3 ms·

Cars were made for game theoretic reasons: As long as few people drive, cars give drivers extreme advantages. When a critical mass of drivers exist, the advanta

Cars were made for game theoretic reasons: As long as few people drive, cars give drivers extreme advantages. When a critical mass of drivers exist, the advantages deminish, but infrastructure investements (now politically viable!) can delay the process. As soon as most people drive most of these advantages disappear regardless of further infrastructure investments, but people who don't drive now suffer from extreme disadvantages that didn't exist before car-centric infrastructure.

ackfoobar 4y ago
And because drivers are now the majority, we can rob the people who don't drive to pay for the infrastructure to support our unsustainable lifestyle! Go democracy! --- Sorry for the sarcasm. I'm more and more leaning towards libertarianism nowadays.
- pstuart 4y ago
  That's an interesting philosophical progression...
  - ackfoobar 4y ago
    It's just combining the fact that the suburban lifestyle is subsidized, and the libertarian meme of "taxation is theft". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
    - pstuart 4y ago
      You're going from one extreme to another. Taxes are the price of civilization, we just need to be better about using them.
      - ackfoobar 4y ago
        Most libertarians believe some taxation is necessary. I was hoping that my phrasing made it obvious that I don't believe in the most extreme interpretation of that slogan. But I do believe there's truth in it. Back to the infrastructure cost problem. I painted an insidious picture. Of course suburbanites are not mustache-twirling villains. They're just asking the government to maintain the infrastructure they use. The problem is they're not willing to (vote for politicians who make them) pay for the true cost. When the cost is borne by other people, how is this not robbery with majority votes (and thus state power)?
        ackfoobar 4y ago
        This video, also from NJB, describes such politcal dynamics in Toronto. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkO-DttA9ew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkO-DttA9ew > ...look at the map of his election victory. This was the suburbs politically dominating the will of old Toronto. > ...because he advocated for more cars, he had the support of Toronto's suburbs. In other words he fed the addiction. To quote George Bernard Shaw, "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
rowanajmarshall 4y ago
> As long as few people drive, cars give drivers extreme advantages. I don't know about that. I'm living in London right now, and I'd hate to have a car. It would mean need a parking space all the time for it, for something I wouldn't use most days because almost everything I need say-to-day is a 10 min walk away, and if it isn't then it's a quick bus or tube ride away.
- adrianN 4y ago
  But assuming that few people drove, you could move a dozen kilometers out of London, enjoy clean air, peace and quiet, low rents etc and still have everything you wanted ten minutes away. Just by car.

ackfoobar 4y ago

And because drivers are now the majority, we can rob the people who don't drive to pay for the infrastructure to support our unsustainable lifestyle! Go democracy! --- Sorry for the sarcasm. I'm more and more leaning towards libertarianism nowadays.

pstuart 4y ago
That's an interesting philosophical progression...
- ackfoobar 4y ago
  It's just combining the fact that the suburban lifestyle is subsidized, and the libertarian meme of "taxation is theft". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
  - pstuart 4y ago
    You're going from one extreme to another. Taxes are the price of civilization, we just need to be better about using them.
    - ackfoobar 4y ago
      Most libertarians believe some taxation is necessary. I was hoping that my phrasing made it obvious that I don't believe in the most extreme interpretation of that slogan. But I do believe there's truth in it. Back to the infrastructure cost problem. I painted an insidious picture. Of course suburbanites are not mustache-twirling villains. They're just asking the government to maintain the infrastructure they use. The problem is they're not willing to (vote for politicians who make them) pay for the true cost. When the cost is borne by other people, how is this not robbery with majority votes (and thus state power)?
      - ackfoobar 4y ago
        This video, also from NJB, describes such politcal dynamics in Toronto. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkO-DttA9ew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkO-DttA9ew > ...look at the map of his election victory. This was the suburbs politically dominating the will of old Toronto. > ...because he advocated for more cars, he had the support of Toronto's suburbs. In other words he fed the addiction. To quote George Bernard Shaw, "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

rowanajmarshall 4y ago

> As long as few people drive, cars give drivers extreme advantages. I don't know about that. I'm living in London right now, and I'd hate to have a car. It would mean need a parking space all the time for it, for something I wouldn't use most days because almost everything I need say-to-day is a 10 min walk away, and if it isn't then it's a quick bus or tube ride away.

adrianN 4y ago
But assuming that few people drove, you could move a dozen kilometers out of London, enjoy clean air, peace and quiet, low rents etc and still have everything you wanted ten minutes away. Just by car.