4 ms·

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

by 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.
- em-bee 3y ago
  unless you live in a densely-populated area this argument does not consider that if there are no cars, we would need a lot more busses and trains, and then even in a less populated area, public transport makes sense. only extremely sparsely populated areas would need individual transport. planned with public transport in mind why does it have to be planned ahead of time? you take any area, count the traffic, and replace every 20 cars with one bus. you'll find that in many areas that's enough to need a bus every few minutes. then you take every busy highway and replace it with trains. again, you'll need multiple trains per hour to accommodate everyone. even in a country with very good public transport like germany, public transport is only 10% of all personal traffic. if all cars were removed, there would have to be 10 times as many trains and busses to make up for that. a local train that now runs every 20 minutes would then have to run every 2 minutes. instead of an hourly long distance train, you'd need that same train to run every 5 minutes. a small village that only has one bus per day, would still be able to now have a bus per hour. probably in that village many would still keep their car, but they would use it less. more public transport means a higher frequency, and the whole problem that makes public transport unattractive goes away. the problem is not the end scenario. the problem is how to get there from where we are now.
Brian_K_White 3y ago
"my liberty ends where your liberty starts" This true statement is irrelevant, since one person's seatbelt does not impact anyone else's liberty. "I don't like cars anyway" is even less relevant.
- em-bee 3y ago
  please reread the other comments about the sideffects from accidents without seatbelts. then tell me why you think those sideeffects are irrelevant. and i didn't say i don't like cars. i said (maybe not very clearly): cars impact my freedom to move around. see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39192495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39192495 in particular read the linked discussion in how cars negatively impact peoples lives.
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    Brian K White believes that his right for his body to be forcefully ejected from a vehicle and fatally strike an onlooker is obviously more important that a person’s right to exist in public (or in private) within launching distance of his corpse catapult. Alternatively he believes that refusing to wear a seat belt guarantees that a person stays inside a vehicle (through sheer force of liberty and grit) during an impact
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      Yes, those are both exactly what I believe, since that is exactly what I said. Nailed it.
      - jrflowers 3y ago
        Drat, I have been check mated! By simply declining to address the issue of what happens to a body after it clears the wind shield you have proven that this issue is theoretical and not practical Only a wise genius can simply gaze serenely at the moon when asked “does your right to murder people with your corpse rocket impinge on the rights of your human targets?” for only the enlightened know that answering it is a violation of the non aggression policy

by em-bee 3y ago

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.

em-bee 3y ago
unless you live in a densely-populated area this argument does not consider that if there are no cars, we would need a lot more busses and trains, and then even in a less populated area, public transport makes sense. only extremely sparsely populated areas would need individual transport. planned with public transport in mind why does it have to be planned ahead of time? you take any area, count the traffic, and replace every 20 cars with one bus. you'll find that in many areas that's enough to need a bus every few minutes. then you take every busy highway and replace it with trains. again, you'll need multiple trains per hour to accommodate everyone. even in a country with very good public transport like germany, public transport is only 10% of all personal traffic. if all cars were removed, there would have to be 10 times as many trains and busses to make up for that. a local train that now runs every 20 minutes would then have to run every 2 minutes. instead of an hourly long distance train, you'd need that same train to run every 5 minutes. a small village that only has one bus per day, would still be able to now have a bus per hour. probably in that village many would still keep their car, but they would use it less. more public transport means a higher frequency, and the whole problem that makes public transport unattractive goes away. the problem is not the end scenario. the problem is how to get there from where we are now.

Brian_K_White 3y ago

"my liberty ends where your liberty starts" This true statement is irrelevant, since one person's seatbelt does not impact anyone else's liberty. "I don't like cars anyway" is even less relevant.

em-bee 3y ago
please reread the other comments about the sideffects from accidents without seatbelts. then tell me why you think those sideeffects are irrelevant. and i didn't say i don't like cars. i said (maybe not very clearly): cars impact my freedom to move around. see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39192495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39192495 in particular read the linked discussion in how cars negatively impact peoples lives.
- jrflowers 3y ago
  Brian K White believes that his right for his body to be forcefully ejected from a vehicle and fatally strike an onlooker is obviously more important that a person’s right to exist in public (or in private) within launching distance of his corpse catapult. Alternatively he believes that refusing to wear a seat belt guarantees that a person stays inside a vehicle (through sheer force of liberty and grit) during an impact
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    Yes, those are both exactly what I believe, since that is exactly what I said. Nailed it.
    - jrflowers 3y ago
      Drat, I have been check mated! By simply declining to address the issue of what happens to a body after it clears the wind shield you have proven that this issue is theoretical and not practical Only a wise genius can simply gaze serenely at the moon when asked “does your right to murder people with your corpse rocket impinge on the rights of your human targets?” for only the enlightened know that answering it is a violation of the non aggression policy