> but it's one of the many consequences in living in a democratic and diverse society. A democratic and diverse society that's structured such that the costs o

> but it's one of the many consequences in living in a democratic and diverse society. A democratic and diverse society that's structured such that the costs of the negative externalities that result from individual choices are born by the broader community and not the individual. In this particular case, the most immediate and obvious examples include air pollution and associated consequences, as well as additional wear and tear on public roadways. Of course, the solution to negative externalities is always the same: tax the behaviour (in this case, fuel taxes, taxes on large vehicles, and tax breaks for car pooling, transit, and other similarly less damaging choices) so that the costs are born by the person engaging in said behaviour. Naturally, whenever folks are asked to pay for these externalities, the reaction is an immediate and passionate rejection of "big government" curtailing "freedoms"--in this case, the freedom to make everyone else pay for the consequences of their choices. Why? Because people want to engage in the behaviour without having to also own the consequences. While that's a form of freedom, it's an irresponsible one, born of a uniquely self-centered conception of "freedom" that bears a striking resemblance to narcissism. Pity the lack of basic economic education prevents people from understanding that they're free riding on the rest of us by failing to pay for their damaging behaviours. It's especially ironic since these same objections are often associated with individuals who would decry the welfare state, which similarly involves society bearing the costs to support individual behaviours; it's just much more honest about it.