would restrict individual choice to reduce air pollution. - banning air travel more than 3 times per year (turns out propelling giant hunks of metal through the sky releases a lot of CO2) - insisting all new cars be electric - banning cars in cities - limiting the purchase of meat to a low amount per person per week - a limit on consumptive spending (buying newly manufactured goods) annually
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    Or.... just make all that stuff expensive.
    - kareemsabri 8y ago
      Yep, as I suggested in my original comment.
    - emit_time 8y ago
      Taxes (or tax credits etc.) to price in externalities
  - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    > options that would restrict individual choice That's technically true but frames the conversation in a biased way.
    - kareemsabri 8y ago
      Do tell.
frabbit 8y ago
I think you'll find that there are many individuals who share his opinion. And we're not interested in having your ilk dictate anything.
- kareemsabri 8y ago
  Lucky for you my ilk, whatever that is, doesn't want to dictate anything.
  - watt 8y ago
    Lucky for your ilk, that you are happy with the status quo - with people dying in car crashes, people ill with respiratory diseases, and suffering from noise pollution.
    - kareemsabri 8y ago
      This is what I deserve for thinking I could have an intelligent discussion on the internet without stupid hyperbole.
      - scrollaway 8y ago
        I think the person you're replying to is being very obnoxious about it, but how is it a hyperbole to say that people are "dying in car crashes", are "ill with respiratory diseases" and are "suffering from noise pollution"? Those are three of the major issues with cars and if you're happy with them, I mean ... yeah, lucky you.
        kareemsabri 8y ago
        It's hyperbole to say I'm happy with those things if I don't support an outright ban of cars in cities.
        scrollaway 8y ago
        In an attempt to rescue this conversation. Per your other posts, you don't support it because it "restricts individual choice", yet you support increasing prices as if that doesn't. By increasing prices you do restrict individual choice, except that you do it in a discriminatory way. For example, in many countries instead of banning smoking, its price has been marked up and increased 10-50x. This does restrict individual choice for people who can no longer afford it. I think in certain cases (such as smoking), it's fine because we want to discourage it, but banning it outright isn't worth it, and it's something that people can and should be able to live without. Incidentally, I agree with your original assessment that banning cars outright is too much in the short term, and would have other negative consequences that most likely outweigh the positive. But increasing prices has overall similar effects for people who don't have alternatives available. I think your "restriction of individual choice" rule is highly misguided. For one thing, because your freedom ends where others' begin, and it's becoming pretty clear that car usage today is in fact encroaching on other people's freedoms. But also because in the cases where individual freedom is a requirement, price should not be a factor. This is similar to why (in the US and some other countries) "if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you", for example.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

plufz 8y ago

Same can be said for not having the individual choice to destroy the climate for the next generation. Right?

kareemsabri 8y ago
To some extent. It's a hard problem. As I mentioned originally, it's difficult to get a bunch of non-cooperating people to share things that are collectively owned (like air). People want to move themselves and their stuff around, which pollutes. I genuinely don't know the answer, but there are a lot of things that damage the environment for future generations (who, I agree, are not represented well enough in our decision making). If this is a climate change thing, there's a lot of things to do. If it's a congestion/quality of urban life thing (as I read it), it's a bit of a different discussion. Here are a few options that would restrict individual choice to reduce air pollution. - banning air travel more than 3 times per year (turns out propelling giant hunks of metal through the sky releases a lot of CO2) - insisting all new cars be electric - banning cars in cities - limiting the purchase of meat to a low amount per person per week - a limit on consumptive spending (buying newly manufactured goods) annually
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Or.... just make all that stuff expensive.
  - kareemsabri 8y ago
    Yep, as I suggested in my original comment.
  - emit_time 8y ago
    Taxes (or tax credits etc.) to price in externalities
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  > options that would restrict individual choice That's technically true but frames the conversation in a biased way.
  - kareemsabri 8y ago
    Do tell.

frabbit 8y ago

I think you'll find that there are many individuals who share his opinion. And we're not interested in having your ilk dictate anything.

kareemsabri 8y ago
Lucky for you my ilk, whatever that is, doesn't want to dictate anything.
- watt 8y ago
  Lucky for your ilk, that you are happy with the status quo - with people dying in car crashes, people ill with respiratory diseases, and suffering from noise pollution.
  - kareemsabri 8y ago
    This is what I deserve for thinking I could have an intelligent discussion on the internet without stupid hyperbole.
    - scrollaway 8y ago
      I think the person you're replying to is being very obnoxious about it, but how is it a hyperbole to say that people are "dying in car crashes", are "ill with respiratory diseases" and are "suffering from noise pollution"? Those are three of the major issues with cars and if you're happy with them, I mean ... yeah, lucky you.
      - kareemsabri 8y ago
        It's hyperbole to say I'm happy with those things if I don't support an outright ban of cars in cities.
        scrollaway 8y ago
        In an attempt to rescue this conversation. Per your other posts, you don't support it because it "restricts individual choice", yet you support increasing prices as if that doesn't. By increasing prices you do restrict individual choice, except that you do it in a discriminatory way. For example, in many countries instead of banning smoking, its price has been marked up and increased 10-50x. This does restrict individual choice for people who can no longer afford it. I think in certain cases (such as smoking), it's fine because we want to discourage it, but banning it outright isn't worth it, and it's something that people can and should be able to live without. Incidentally, I agree with your original assessment that banning cars outright is too much in the short term, and would have other negative consequences that most likely outweigh the positive. But increasing prices has overall similar effects for people who don't have alternatives available. I think your "restriction of individual choice" rule is highly misguided. For one thing, because your freedom ends where others' begin, and it's becoming pretty clear that car usage today is in fact encroaching on other people's freedoms. But also because in the cases where individual freedom is a requirement, price should not be a factor. This is similar to why (in the US and some other countries) "if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you", for example.