4 ms·

Those can't be arguments though because that removes all individual agency. Every single choice is a choice someone else can say had an adverse impact on others

Those can't be arguments though because that removes all individual agency. Every single choice is a choice someone else can say had an adverse impact on others. For the public good, it's valid to have the regulations that say the manufacturer must include seat belts and that they must actually meet a testing standard, and even that kids and others who are not responsible for themselves must be protected from the random judgement of parents until the kids reach an age of taking over responsibility for themselves. But that's it. There is even a possible argument that the feeling of safety given by a seatbelt makes drivers more dangerous to everyone outside the car, similar to how bicycle helmets have an element of actually increased risk from a reduction in care taken by both cyclists and drivers.

jrflowers 3y ago
If I do not have the liberty to fly torpedo-like through the rear window of a car that I’ve slammed into at speed can it be said that I have any liberty at all?
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  Because (I think) it's a great song and because there may be precious few songs appropriate as response to this comment, and because I'll take any opportunity to introduce people to the genius of MC 900ft Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qugb5aGZbEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qugb5aGZbEo "he wasn't one to sacrific torque or horsepower for easy starts or other such petty concenrs" "an impossible arc across the night sky"
  - defrost 3y ago
    On a related tangent of cars, windshields and songs within a radio play from the 1970's [sfx: frogs, Eartha Kitt on the radio] I was just waking up when the front tyre went. At the same time a horse appeared, the headlights blew and the horizon came through the windshield. I kissed Ertha Kitt and left the road like a jumbo jet diving into a swamp. Some time later I regained a level of consciousness more ugly than the one I just left. I'd seen some strange movies on the insides of my eyelids again and now I was wide awake. https://youtu.be/t5o-AxAlHYM?t=60 https://youtu.be/t5o-AxAlHYM?t=60 http://www.simonrumble.com/psychedelicatessen/rangoon.html http://www.simonrumble.com/psychedelicatessen/rangoon.html
em-bee 3y ago
Those can't be arguments though because that removes all individual agency my liberty ends where your liberty starts. as far as i know new zealand is phasing out smoking completely There is even a possible argument that the feeling of safety given by a seatbelt makes drivers more dangerous that can be measured and policy be changed accordingly. personally, i'd go as far as banning private car ownership. instead replace that with better public transport, and smaller mobility devices and taxis for the last mile. i don't drive and the liberty i get from not having a car that i have to park somewhere is huge. better public transport would increase my liberty to move around even further. so this would not reduce my individual agency, but it would increase it.
- chucksta 3y ago
  >my liberty ends where your liberty starts. >i don't drive and the liberty i get from not having a car that i have to park somewhere is huge. better public transport would increase my liberty to move around even further. so this would not reduce my individual agency, but it would increase it. To your point, who cares about the justification to your liberties? I drive. Yours end where mine start.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    who cares about the justification how about the car accident statistics? or this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39191767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39191767 but what i was trying to point out is that not having a car does not reduce your liberty to move around. it actually increases it. now you can argue the specifics, but you can't argue that without a car your general freedom to move around is reduced. because it isn't. (unless of course you make up some specific example that probably does not apply to the majority of the population. i am sure, for any specific case that you can come up with we can find a workable solution. being that there are cars for rent for the few cases that you need one or something else)
- riskable 3y ago
  > personally, i'd go as far as banning private car ownership. instead replace that with better public transport, and smaller mobility devices and taxis for the last mile. This stance intrigues me. I'm curious how much it would cost--economically--to provide every citizen in the US (or even just a single state) with public transport. I'm not so sure it would be more beneficial--macroeconomically--than letting everyone own their own car. The biggest problem being that, unless you live in a densely-populated area that was planned with public transport in mind, you're going to have a whole lot of people spending a ton of time waiting (e.g. for the bus). And all that time spent waiting is going to have negative economic side effects similar to the negative consequences of people being stuck in traffic. Something like a free or low-cost, government-run taxi service might work if carpooling was implemented via a decent traveling salesman algorithm but I've never heard of anyone even proposing such a thing. It certainly would make a lot of sense with self-driving, electric vehicles though.

jrflowers 3y ago

If I do not have the liberty to fly torpedo-like through the rear window of a car that I’ve slammed into at speed can it be said that I have any liberty at all?

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
Because (I think) it's a great song and because there may be precious few songs appropriate as response to this comment, and because I'll take any opportunity to introduce people to the genius of MC 900ft Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qugb5aGZbEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qugb5aGZbEo "he wasn't one to sacrific torque or horsepower for easy starts or other such petty concenrs" "an impossible arc across the night sky"
- defrost 3y ago
  On a related tangent of cars, windshields and songs within a radio play from the 1970's [sfx: frogs, Eartha Kitt on the radio] I was just waking up when the front tyre went. At the same time a horse appeared, the headlights blew and the horizon came through the windshield. I kissed Ertha Kitt and left the road like a jumbo jet diving into a swamp. Some time later I regained a level of consciousness more ugly than the one I just left. I'd seen some strange movies on the insides of my eyelids again and now I was wide awake. https://youtu.be/t5o-AxAlHYM?t=60 https://youtu.be/t5o-AxAlHYM?t=60 http://www.simonrumble.com/psychedelicatessen/rangoon.html http://www.simonrumble.com/psychedelicatessen/rangoon.html

em-bee 3y ago

Those can't be arguments though because that removes all individual agency my liberty ends where your liberty starts. as far as i know new zealand is phasing out smoking completely There is even a possible argument that the feeling of safety given by a seatbelt makes drivers more dangerous that can be measured and policy be changed accordingly. personally, i'd go as far as banning private car ownership. instead replace that with better public transport, and smaller mobility devices and taxis for the last mile. i don't drive and the liberty i get from not having a car that i have to park somewhere is huge. better public transport would increase my liberty to move around even further. so this would not reduce my individual agency, but it would increase it.

chucksta 3y ago
>my liberty ends where your liberty starts. >i don't drive and the liberty i get from not having a car that i have to park somewhere is huge. better public transport would increase my liberty to move around even further. so this would not reduce my individual agency, but it would increase it. To your point, who cares about the justification to your liberties? I drive. Yours end where mine start.
- em-bee 3y ago
  who cares about the justification how about the car accident statistics? or this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39191767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39191767 but what i was trying to point out is that not having a car does not reduce your liberty to move around. it actually increases it. now you can argue the specifics, but you can't argue that without a car your general freedom to move around is reduced. because it isn't. (unless of course you make up some specific example that probably does not apply to the majority of the population. i am sure, for any specific case that you can come up with we can find a workable solution. being that there are cars for rent for the few cases that you need one or something else)
riskable 3y ago
> personally, i'd go as far as banning private car ownership. instead replace that with better public transport, and smaller mobility devices and taxis for the last mile. This stance intrigues me. I'm curious how much it would cost--economically--to provide every citizen in the US (or even just a single state) with public transport. I'm not so sure it would be more beneficial--macroeconomically--than letting everyone own their own car. The biggest problem being that, unless you live in a densely-populated area that was planned with public transport in mind, you're going to have a whole lot of people spending a ton of time waiting (e.g. for the bus). And all that time spent waiting is going to have negative economic side effects similar to the negative consequences of people being stuck in traffic. Something like a free or low-cost, government-run taxi service might work if carpooling was implemented via a decent traveling salesman algorithm but I've never heard of anyone even proposing such a thing. It certainly would make a lot of sense with self-driving, electric vehicles though.