6 ms·

>Car friendly infrastructure widens the technological and class divide. They create a base state where you are required to own and maintain an expensive piece o

>Car friendly infrastructure widens the technological and class divide. They create a base state where you are required to own and maintain an expensive piece of equipment in order to be an equal member of society. Great, so if we can't all have something, none of us should have it! Forget the fact that the vast majority of families own and benefit from personal transportation, the important thing is that we're all equal, even if the equal case is on average worse for everyone, right? >Forcing people to pay thousands of dollars per year to participate in society is highly repressive Is it also repressive to "force" people to hold down jobs to participate in society? To "force" people to commute to work? What about the fact that some people have the luxury of working from home? Should we make that illegal as well? I do not understand how people can be so focused on equality as to totally ignore the average, greater good. The nature of modern civilization is such that some degree of inequality is inevitable if one optimizes for median welfare.

tomtheelder 7y ago
> Great, so if we can't all have something, none of us should have it! Forget the fact that the vast majority of families own and benefit from personal transportation, the important thing is that we're all equal, even if the equal case is on average worse for everyone, right? This is entirely the opposite of what the car-free movement is trying to accomplish. Car-free is strictly concerned dense urban areas, where private automobiles pretty strictly work against the common good. They are noisy, dangerous, polluting, and fail to create efficient transportation networks. In such places, there is very good reason to believe that car-free would improve quality of life and median welfare for residents. Obviously car-free is not a realistic option in suburban, semi-urban, and rural areas. No one who is advocating car-free is suggesting we do it there. Any increase in equality that comes along with it (honestly I'm skeptical it would make much of a difference) would be purely incidental.
- ctdonath 7y ago
  Impression of the "car free" movement is complete elimination of vehicles, urban and rural alike. "Move closer to a train station" seems axiomatic.
  - ogre_codes 7y ago
    Your impression is largely wrong here. The goal here is to make dense urban areas safer, cleaner, and improve the quality of life in those dense urban areas where getting around without a car makes sense. That may mean people who live in sub-urban and rural areas have to stop at the fringe and catch a bus, walk, or pedal the last leg of their journey, but it doesn't mean they need to give up their cars for transport outside those dense urban areas.
- ogre_codes 7y ago
  > Any increase in equality that comes along with it (honestly I'm skeptical it would make much of a difference) would be purely incidental. "Equality" is perhaps a poor choice of words here. I will say that for people on the cusp—mainly young and poor people—having a car break down can spiral into a really bad situation or even homelessness. When you can't afford to fix your car and your car is required to get to your job, the situation can become untenable quickly.
crematoria 7y ago
GP was merely refuting the one point made by GGP, that a lack of cars would somehow widen the class divide.
ramshorns 7y ago
> Is it also repressive to "force" people to hold down jobs to participate in society? Yes. > To "force" people to commute to work? Yes. > What about the fact that some people have the luxury of working from home? Should we make that illegal as well? No, that reduces traffic making places more livable.
ogre_codes 7y ago
> Great, so if we can't all have something, none of us should have it! This is a false dichotomy. I didn't suggest "Everyone must give up cars", only that the world should not be designed to FORCE everyone to drive cars. > Is it also repressive to "force" people to hold down jobs to participate in society? Hyperbole much? The two concepts aren't even remotely related. > I do not understand how people can be so focused on equality as to totally ignore the average, greater good. As if requiring cars is the greater good? It has been demonstrated in many many places that designing infrastructure which enables people to move around safely and reliably without the use of cars improves the quality of life for everyone.
ogre_codes 7y ago
> The nature of modern civilization is such that some degree of inequality is inevitable if one optimizes for median welfare. I just can't get over how dystopian this comment is. Aside from being untrue, it is just horribly wrong headed and borderline evil. Essentially you are suggesting we cement the bottom quartile of society into eternal poverty. Not only is this cruel, it is ultimately terrible for society as a whole as the poor and homeless become increasingly desperate, and turn to crime and drugs; becoming an ever-increasing burden on society.
noobermin 7y ago
You can have a high average but have the majority of people suffer, just have a really long tail. I don't think you meant what you said. Regardless, your arguments that public good doesn't matter also nullifies the OP comments argument of widening the class divide by claiming class divides don't matter and should not be ameliorated.

tomtheelder 7y ago

> Great, so if we can't all have something, none of us should have it! Forget the fact that the vast majority of families own and benefit from personal transportation, the important thing is that we're all equal, even if the equal case is on average worse for everyone, right? This is entirely the opposite of what the car-free movement is trying to accomplish. Car-free is strictly concerned dense urban areas, where private automobiles pretty strictly work against the common good. They are noisy, dangerous, polluting, and fail to create efficient transportation networks. In such places, there is very good reason to believe that car-free would improve quality of life and median welfare for residents. Obviously car-free is not a realistic option in suburban, semi-urban, and rural areas. No one who is advocating car-free is suggesting we do it there. Any increase in equality that comes along with it (honestly I'm skeptical it would make much of a difference) would be purely incidental.

ctdonath 7y ago
Impression of the "car free" movement is complete elimination of vehicles, urban and rural alike. "Move closer to a train station" seems axiomatic.
- ogre_codes 7y ago
  Your impression is largely wrong here. The goal here is to make dense urban areas safer, cleaner, and improve the quality of life in those dense urban areas where getting around without a car makes sense. That may mean people who live in sub-urban and rural areas have to stop at the fringe and catch a bus, walk, or pedal the last leg of their journey, but it doesn't mean they need to give up their cars for transport outside those dense urban areas.
ogre_codes 7y ago
> Any increase in equality that comes along with it (honestly I'm skeptical it would make much of a difference) would be purely incidental. "Equality" is perhaps a poor choice of words here. I will say that for people on the cusp—mainly young and poor people—having a car break down can spiral into a really bad situation or even homelessness. When you can't afford to fix your car and your car is required to get to your job, the situation can become untenable quickly.

crematoria 7y ago

GP was merely refuting the one point made by GGP, that a lack of cars would somehow widen the class divide.

ramshorns 7y ago

> Is it also repressive to "force" people to hold down jobs to participate in society? Yes. > To "force" people to commute to work? Yes. > What about the fact that some people have the luxury of working from home? Should we make that illegal as well? No, that reduces traffic making places more livable.

ogre_codes 7y ago

> Great, so if we can't all have something, none of us should have it! This is a false dichotomy. I didn't suggest "Everyone must give up cars", only that the world should not be designed to FORCE everyone to drive cars. > Is it also repressive to "force" people to hold down jobs to participate in society? Hyperbole much? The two concepts aren't even remotely related. > I do not understand how people can be so focused on equality as to totally ignore the average, greater good. As if requiring cars is the greater good? It has been demonstrated in many many places that designing infrastructure which enables people to move around safely and reliably without the use of cars improves the quality of life for everyone.

ogre_codes 7y ago

> The nature of modern civilization is such that some degree of inequality is inevitable if one optimizes for median welfare. I just can't get over how dystopian this comment is. Aside from being untrue, it is just horribly wrong headed and borderline evil. Essentially you are suggesting we cement the bottom quartile of society into eternal poverty. Not only is this cruel, it is ultimately terrible for society as a whole as the poor and homeless become increasingly desperate, and turn to crime and drugs; becoming an ever-increasing burden on society.

noobermin 7y ago

You can have a high average but have the majority of people suffer, just have a really long tail. I don't think you meant what you said. Regardless, your arguments that public good doesn't matter also nullifies the OP comments argument of widening the class divide by claiming class divides don't matter and should not be ameliorated.