●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byIamthecheese ( 1264298 ) writes:
...they're trying to push some serious tyranny. So how about "no"? I can't believe how many of you are saying "instead of this lets have vehicles prevent X other behavior"
Transportation is an essential liberty. It's integral to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. And in modern America walking and public transportation just won't do it. All the cities and all the public infrastructure assumes everyone has a car they can use. If you don't have a car you don't really have liberty at all. It's an easy
byIchijo ( 607641 ) writes:
All the cities and all the public infrastructure assumes everyone has a car they can use. If you don't have a car you don't really have liberty at all.
Yes, it's a chicken-and-egg problem. As cars became popular, cities rebuilt themselves around the car, holllowing out their urban cores [reddit.com] to build parking lots [ou.edu] and in the process increased distances between destinations and made driving the only practical way to get from A to B. (Of course the massive road subsidies [taxfoundation.org] also helped, just a little...)
It's chicken-a
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
There isn't a problem of any sort. A superior mode of transportation was developed, everyone recognized that it was superior so they bought more and more cars, and city planners had to adapt. Livery stables, hitching posts and water troughs were replaced with parking spots, and walking across the street no longer meant losing a boot in the horseshit. You can call that "hollowing out" or "gutting" if you want, but know that it doesn't make any sense to do so. The infrastructure for keeping and caring for a huge number of horses was replaced with infrastructure for keeping cars. Technology improved, city plans were redrawn to accommodate it, everyone was happy until someone got a bug up their ass about cars being bad and made up a bunch of stupid bullshit to try and justify their unreasonable and absurd demands. They know it's all bullshit but they don't want anyone to have a personal car and they know just saying that will get their asses laughed out of town.
What am I saying? That you are either a fool who fell for a thinly veiled lie told by a wannabe tyrant, or you are the lying wannabe tyrant.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byIchijo ( 607641 ) writes:
But if cars are a "superior mode of transportation," then why do they need subsidies [taxfoundation.org] to make people choose them?
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...