The car lovers among us hang their hats on "cars equals freedom" and equate mass transit to a communist take over. So let me ask, with the rise of the automated car how much longer will the automobile equal freedom for these people?

NHTSA May Mandate That New Cars Broadcast Location, Direction and Speed | CNS News (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/nhtsa-may-mandate-new-cars-broadcast-location-direction-and-speed)


Before the end of this year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will decide whether or not to begin the rulemaking process to mandate that newly manufactured cars include what is being called “vehicle-to-vehicle” (V2V) communications technology that constantly broadcasts via radio wave the car’s location, direction, speed and, possibly, even the number of passengers it is carrying. - See more at: NHTSA May Mandate That New Cars Broadcast Location, Direction and Speed | CNS News (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/nhtsa-may-mandate-new-cars-broadcast-location-direction-and-speed#sthash.kn6ny5vK.dpuf)

...

NHTSA sees this technology as the first step on a “continuum” of automotive evolution that will ultimately lead to fully automated vehicles navigated by internal electronics linked to external infrastructure, communications and database systems.

The upside of a government-mandated movement toward cars that are not controlled by the people riding in them is that it could make transportation safer, allow people to use time spent in a vehicle for work, rest or entertainment, and give people who are currently incapable of driving because of age or disability the opportunity to move as freely as those who can now drive

The downside is that such a transportation system would give the government at least the capability to exert increasing control over when, where, if--or for how much additional taxation--people are allowed to go places in individually owned vehicles. It could also give government the ability to track where people go and when.

Just another example of governmental intrusion and control over citizens.

rezman, since I don't keep a dossier on each poster would you consider yourself a 'car equals freedom' type person?

rezman, since I don't keep a dossier on each poster would you consider yourself a 'car equals freedom' type person?

Cars may not equal freedom but New Urbanism doesn't necissarily either. What the government does or tries to do is independent of the environment its citizens choose/are made to live in.

If you live in a auto-based environment and the government tracks, controls, and taxes your vehicle remotely what choice do you have but to comply? At what point does the car stop representing freedom?

I never thought that having a car represented freedom.

I will tell you how. All it will take is the right people with corrupt minds to decide what times we can drive, where we can go, where we can't go and how often we go. Any time technology improvements like the one mentioned above start. They start out with the best of intentions however, the worst case scenario is never discussed because they assume everyone will operate the system under the honor system. Not mention technology fails and fails quite often. Then you have the issue with the system being hacked by outside users or a disgruntled employee that gets wind that he is getting fired tomorrow so he conveniently installs a virus or writes code to crash the system. Yeah it's conspiracy talk but, it could happen.

I am one of the car loving public. I love owning my own transportation. I don't have to live on a schedule and I don't have to worry about other people or other situations like union strikes, weather or mechanical problems that are beyond my control making me late for work. Not to mention, I have to travel about 30 miles a day to go to work mass transit would not work for me. I operate my vehicle smartly and my fuel lasts for two weeks.

Yes, I could work closer to home or live closer to work. However, I am renter who found a really good rent rate and was lucky enough to find a good paying job to where I can live a comfortable life in a good neighborhood. What it all comes down to is each citizens situation is unique there is no one size fits all transportation answer for most people in America. You can't force your view on anyone without walking a mile in their shoes.

With that being said, I think the answer is to focus on all modes of transportation for the future. Mass transit could be concentrated on the heavily populated areas with express lines running from the suburban and rural areas to the heavily populated areas. I also think bicycles should pay registration fees and require a bicycle license like the rest of us do for our motor vehicles. You could charge bicyclists $25 per bike per year and a $5 for a 3 year operator license to ride on public roads. The bicycle registration fee could be applied to building/maintaining bike lanes. The license would verify that every rider new the rules of the road for bicycles. Very few people know how to legally ride a bike. I see many running stop signs and not stopping for people in crosswalks. You have to do both on a bicycle. I think you even have to stop for school busses.

All forms of transportation should have equally access. If you try to force people into public transportation all it will do is make cars for the wealthy and force the Average Joe off the road. To be honest I think that is what most of these objectives to change America are all about forcing the bulk of the population to live like poor peasants while the uber rich live the high life. That's the great thing about America everyone gets the opportunity to live however they want and build their lives to be as they want them to be. People don't have to live according to how someone else things they should live provide they are not doing anything that causes great harm to others.

How?

It's right there in the original post ... Government mandated, government controlled.

rezman, since I don't keep a dossier on each poster would you consider yourself a 'car equals freedom' type person?

I consider myself an American = freedom type person who is free to get in my car and drive anywhere inside the borders of this country without a nanny watching over me.

I consider myself an American = freedom type person who is free to get in my car and drive anywhere inside the borders of this country without a nanny watching over me.

On government owned roads.

I love the idea of mass transit but rail doesn't stop at taco bell drive thru

^

And that's exactly the problem with America. We can't fathom escaping our cars.

On government owned roads.

No .. on publicly owned roads, paid for by the citizens. Not the government.

The car lovers among us hang their hats on "cars equals freedom" and equate mass transit to a communist take over.

Who thinks that? I've never heard anyone equate mass trans to a communist takeover, regardless of their feelings towards cars.

This thread should be in Politics, not Transportation.

^

And that's exactly the problem with America. We can't fathom escaping our cars.

In a city with Zero rail options, yeah I can't fathom not having my car to get me to work, shopping, entertainment, ect. Put me in a city with an established metro/rail system with those things being accessible to it, yeah I wont need a car. Like plenty of my friends who live in NYC or Chicago.

I'm one of those who sees my car as freedom. I'm the kind of person who wakes up in the morning and on the spur of the moment decides to drive to Detroit just to see what all the hubbub is about. If that's not freedom then I don't know what is.

BTW downtown Detroit is pretty awesome.

I'm a car guy. I have three to my wife's one. I spend quite a bit of money on my vehicles...I love messing with them, modifying them, driving them.

But I'd be a raging moron if I didn't think automated cars for daily-grind commuting was a FANTASTIC idea. If public transport isn't an option anyway.

I love driving. I find it so very cathartic. But if I had a nasty commute? I'd be first in line for an automagic car to whisk me to the office while I surfed the internet, shaved, and got a little dose of stress-free quiet "me time".

Oh...And I saw this the other day. Though it would fit well in here:D

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/imawingnut/ku-xlarge_zpsfb663133.gif

^

And that's exactly the problem with America. We can't fathom escaping our cars.

Why should we? I get that there are several people who could benefit from public transport, even I could. Times I think it would be great are when I want to go to the Thunder game downtown and don't want to mess with parking. Would be nice if I could get on something like the DART in Dallas and be downtown in 15 minutes and avoid the traffic. But many times I need my truck. And I use need loosely here but I'm talking about when I go to Lowes and get some plywood or want to go to the lake and take the boat out with the family. I've never seen mass transit that delivered my boat to the lake. Now maybe that's extreme, but a lot of the crap I see on here is, it's one way or the other, what happened to compromise?

The fact is this country was built on the concept of liberty. People want to be able to do what they want to do, and quite frankly I agree, so long as they aren't hurting anyone. This bull**** notion that everyone needs to sacrifice things they enjoy for everyone else doesn't make sense to me.

Leave the hard working Americans alone and that come to work, pay their taxes, and don't bother anyone else.

I think there are two completely separate issues here that people are getting confused.

1) I don't like the new proposed regulations by the NHTSA. I don't trust that the government will be honest with this sort of technology at all. I wouldn't trust them with a bottle of Elmer's glue and some safety scissors right now. I absolutely don't want automatic tracking devices built into every car, telling them where I am, where I'm going, how many people are with me, and how fast I'm driving. The government does not need that kind of information and I will absolutely oppose any kind of effort for them to get it.

2) A completely different issue is mass transit. A good mass transit system is efficient and easy to use. I would happily support the construction of such a system in this city. It is not a matter of forcing people to use it, if it works right people will want to use it. I lived in DC for three years and rarely drove my car. It was a lot easier to use the Metro system. I don't see improving mass transit as government oppression, instead it is "hey this is pretty cool, you'll like it."

Why should we? I get that there are several people who could benefit from public transport, even I could. Times I think it would be great are when I want to go to the Thunder game downtown and don't want to mess with parking. Would be nice if I could get on something like the DART in Dallas and be downtown in 15 minutes and avoid the traffic. But many times I need my truck. And I use need loosely here but I'm talking about when I go to Lowes and get some plywood or want to go to the lake and take the boat out with the family. I've never seen mass transit that delivered my boat to the lake. Now maybe that's extreme, but a lot of the crap I see on here is, it's one way or the other, what happened to compromise?

The fact is this country was built on the concept of liberty. People want to be able to do what they want to do, and quite frankly I agree, so long as they aren't hurting anyone. This bull**** notion that everyone needs to sacrifice things they enjoy for everyone else doesn't make sense to me.

Leave the hard working Americans alone and that come to work, pay their taxes, and don't bother anyone else.

No one is saying you can't own a car (or truck). Or that it is bad that you do.

I love driving. I like going out on the open highway, roll my windows down, turn the volume up. Or if I am feeling bad, turn the radio off and drive around and think.

However, we are too dependent on them. Commuting isn't fun. Sitting in traffic isn't fun. It would be nice to have alternatives to that: either public transit or the ability to simply walk or bike.

No one is saying you can't own a car (or truck). Or that it is bad that you do.

I love driving. I like going out on the open highway, roll my windows down, turn the volume up. Or if I am feeling bad, turn the radio off and drive around and think.

However, we are too dependent on them. Commuting isn't fun. Sitting in traffic isn't fun. It would be nice to have alternatives to that: either public transit or the ability to simply walk or bike.

I don't know that we are too dependent on them, I think it has more to do with people don't see what little public transportation we have as a viable alternative. I definitely agree with your sentiment that sitting in traffic isn't fun.

But there are there share of people who think cars just need to go away and we need to walk, bike, or ride a train or bus everywhere. I don't see this is every being doable, but a good supplement will attract people when they see that it can be easier in certain circumstances.

^

And that's exactly the problem with America. We can't fathom escaping our cars.

Exactly. Too many people here still fixated on drive-thrus, when you should actually be asking why isn't there a taco bell (or better yet, a real mexican place that serves actual real food) easily accessible by walking, biking, or better yet, public transit?

I don't know that we are too dependent on them,

Trying going 3 days without starting your car and then reevaluate how dependent you think we are.

Actually there is a Taco Bell within walking distance to my house (3/4 mile). However when it gets cold it is less desirable to walk or bike there. But late night coming home from doing adult activites (only time I use drive thru), Im not going to drive home, park, then walk/ride my bike back to taco bell. Be reasonable sometimes. I'm amazed some of you can sleep at night

Did you know that a pilot can fly an airplane almost anywhere in the United States without asking anyone, telling anyone, communicating with anyone, or being tracked by anyone (transponder)?

Now that's freedom!

Trying going 3 days without starting your car and then reevaluate how dependent you think we are.

First off I live out away from the city, so there is literally nothing close to me business wise. There is no public transportation around me and I doubt there is ever in my lifetime. But again I'm here because I want away from that. So for me to be able to go anywhere or do anything outside my neighborhood I have to have a vehicle.

That said there are several occasions where when I come home on Friday, I don't get in a car until Monday or Tuesday.

Zuplar, so its fair to say you are 100% dependent on your car? This essentially means that the government will be tracking your every move, determing when you can leave your house, the route you will take to and fro, how fast you will go, your priority status for an congestion based decisions, and the amount of tax owed. In the brave new world of tomorrow does the car still equal freedom?

If you live in a auto-based environment and the government tracks, controls, and taxes your vehicle remotely what choice do you have but to comply? At what point does the car stop representing freedom?I am more free since I have my car. If I didn't have my car, I would be stuck at home. I don't like riding buses and trains sitting right next people. I do ride my bike about 5-10 miles each day, but that is for fun.

The car lovers among us hang their hats on "cars equals freedom" and equate mass transit to a communist take over. So let me ask, with the rise of the automated car how much longer will the automobile equal freedom for these people?

NHTSA May Mandate That New Cars Broadcast Location, Direction and Speed | CNS News (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/nhtsa-may-mandate-new-cars-broadcast-location-direction-and-speed)I will also be uninstalling this device if it happens, which I doubt it will.

I really could care less if the government can see when I'm in my car. As for telling me when I can and can't use it, I don't see that happening in reality. That's a flouride in the water because of the Russians kind of fear.

On government owned roads.Thats what "we the people" pay for. The roads are our roads, not the governments.

^

And that's exactly the problem with America. We can't fathom escaping our cars.I don't want to. I enjoy driving my car, but I'm sure you're going to tell me that I am brainwashed or something. ;)

Trying going 3 days without starting your car and then reevaluate how dependent you think we are.I already have. There are times I've riding my bike to the grocery store when I needed something.

Zuplar, so its fair to say you are 100% dependent on your car? This essentially means that the government will be tracking your every move, determing when you can leave your house, the route you will take to and fro, how fast you will go, your priority status for an congestion based decisions, and the amount of tax owed. In the brave new world of tomorrow does the car still equal freedom?I don't want to speak for Zuplar, but I get from him that he choosing to be dependent on a car. If he wanted to be living in DD, I'm sure he'd be living there.

As for your second part, JTF, you seem like an awesome guy, but you show a horrible bias towards cars. It is obvious to me, that you want this tracking to happen so you can use it against people in your car vs. mass transit arguments.

Cars equaling freedom? No. Only if you buy your car free and clear and it never has a single issue you never have to pay for because cars are going to have mechanical failures and someone else is not going to pay for your maintenance unless you have a sugar mama or sugar daddy. Unfortunately for those of us that live in cities that don't have an established public transportation network AND a city so spread out, a car is a MUST HAVE. Now, folks like Sid have attested to getting by but I'm not going to hop on the Metro bus to figure out where I can't go and I'm not going to pay Uber or a taxi cab driver to take me to Taco Bell. We could also holler at a friend but who wants to be that scrub (thanks TLC). Having a car is the freedom to drive anywhere but it's just as well a chain that keeps us all tied down.


^

And that's exactly the problem with America. We can't fathom escaping our cars.

Especially if you live IN your car!

Did you know that a pilot can fly an airplane almost anywhere in the United States without asking anyone, telling anyone, communicating with anyone, or being tracked by anyone (transponder)?

Now that's freedom!

It's not just the roads that the government owns, they've got the airspace as well.

If you live in a auto-based environment and the government tracks, controls, and taxes your vehicle remotely what choice do you have but to comply? At what point does the car stop representing freedom?

When the gov can do a remote lock out.

Are you talking to yourself again, Tom? ;)

No, I'm not.
Yes, he is.
Am no.
Are too.

Jeez - I sound like the House of Representatives!

As for your second part, JTF, you seem like an awesome guy, but you show a horrible bias towards cars. It is obvious to me, that you want this tracking to happen so you can use it against people in your car vs. mass transit arguments.

Trust me - I don't want the government tracking anything. However, in some of the recent transit based discussions two of the things that are constantly brought up by the anti-mass transit crowd is that in your own car you can come and go as you please and mass transit is a conspiracy to take away people freedom and force them to do something they don't want to do. That got me to thinking, if the government really did want to control people what would be the easiest way to control the most people? Answer, via their car, and if they could sell it as being for their own good people would lap it up. Then low and behold I read the story I linked to.

I keep going back to these 3 paragraphs.


NHTSA sees this technology as the first step on a “continuum” of automotive evolution that will ultimately lead to fully automated vehicles navigated by internal electronics linked to external infrastructure, communications and database systems.

The upside of a government-mandated movement toward cars that are not controlled by the people riding in them is that it could make transportation safer, allow people to use time spent in a vehicle for work, rest or entertainment, and give people who are currently incapable of driving because of age or disability the opportunity to move as freely as those who can now drive.

The downside is that such a transportation system would give the government at least the capability to exert increasing control over when, where, if--or for how much additional taxation--people are allowed to go places in individually owned vehicles. It could also give government the ability to track where people go and when.

Also, just to clarify, I know all people who drive cars are not anti-mass transit. I drive a car.

On government owned roads.


Who pays and paid for the roads?

Who pays and paid for the roads?

Indirectly the taxpayers. In OKC it is usually the bond holders, subdivision developers, etc... who pay for the road, and the taxpayers pay them back with interest. Are you trying to imply that the taxpayers own the roads?

Zuplar, so its fair to say you are 100% dependent on your car? This essentially means that the government will be tracking your every move, determing when you can leave your house, the route you will take to and fro, how fast you will go, your priority status for an congestion based decisions, and the amount of tax owed. In the brave new world of tomorrow does the car still equal freedom?

Yes I am, but let me be clear I am not on the side of government tracking. My comments were solely to express a point that for many a vehicle is a necessity and public transit doesn't make sense for everyone.

I don't want to speak for Zuplar, but I get from him that he choosing to be dependent on a car. If he wanted to be living in DD, I'm sure he'd be living there.

As for your second part, JTF, you seem like an awesome guy, but you show a horrible bias towards cars. It is obvious to me, that you want this tracking to happen so you can use it against people in your car vs. mass transit arguments.

Don't worry, you nailed this one. I chose to move where I did because I wanted to be away from the hustle and bustle therefore I absolutely chose to depend on my truck.

It isn't "our" roads.

A municipality is a corporation. An affiliate of the state. They are designed to provide services to local groups of state citizens. To do this, they levy taxes, fees, etc.

The roads don't belong to you. They are quite literally the property of the municipality, who derives its power from the State. You own not a single piece of road unless you own ROW (in your name) and pay for the pavement.

Now, you may know all of this but the semantics game means you're simply trying to make a political point where it is a simple matter of jurisdiction.

And more to the matter, a municipality not only has the authority, but the responsibility to maintain the roads and build them with prudence and responsibility. Hence the problem myself and other conservatives have with endless building and expanding of road networks. Especially when pure market forces aren't at work. Enormous subsidies (debt) must be levied to provide this so-called freedom and market choices. A debt myself and others all have to bear. One man's "freedom" is just another man's debt when we are talking about infrastructure. No two ways about it.Sid, that is exactly why I said the roads are ours. Yours, mine, and every other tax payer out there. I pay taxes, you pay taxes, my neighbor pays taxes; every person in this should be paying their taxes. No tax payers(which is a collective term I use for "us")= no roads. I"m sure if people wanted to, they could band together and build roads with their own money. The government can't and doesn't without taxpayer money.

Cars equaling freedom? No. Only if you buy your car free and clear and it never has a single issue you never have to pay for because cars are going to have mechanical failures and someone else is not going to pay for your maintenance unless you have a sugar mama or sugar daddy. Unfortunately for those of us that live in cities that don't have an established public transportation network AND a city so spread out, a car is a MUST HAVE. Now, folks like Sid have attested to getting by but I'm not going to hop on the Metro bus to figure out where I can't go and I'm not going to pay Uber or a taxi cab driver to take me to Taco Bell. We could also holler at a friend but who wants to be that scrub (thanks TLC). Having a car is the freedom to drive anywhere but it's just as well a chain that keeps us all tied down.



Especially if you live IN your car!Yeah and people choose to live in this city that they know, is not easy to live in without a car.

Trust me - I don't want the government tracking anything. However, in some of the recent transit based discussions two of the things that are constantly brought up by the anti-mass transit crowd is that in your own car you can come and go as you please and mass transit is a conspiracy to take away people freedom and force them to do something they don't want to do. That got me to thinking, if the government really did want to control people what would be the easiest way to control the most people? Answer, via their car, and if they could sell it as being for their own good people would lap it up. Then low and behold I read the story I linked to.

I keep going back to these 3 paragraphs.



Also, just to clarify, I know all people who drive cars are not anti-mass transit. I drive a car.I'm not anti mass transit, in fact, I would love to see more mass transit options here in OKC. The only problem I have is it seems like there are a few that no matter how many times they say it, I would put my money on if they were in charge there would be no money at all going to highways and anything support highway projects etc.

I'm not supporting the conspiracy that you speak of, but know this- if the everyone relied on mass transit, the government could shut it down and "trap" people. If everyone had cars, then it wouldn't be so easy.

Indirectly the taxpayers. In OKC it is usually the bond holders, subdivision developers, etc... who pay for the road, and the taxpayers pay them back with interest. Are you trying to imply that the taxpayers own the roads?I am. At least in a sense. Please explain to me how the taxpayers pay for the roads but don't own them?

The same way a leaseholder does not own the property.

I drive a big truck.

I OWN THE ROAD SUCKAS, NOW MOVE B***H, GET OUT DA WAY.

if they take over our cars they might not start if you owe any kind of legal or civil fine. maybe even if you vote the wrong way. It will make it easier for the drones to follow you.

Anyone ever see the movie "The Last Chase" ? ... 1981... .. It was about future United States where the only transportation that was available was public transportation and you could not own, or even possess a vehicle.

Anyone ever see the movie "The Last Chase" ? ... 1981... .. It was about future United States where the only transportation that was available was public transportation and you could not own, or even possess a vehicle.

Lee Majors was in it. Awesome movie.

Lee Majors was in it. Awesome movie.

And Burgess Meredith too....

Well they aren't. In fact, yes, without taxpayers, you still ROWs. That's my point. The road network, improved or not, doesn't belong to the taxpayer.

The taxpayer is levied to make improvements, but those improvements aren't owned by you either. No more than the machines at Coke are if you buy a bottle of Coke. You're not putting down a payment for the roads. That's my point. It is semantics for sure but incredibly important semantics when we start throwing around words like "Freedom" and "free market" to discuss road construction and rural development.

Kinda opted until now not to get in on this thread, but I'm at least going to chime in a bit here :)

Don't think the Coke machine analogy is entirely apt here. First, the vendor wants to put those machines where he's going to make money, and rarely is the person hosting the machine paying for it. Its often the other way around - the vendor offers a cut of the proceeds to the person providing the vending space. Clearly, the guy buying the Coke has no fiscal relationship to the vending machine per se. The only "service" a road provides is, well, "access," and as we're not (yet) tolling all the roads, we're obviously not paying literally to get on that road, so we're not directly "paying for the product." Guy buys a coke, he gets it, he walks away. But the taxpaying (and even non-taxpaying driver, if such a person is primarily only theoretical) driver has ad-hoc access to the road (excepting tolled private state highways, etc., which I assume is a given in the discussion).

The point is that if the monies I remand to the government that are used for highways, it isn't "purely for the soda in the machine" because if I don't put in fifty cents, I don't get a soda. But that doesn't hold true for highways. Whether I've paid a dime or a $1M in taxes, my access to those roads is unfettered. So, yes, technically, you are absolutely right in that I do not "own/have title to" the highway, but I have (or should have) a great deal more influence over its management by virtue of my tax monies than the guy in the office building who tells the Coke guy to put the machine in the break room, and never gives it a second thought...until it jams and doesn't give him a soda.....whereupon a contemporary of Mayor Bloomberg swoops down on him and has him imprisoned for drinking a Coke in the first place....(sarcasm).

As far as the broader issue of mandatory, ubiquitous government monitoring of vehicle movement, I believe its reprehensible. We now already have the ability to track and remote-stop a vehicle, which is great for stolen cars. Not so for someone doing nothing of consequence living in a society of presumed innocence.

Anyone ever see the movie "The Last Chase" ? ... 1981... .. It was about future United States where the only transportation that was available was public transportation and you could not own, or even possess a vehicle.

Ironically, he's trying to get to "Free California", where gasoline-burning cars are still welcome.

Trivia: On the movie poster, the jet attacking the race car is an F-4 Phantom. but in the movie, they use an F-86 Sabre.

A collection of essays by the late automotive journalist David E. Davis Jr. came with a foreword by P. J. O'Rourke, which I am happy to endorse despite my support for streetcars and such:


David knows what every sixteen-year-old knows, but what no elected official, self-appointed quality-of-life advocate, or double-domed social visionary seems to — that cars confer upon us the ultimate and most important of human freedoms. We can leave.

My total vehicular costs (regular maintenance such as tires, oil changes etc. + car insurance + gas money) is around $84/week for a paid off car. Doesn't sound like much, but I am a regular working class individual who brings home about $400 a week. When you total up your transportation costs, it costs a lot to drive. I couldn't imagine having a several hundred dollar a month car payment on top of the O&M cost.

It does indeed cost a lot to drive -- more than some folks are willing or able to shell out. (I once figured that my previous car cost me 59 cents for each and every mile.) Hence, transit options.

If we had a decent transit system, I wouldn't eliminate my car altogether, but even reducing my driving by a half would reduce my cost by about 30 bucks a week net saving. (Transit also costs to use) around an extra $1600 a year I could use for other things.

A collection of essays by the late automotive journalist David E. Davis Jr. came with a foreword by P. J. O'Rourke, which I am happy to endorse despite my support for streetcars and such:


David knows what every sixteen-year-old knows, but what no elected official, self-appointed quality-of-life advocate, or double-domed social visionary seems to — that cars confer upon us the ultimate and most important of human freedoms. We can leave.

ah-ha, that is the crux of the dilemma. What if the car didn't allow you to leave?

I maintain that walking is the most important of human freedoms. If you take away my ability to walk - through Euclidian zoning segregation you have in essence denied me my most basic of rights and force me to own an expensive automobile while at the same time taxing me even more to pay for a place to drive it, and on top of that a tax on the fuel that makes it go. How is that for 'freedom of the automobile'?

I wonder how the tea party feels about this.