I was just thinking that I wanted to start trying to steer this more towards the original topic, and it looks like it's already starting to head that direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacup  ...but because the US has chosen not to create an efficient mass transit system in many areas... |
I think a great deal of this is because, except for very dense urban areas, you can't have an efficient (financially) mass transit system. That, and Americans are used to the freedom to go where they want, when they want, without having to plan out bus/train routes and waste a bunch of time in transit.
You would think the government, as a servant to the people, would therefore try to figure out ways to make what the people want more user friendly. In the past, this resulted in urban sprawl (which is a separate issue with pros and cons).
What bothers me, however, is when people attempt to force public adoption of something through gov't intervention. For example, if a group believes public transportation is best for everyone, raise taxes on gas to discourage car use and rework zoning permits to limit development of single-family homes and encourage higher density apartments. Especially something like mass transit, which is not only inconvenient in most areas, but even with some government urban planning intervention, it's still often heavily subsidized, resulting in higher taxes to support inefficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacup “freedom” has been reduced for those who are under 16, disabled, old, poor or anyone, either financially or physically, unable to drive a car. (A person under 25 can't even rent a car.) |
I think this is the classic liberal problem of always looking at the glass as half empty. Freedom for these groups has certainly increased over the last 100 years...it's just increased more quickly for other groups. Yes, the poor will always have less ability to live their lives like they want, just as I will never own a tropical paradise like the extremely rich. But are these restrictions based on arbitrary government restrictions or personnel means? When I'm 90 and unable to operate a car, is it somehow society's responsibility to now pay for/provide my transportation? Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacup Besides lack of public transportation, many areas of the US aren't even walkable. I think many people would love the "freedom" to walk in their neighborhoods. Children might enjoy the "freedom" to walk to school. It might even decrease the rate of obesity. |
Most neighborhoods where I live are certainly walkable (as in, have sidewalks), but yes, you'd probably have to walk for some distance to get to somewhere meaningful. To me, that means people have access to large homes with large yards and buy products at large stores with low prices. I suppose the alternative would be living in high density areas with small, more expensive shops sprinkled throughout. That doesn't seem as appealing.
As for school, there are all sorts of options, which is what makes America great: some homes are near schools, allowing walking. Some are further away, allowing long walks, biking, parents driving or school bus. Each has trade-offs, but the system as a whole works. Urban planning is involved appropriately, creating more elementary schools so young children can more easily get to school, whereas high school kids are consolidated into fewer, larger buildings due to their increased ability to get around.
Obesity is more a product of terrible diet (tons of corn syrup, pop/juice, portion sizes, etc) and general sloth due to increased interest in electronic media (television, games, internet).
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacup Now that gas prices are higher perhaps the US will finally develop strong public transportation systems, high speed rail routes, walkable communities or bike friendly neighborhoods. All of which would give "freedom" to all citizens not just those who want and can drive a car, minivan or SUV. |
It appears we have differing definitions of some key words here. It sounds like your dream of "freedom" involves taking away from one group to give to another, which may better fit with a definition of "equality". Of course, that term, too, can mean many different things...I think the classical sense of "equality" intended by the nation's founders was that everyone would be treated the same under the law, not that we'd all have equivalent wealth/transportation/etc.
Social control of life is not freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OROD I recently went into the local Lamborghini dealer and tried to get a new Murcielago, but those people refused to sell me one for what I wanted to pay. I tried explaining to them how they were restricting my freedom to own a Lamborghini, but they STILL didnt sell me one. I'm thinking of suing those bastards... havent they heard of the constitution?! |
This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with anything I stated, but go ahead and pat yourself on the back for being "clever".
Linear Mode
