5 ms·

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 po

by 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.
      - kareemsabri 8y ago
        Well, I think my position is a little more nuanced than that. I think it's heavy-handed [given our current circumstances] and restricts individual choice [excessively]. Obviously we have no absolute freedom in society, and individual choice is constrained to varying extents. The question is what extent is appropriate. Being discriminatorily restrictive is fine, in my opinion. If you can't afford to pay the costs for your action, you shouldn't do it. The smoking example is a tough one, because if it gives someone else cancer due to second-hand smoke I don't think you can put a price on that. But let's say in the car case we are okay with a certain level of pollution (we must be), and we have a floating congestion and pollution tax that was assessed hourly (like surge pricing), based on both how many cars were on the road, and the global air quality level (just an impractical example). When roads are particularly busy, and a lot of CO2 has been released, let's say the cost of driving into the city that day spikes to $1000. In that case, if a rich guy wants to pay $1000 to drive into the city, that's just fine. That $1000 goes to building public transit infrastructure and environment cleanup or whatever else. Poor people will be restricted, but they're already restricted. They can't fly private jets, or helicopters, or drive Ferrari's that have 12 cylinder engines and 500 horsepower. Restricting the options down the level that everyone can afford is impractical in a market economy. > for people who don't have alternatives available Well, I've also said repeatedly that in order to restrict car usage you first have to build a robust (affordable) public transit infrastructure. My main opposition to an outright ban is most cities don't have sufficient transit to support it. A good way to fund such a project, in my opinion, is with the aforementioned taxes from rich people who want to drive private cars. However, I also think if the costs are appropriately priced, that everyone benefits from the individual who wants to drive a private car, as society gets the income to offset those costs, and he or she gets to drive a car. I may be in the minority here, but I don't see a future where there are no private cars as practical, or desirable. > 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 I don't know if that's that clear. Maybe we have a different understanding of freedom.
        scrollaway 8y ago
        > The smoking example is a tough one, because if it gives someone else cancer due to second-hand smoke I don't think you can put a price on that. I'm not sure what the practical difference is between second-hand smoke and city pollution, in terms of how much it restricts rights and freedoms, to be honest.
    - enraged_camel 8y ago
      I wouldn't say you're happy about said problems. I would say you sound content with them, since you are refusing a policy that would directly address them. After all, restricting car usage in certain areas is the best way to eliminate the related externalities (congestion, pollution, accidents) in those areas.
      - kareemsabri 8y ago
        I wouldn't say I'm content with them. I want to improve them, and I suggested a method for doing so, which is force people to bear the true costs of their actions and use that revenue to build up alternatives like better bike lanes, bike only roads, better and farther reaching public transit, reduced congestion etc. I think car-free zones are fine though, for the record. As I mentioned it just seems like you'd need a transitional period where you build up good alternatives. As an example, I ride BART daily, but I meet a lot of people who don't because they think it's dirty, smelly, and dangerous (in their perception). That has to be fixed before you ban cars entering San Francisco.
- halbritt 8y ago
  The problem with this particular discussion is that it is not rational. The notion that we continue bear the overwhelming external costs of automobiles in order to preserve the status quo is patently irrational. Anyone that arrives at the argument without already drawn that conclusion is woefully misinformed. If you'll accept that conclusion as granted, then we can begin to have an intelligent discussion about how the issue should be addressed. In the absence of that, getting greeted with hyperbole seems most likely.

by 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.
    - kareemsabri 8y ago
      Well, I think my position is a little more nuanced than that. I think it's heavy-handed [given our current circumstances] and restricts individual choice [excessively]. Obviously we have no absolute freedom in society, and individual choice is constrained to varying extents. The question is what extent is appropriate. Being discriminatorily restrictive is fine, in my opinion. If you can't afford to pay the costs for your action, you shouldn't do it. The smoking example is a tough one, because if it gives someone else cancer due to second-hand smoke I don't think you can put a price on that. But let's say in the car case we are okay with a certain level of pollution (we must be), and we have a floating congestion and pollution tax that was assessed hourly (like surge pricing), based on both how many cars were on the road, and the global air quality level (just an impractical example). When roads are particularly busy, and a lot of CO2 has been released, let's say the cost of driving into the city that day spikes to $1000. In that case, if a rich guy wants to pay $1000 to drive into the city, that's just fine. That $1000 goes to building public transit infrastructure and environment cleanup or whatever else. Poor people will be restricted, but they're already restricted. They can't fly private jets, or helicopters, or drive Ferrari's that have 12 cylinder engines and 500 horsepower. Restricting the options down the level that everyone can afford is impractical in a market economy. > for people who don't have alternatives available Well, I've also said repeatedly that in order to restrict car usage you first have to build a robust (affordable) public transit infrastructure. My main opposition to an outright ban is most cities don't have sufficient transit to support it. A good way to fund such a project, in my opinion, is with the aforementioned taxes from rich people who want to drive private cars. However, I also think if the costs are appropriately priced, that everyone benefits from the individual who wants to drive a private car, as society gets the income to offset those costs, and he or she gets to drive a car. I may be in the minority here, but I don't see a future where there are no private cars as practical, or desirable. > 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 I don't know if that's that clear. Maybe we have a different understanding of freedom.
      - scrollaway 8y ago
        > The smoking example is a tough one, because if it gives someone else cancer due to second-hand smoke I don't think you can put a price on that. I'm not sure what the practical difference is between second-hand smoke and city pollution, in terms of how much it restricts rights and freedoms, to be honest.
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    I wouldn't say you're happy about said problems. I would say you sound content with them, since you are refusing a policy that would directly address them. After all, restricting car usage in certain areas is the best way to eliminate the related externalities (congestion, pollution, accidents) in those areas.
    - kareemsabri 8y ago
      I wouldn't say I'm content with them. I want to improve them, and I suggested a method for doing so, which is force people to bear the true costs of their actions and use that revenue to build up alternatives like better bike lanes, bike only roads, better and farther reaching public transit, reduced congestion etc. I think car-free zones are fine though, for the record. As I mentioned it just seems like you'd need a transitional period where you build up good alternatives. As an example, I ride BART daily, but I meet a lot of people who don't because they think it's dirty, smelly, and dangerous (in their perception). That has to be fixed before you ban cars entering San Francisco.
halbritt 8y ago
The problem with this particular discussion is that it is not rational. The notion that we continue bear the overwhelming external costs of automobiles in order to preserve the status quo is patently irrational. Anyone that arrives at the argument without already drawn that conclusion is woefully misinformed. If you'll accept that conclusion as granted, then we can begin to have an intelligent discussion about how the issue should be addressed. In the absence of that, getting greeted with hyperbole seems most likely.