10 ms·

I’m not entirely sure if I understand the point you’re making, but let me try an analogy. We are all forced to buy a car. There is no one with a gun to our hea

I’m not entirely sure if I understand the point you’re making, but let me try an analogy. We are all forced to buy a car. There is no one with a gun to our head forcing such a purchase, or a law specifically requiring you to buy a car. But nevertheless the laws are structured so that everyone realistically must buy a car, whether they want to or not. If you chose not to buy a car then your life will be dramatically more expensive and difficult to live, because of the network effects of this requirement. So while you are technically free to not buy a car, realistically you are forced to do so. Is that approximately what you mean?

SoftTalker 2y ago
> If you chose not to buy a car then your life will be dramatically more expensive and difficult to live, because of the network effects of this requirement. That depends where you live. In Chicago, for example, your life will be simpler and less expensive if you don't own a car.
- dylan604 2y ago
  I don't understand this as a blanket rule either. My life is dramatically less expensive because of not having a car. I don't have to fill it with gas. I don't have to carry insurance. I choose not to have a car, and while somethings are less convenient it does not prevent me from existing. I have an ebike and it suffices for everything thing that is a necessity for me. For the other things, rental for a weekend away is very much a thing. Now, for people that choose to live in the further reaches of suburbia where things are not nearly as close, then cars become more of a need. But that is a decision when location to suburbia or further was made.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    Eh, eventually there is a network effect and much of everything needs a car. If you happen to live in one of the numerous cities in the US that has a hollowed out core, you need a car even if you live downtown. And often the cities that have vibrant walkable downtowns are expensive to move to.
    - lovich 2y ago
      Eh, I lived for 7 years without a car in suburbs. Granted the local market, and I specifically mean market vs supermarket, was a 5 minute walk from me, the supermarket was a 30 minute walk if I felt fancy that night, and Amazon delivered. I will grant that I was within walking distance of the last stop on the local metros subway system so maybe some people wouldn’t consider that the suburbs, but it was considered so for the city. Also just broke 20k miles last week on my vehicle I bought in 2021 after moving to the countryside so it’s not like ive
      - bobthepanda 2y ago
        this sounds like not the US. in the vast majority of the US traditional markets/small groceries are effectively extinct and illegal to build new in a financially sensible way.
        lovich 2y ago
        I don’t have enough data to give you an answer one way or another but this was New England and we have a lot of things that are common for us but weird for the rest of the country by dint of being where colonization efforts were good enough to be started and built up, but not so bad that they are worth replacing. Examples include individual shops that used to be called markets which are not farmers markets or supermarkets, basements in all/most homes, and town halls being an expectation of normal governance rather than a newsworthy event
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      Any city with a "downtown" is in 2024 going to have uber/lyft, probably bus services of some sort, and there's always cycling. Groceries and supplies can be delivered to your door. There is less need for a car today than there has been in a long time.
      - revscat 2y ago
        You’re still forced to participate in car culture if you use Lyft/Uber/Instacart, you’ve just added middlemen and increased the cost even further. This comment comes across as incredibly privileged, to be honest. Most people must drive to work. Asking them to use Uber for such a purpose is just… it’s kind of infuriating.
whimsicalism 2y ago
laws are structured? or just the cumulative impact of societies decisions. humans are social creatures, of course if everyone else has a car it is going to be inconvenient for you to not have one. this is not a solvable problem
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  The problem is that corporate interests pushed for a car-centric society. You can't point to consumer choice as a justification for the current system, when we were given little choice to begin with. It might seem like a moot point in San Francisco where there is free public transit, but in cities like mine, there is an intentional lack of alternatives, in order for cars to be leveraged as a self-reinforcing socioeconomic class boundary.
  - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    Maybe in your specific case, that is cities with poor public transit, but the US is massive and has always required some form of long distance travel. One can make arguments for corporate interests in expensive gas-guzzlers, completely eliminating the small and medium sized automobiles, or for corporate-backed government decisions in new city infrastructure being less accessible without a car, but we have a car-centric society here because they are physically required for the majority of Americans to get from A to B, and there is literally no way of fixing that.
    - mjx0 2y ago
      > and there is literally no way of fixing that. This is obviously incorrect from a quick glance at history. Long distance travel in the US used to occur primarily by train. Short distance travel used to occur by walking and streetcar. Now, with suburban sprawl (a relatively recent phenomen), we have something we could call medium distance that is filled in some areas by light rail. We now also have other options for very long distance travel: aircraft.
      - 2y ago
soulofmischief 2y ago
It's more like, you think you are free, because from birth society and CorpGov condition you to operate within an accepted status quo, and incentives are structured in order to support that. But the moment you question the status quo, or try to go against it, you find yourself targeted by corporate and social violence. You might lose your job, the respect of your peers, your family, house, car or more. Here is an easy example: A portion of your tax money is funding genocide and anti-democratic military coups in Israel and other countries. If you decide (as any rational citizen should) to no longer pay income tax knowing that you lack any discretion over how it is spent, and you decide to demand a more transparent and restricted tax system, then the government will threaten you with economic hardship and even prison. They will surveil and discredit you if you receive any modicum of notoriety, just as they do to sociopolitical activists and protestors. You won't be able to operate a business while opposing income tax laws, and thus conscious political action is relegated to the elite, who don't need to work, and the poor, who already don't significantly benefit from the system. The rest of the working class is forced to play ball, or lose everything. That's not freedom, even if it looks like Freedom™ to a certain class of bootlickers who are conditioned to maintain the status quo, even if it means turning on their neighbor.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    The ICC recognizes Netanyahu as a war criminal. The UN recognizes and denounces the genocide taking place in Gaza. Just because you want to be ignorant to reality doesn't make you correct or worth listening to. There is nothing to allege. The genocide is happening, it's well-documented, no matter what you choose to believe. Take your bootlicking drivel somewhere else. And no, you're missing the point. Thanks to our Bill of Rights, we currently are able to publicly denounce the genocide. That doesn't mean I'm free to disentangle myself from the economic pipeline fueling it. Just because you can point to some amount of freedom doesn't invalid the fact that going against the status quo opens you up to state and social violence. Reread my post. > “less taxes, no wars!” party just won the US election Surely you have an ounce of intelligence to recognize that it is purely lip service, and both parties are considered far right by any progressive standards. Trump, like those before him, works for the elite, and gives them tax breaks, while letting the middle class take on the brunt of the taxes. He is also pro-war, just like his opposing candidate Kamala Harris was.
treyd 2y ago
It's extremely possible to live in Boston (or some surrounding areas like Cambridge or Brookline) without a car. I did for 6 years.
- w-ll 2y ago
  The emphasis should be on Boston not extremely, there are few cities in America you can live without a car or be considered an outcast without one
- dexterdog 2y ago
  And that is an incredibly expensive place to live.
- xarope 2y ago
  I still remember the Alewife and Braintree...
rubyfan 2y ago
> But nevertheless the laws are structured so that everyone realistically must buy a car, whether they want to or not. Do you mean lack of government subsidies supporting better public transportation? Or something else?
- pottspotts 2y ago
  The car industry has been lobbying congress and locales for 50+ years. Laws like jaywalking were at the behest of car companies, and that alone makes walking legally very difficult in nearly any area with a downtown. The lack of subsidies certainly don't help. Neither does the insatiable appetite for new cars.
  - tiahura 2y ago
    Do you know anyone who has ever been cited for jaywalking?
skynet97 2y ago
[dead]
fifticon 2y ago
Ironically, outside the US I managed to live until the age of 41, before I caved in and got a driver's license. Instead, I got around by train, tram, bus, bicycle, feet and taxi. I would argue, that in a society not designed to require a car, you are not really forced to.

SoftTalker 2y ago

> If you chose not to buy a car then your life will be dramatically more expensive and difficult to live, because of the network effects of this requirement. That depends where you live. In Chicago, for example, your life will be simpler and less expensive if you don't own a car.

dylan604 2y ago
I don't understand this as a blanket rule either. My life is dramatically less expensive because of not having a car. I don't have to fill it with gas. I don't have to carry insurance. I choose not to have a car, and while somethings are less convenient it does not prevent me from existing. I have an ebike and it suffices for everything thing that is a necessity for me. For the other things, rental for a weekend away is very much a thing. Now, for people that choose to live in the further reaches of suburbia where things are not nearly as close, then cars become more of a need. But that is a decision when location to suburbia or further was made.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  Eh, eventually there is a network effect and much of everything needs a car. If you happen to live in one of the numerous cities in the US that has a hollowed out core, you need a car even if you live downtown. And often the cities that have vibrant walkable downtowns are expensive to move to.
  - lovich 2y ago
    Eh, I lived for 7 years without a car in suburbs. Granted the local market, and I specifically mean market vs supermarket, was a 5 minute walk from me, the supermarket was a 30 minute walk if I felt fancy that night, and Amazon delivered. I will grant that I was within walking distance of the last stop on the local metros subway system so maybe some people wouldn’t consider that the suburbs, but it was considered so for the city. Also just broke 20k miles last week on my vehicle I bought in 2021 after moving to the countryside so it’s not like ive
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      this sounds like not the US. in the vast majority of the US traditional markets/small groceries are effectively extinct and illegal to build new in a financially sensible way.
      - lovich 2y ago
        I don’t have enough data to give you an answer one way or another but this was New England and we have a lot of things that are common for us but weird for the rest of the country by dint of being where colonization efforts were good enough to be started and built up, but not so bad that they are worth replacing. Examples include individual shops that used to be called markets which are not farmers markets or supermarkets, basements in all/most homes, and town halls being an expectation of normal governance rather than a newsworthy event
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    Any city with a "downtown" is in 2024 going to have uber/lyft, probably bus services of some sort, and there's always cycling. Groceries and supplies can be delivered to your door. There is less need for a car today than there has been in a long time.
    - revscat 2y ago
      You’re still forced to participate in car culture if you use Lyft/Uber/Instacart, you’ve just added middlemen and increased the cost even further. This comment comes across as incredibly privileged, to be honest. Most people must drive to work. Asking them to use Uber for such a purpose is just… it’s kind of infuriating.

whimsicalism 2y ago

laws are structured? or just the cumulative impact of societies decisions. humans are social creatures, of course if everyone else has a car it is going to be inconvenient for you to not have one. this is not a solvable problem

soulofmischief 2y ago
The problem is that corporate interests pushed for a car-centric society. You can't point to consumer choice as a justification for the current system, when we were given little choice to begin with. It might seem like a moot point in San Francisco where there is free public transit, but in cities like mine, there is an intentional lack of alternatives, in order for cars to be leveraged as a self-reinforcing socioeconomic class boundary.
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  Maybe in your specific case, that is cities with poor public transit, but the US is massive and has always required some form of long distance travel. One can make arguments for corporate interests in expensive gas-guzzlers, completely eliminating the small and medium sized automobiles, or for corporate-backed government decisions in new city infrastructure being less accessible without a car, but we have a car-centric society here because they are physically required for the majority of Americans to get from A to B, and there is literally no way of fixing that.
  - mjx0 2y ago
    > and there is literally no way of fixing that. This is obviously incorrect from a quick glance at history. Long distance travel in the US used to occur primarily by train. Short distance travel used to occur by walking and streetcar. Now, with suburban sprawl (a relatively recent phenomen), we have something we could call medium distance that is filled in some areas by light rail. We now also have other options for very long distance travel: aircraft.
    - 2y ago

soulofmischief 2y ago

It's more like, you think you are free, because from birth society and CorpGov condition you to operate within an accepted status quo, and incentives are structured in order to support that. But the moment you question the status quo, or try to go against it, you find yourself targeted by corporate and social violence. You might lose your job, the respect of your peers, your family, house, car or more. Here is an easy example: A portion of your tax money is funding genocide and anti-democratic military coups in Israel and other countries. If you decide (as any rational citizen should) to no longer pay income tax knowing that you lack any discretion over how it is spent, and you decide to demand a more transparent and restricted tax system, then the government will threaten you with economic hardship and even prison. They will surveil and discredit you if you receive any modicum of notoriety, just as they do to sociopolitical activists and protestors. You won't be able to operate a business while opposing income tax laws, and thus conscious political action is relegated to the elite, who don't need to work, and the poor, who already don't significantly benefit from the system. The rest of the working class is forced to play ball, or lose everything. That's not freedom, even if it looks like Freedom™ to a certain class of bootlickers who are conditioned to maintain the status quo, even if it means turning on their neighbor.

zmgsabst 2y ago
[flagged]
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  The ICC recognizes Netanyahu as a war criminal. The UN recognizes and denounces the genocide taking place in Gaza. Just because you want to be ignorant to reality doesn't make you correct or worth listening to. There is nothing to allege. The genocide is happening, it's well-documented, no matter what you choose to believe. Take your bootlicking drivel somewhere else. And no, you're missing the point. Thanks to our Bill of Rights, we currently are able to publicly denounce the genocide. That doesn't mean I'm free to disentangle myself from the economic pipeline fueling it. Just because you can point to some amount of freedom doesn't invalid the fact that going against the status quo opens you up to state and social violence. Reread my post. > “less taxes, no wars!” party just won the US election Surely you have an ounce of intelligence to recognize that it is purely lip service, and both parties are considered far right by any progressive standards. Trump, like those before him, works for the elite, and gives them tax breaks, while letting the middle class take on the brunt of the taxes. He is also pro-war, just like his opposing candidate Kamala Harris was.

treyd 2y ago

It's extremely possible to live in Boston (or some surrounding areas like Cambridge or Brookline) without a car. I did for 6 years.

w-ll 2y ago
The emphasis should be on Boston not extremely, there are few cities in America you can live without a car or be considered an outcast without one
dexterdog 2y ago
And that is an incredibly expensive place to live.
xarope 2y ago
I still remember the Alewife and Braintree...

rubyfan 2y ago

> But nevertheless the laws are structured so that everyone realistically must buy a car, whether they want to or not. Do you mean lack of government subsidies supporting better public transportation? Or something else?

pottspotts 2y ago
The car industry has been lobbying congress and locales for 50+ years. Laws like jaywalking were at the behest of car companies, and that alone makes walking legally very difficult in nearly any area with a downtown. The lack of subsidies certainly don't help. Neither does the insatiable appetite for new cars.
- tiahura 2y ago
  Do you know anyone who has ever been cited for jaywalking?

skynet97 2y ago

[dead]

fifticon 2y ago

Ironically, outside the US I managed to live until the age of 41, before I caved in and got a driver's license. Instead, I got around by train, tram, bus, bicycle, feet and taxi. I would argue, that in a society not designed to require a car, you are not really forced to.