I was half-trolling. The half that was serious responds below. Most people, I would assume, want government policy to cause more doctors to exist rather than f

I was half-trolling. The half that was serious responds below. Most people, I would assume, want government policy to cause more doctors to exist rather than fewer. Whereas I am arguing for policies that would cause fewer cars to exist, rather than more. The direction of change is reversed in the two examples. If there were a plague of hypochondria wasting physicians' time and costing society, then perhaps we would want to raise the price of medical care. As for cars, making them (or their fuel) more expensive would have many advantages. Reduced CO2 emissions and traffic congestion are obvious examples. Road infrastructure is also an implicit subsidy to big-box businesses that destroy small shop-owners. A world with fewer cars shifts the balance towards smaller local retail businesses. Children would also not be so dependent on parents to shuttle them around, which would help both parents and children. Traffic fatalities would be reduced. People would get more exercise. There would be less noise. Even wildlife would do better. There would be less roadkill. I also assert that car-culture has contributed to the atomization of society. The car encourages geographic centralization and destroys horizontal ties. This leaves people disconnected and disoriented. And the resulting, more centralized societies are then vulnerable to power-grabs of various kinds.