5 ms·

It’s 2024. Why not just rip the band aid off and outright ban private transportation already? People should subscribe to transportation options from approved co

It’s 2024. Why not just rip the band aid off and outright ban private transportation already? People should subscribe to transportation options from approved commercial providers, and they can pay for it with government-backed digital currency (assuming their social credit score is high enough.)

recursive 3y ago
I don't think there's a reason to ban bicycle ownership.
fyrn_ 3y ago
Wouldn't commercial providers still be private transportation? Public in public transportation is public ownership.
- jltsiren 3y ago
  Public transportation is public in the same sense as a pub. The service is available to anyone willing to pay, without any membership or other special requirements. Some systems are fully government-run, some have a public authority and private operators, and some are for-profit companies that make their money in real estate.
  - fyrn_ 3y ago
    That's just a transit company then. It might not be said that way colloquially, but it's very much where the public comes from. Uber isn't public transit, it's just transit. Neither is bright line or Waymo or Uber.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
finnjohnsen2 3y ago
I have used car sharing for ~10 years and its been great not owning a car. Until I got a kid. Car seats are not made for carrying around and storage I'll tell you that. Now I have a second kid. It's a complete nail in the coffin for not owning a car. Two seats!? Ive been a bespoken car sharing advocate until I got kids, and there are probably lots of other lives being lived where cars are a must unless every need I'm similarly unaware of are met by car sharing businesses. Proper research into the needs will have to be done before we can do any such thing as banning private cars. But I agree with your premise. Softly.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  For the half of the US population not having kids (or having no additional kids), private vehicle sharing is still sound policy. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-share-of-childless-adults-in-u-s-dont-expect-to-ever-have-children/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-s... https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/05/07/with-a-potential-baby-bust-on-the-horizon-key-facts-about-fertility-in-the-u-s-before-the-pandemic/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/05/07/with-a-po... https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2022/12/the-long-term-decline-in-fertility-and-what-it-means-for-state-budgets https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-bri...
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    And for the other half, requiring vehicle sharing (the original proposal) is terrible policy.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Depends if you know going into living in the jurisdiction that's the regulation. https://culdesac.com/ https://culdesac.com/ comes to mind.
salawat 3y ago
Why hello there, authoritarian dystopia aspirer. What, might I ask is it you hope to gain out of said state of affairs?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nathanaldensr 3y ago
I can't tell if this post is satirical or not.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
"It's 2024" isn't an argument, an explanation, or a justification. It's saying "I'm on the right side, the side that history is moving toward, and if you disagree with me, then you're not". That works great for smugness, and it may move the go-the-way-the-wind's-blowing types, but it doesn't persuade very many people. I could just as easily say: "It's 2024. Why not just ban "approved commercial providers" already?" Notice how that didn't change your mind? If you've got anything to support your position, give that, rather than the year. We know what year it is; that doesn't make us agree with the rest of what you say.
- henriquez 3y ago
  You’re correct. The whole point of saying “it’s [current_year]” is to a) imply consensus without providing justification, and b) imply that anyone either in _disagreement_ or _just wanting additional information_ is “backwards thinking,” and thus potentially a low social credit-scorer. Those in the latter category are discouraged from speaking up lest they violate the consensus implied in a) and those in the former category are pitiably irredeemable. That is also why I won’t provide justification. Also because my post was written as satire.

recursive 3y ago

I don't think there's a reason to ban bicycle ownership.

fyrn_ 3y ago

Wouldn't commercial providers still be private transportation? Public in public transportation is public ownership.

jltsiren 3y ago
Public transportation is public in the same sense as a pub. The service is available to anyone willing to pay, without any membership or other special requirements. Some systems are fully government-run, some have a public authority and private operators, and some are for-profit companies that make their money in real estate.
- fyrn_ 3y ago
  That's just a transit company then. It might not be said that way colloquially, but it's very much where the public comes from. Uber isn't public transit, it's just transit. Neither is bright line or Waymo or Uber.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

finnjohnsen2 3y ago

I have used car sharing for ~10 years and its been great not owning a car. Until I got a kid. Car seats are not made for carrying around and storage I'll tell you that. Now I have a second kid. It's a complete nail in the coffin for not owning a car. Two seats!? Ive been a bespoken car sharing advocate until I got kids, and there are probably lots of other lives being lived where cars are a must unless every need I'm similarly unaware of are met by car sharing businesses. Proper research into the needs will have to be done before we can do any such thing as banning private cars. But I agree with your premise. Softly.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
For the half of the US population not having kids (or having no additional kids), private vehicle sharing is still sound policy. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-share-of-childless-adults-in-u-s-dont-expect-to-ever-have-children/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-s... https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/05/07/with-a-potential-baby-bust-on-the-horizon-key-facts-about-fertility-in-the-u-s-before-the-pandemic/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/05/07/with-a-po... https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2022/12/the-long-term-decline-in-fertility-and-what-it-means-for-state-budgets https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-bri...
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  And for the other half, requiring vehicle sharing (the original proposal) is terrible policy.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Depends if you know going into living in the jurisdiction that's the regulation. https://culdesac.com/ https://culdesac.com/ comes to mind.

salawat 3y ago

Why hello there, authoritarian dystopia aspirer. What, might I ask is it you hope to gain out of said state of affairs?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nathanaldensr 3y ago

I can't tell if this post is satirical or not.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

"It's 2024" isn't an argument, an explanation, or a justification. It's saying "I'm on the right side, the side that history is moving toward, and if you disagree with me, then you're not". That works great for smugness, and it may move the go-the-way-the-wind's-blowing types, but it doesn't persuade very many people. I could just as easily say: "It's 2024. Why not just ban "approved commercial providers" already?" Notice how that didn't change your mind? If you've got anything to support your position, give that, rather than the year. We know what year it is; that doesn't make us agree with the rest of what you say.

henriquez 3y ago
You’re correct. The whole point of saying “it’s [current_year]” is to a) imply consensus without providing justification, and b) imply that anyone either in _disagreement_ or _just wanting additional information_ is “backwards thinking,” and thus potentially a low social credit-scorer. Those in the latter category are discouraged from speaking up lest they violate the consensus implied in a) and those in the former category are pitiably irredeemable. That is also why I won’t provide justification. Also because my post was written as satire.