I'm sorry Chalo, but every one of your claims here can be dis-proven logically. You're so blinded by your hatred of automobiles you never get around to separating the different concepts and so you gripe about the wrong things. I know because I actually used to be just like you.
>You're talking about an asset that sits idle 95% of the time
Completely irrelevant. How much or little I choose to use my dishwasher or my car or my tennis racket are none of your concern and have no effect on you at all.
>and is a burden on society 100% of the time.
Totally false. Anyone can see at a glance that my car in my garage has no effect on your whatsoever.
>The more they stay busy, the fewer it takes to do the same work.
Completely irrelevant. The same could be said for my bicycle and my pencil but why should we all share things when we can all own our own? It's none of your business how many bicycles or cars people choose to own.
>Wealth doesn't occur in a vacuum.
What does this even mean? It sounds like you're saying wealth can only be taken from others and can not be created, but that would be completely false.
>What you advocate for is a system where it doesn't matter what the burden is to everybody else
Owning things is not a burden to anyone, it is a sign of a healthy economy and a wealthy nation. You want us to not
own things, which is a sign of poverty. How do you not understand that?
>Cars destroy other people's health and property
They can. So can guns, so can industry, antifreeze, paint, wooden tables, boats and everything else. These are just things, they are not inherently good or bad.
You can not eliminate war or suicide by taking away guns.
You can not eliminate pollution by taking away gasoline.
You can not eliminate violence by taking away anything.
Your complaint that we should share cars just so that we can make fewer of them or use them less often is absurd. Should we share can openers just so we can make fewer of those? What about vacuum cleaners, surely we should share those so they don't sit idle all the time? It's just a ridiculous idea.
All things should be used responsibly. Your real
complaint is that you think cars are being used irresponsibly. But instead of supporting a framework that allows us to differentiate responsible from irresponsible, your solution is to have the government use their guns to ban everything you personally don't like.
The high accident rate is caused by the government forcing us to use their terrible road network, and the pollution does not get addressed because the government has weakened our property rights and the pollution originates from the government road network to begin with.
There are solutions to each of these problems but you can't begin to look for them because like all Democrats you have been taught to never blame the government for anything so you can't even identify the source of the problem. As I have shown, the government's use of force and economic meddling is the cause of the problem in both cases.
Izits wrote:You've got this completely backward. We don't want people to share cars, we want everyone to own a car or several cars.
No, you've got it completely backwards. You're talking about an asset that sits idle 95% of the time, and is a burden on society 100% of the time. The fewer of them there are, the less the generalized burden. The more they stay busy, the fewer it takes to do the same work.
It's like you have no understanding or acknowledgement of the concepts of negative externalities
or the tragedy of the commons
. I guess that's a typical intellectual failing among libertarians. So feel free to read up.
Wealth doesn't occur in a vacuum. Consumption doesn't occur in a vacuum. What you advocate for is a system where it doesn't matter what the burden is to everybody else, as long as the one spending his own money gets what he thinks he wants. It's not cool. Cars destroy other people's health and property, diminish everyone's quality of life, pollute, and take up space that belongs to the public. It's not any kind of public benefit to have more of them.
The only enemy of the electric bicycle community is the government. Think about it. Who bans or restricts your use of electric bikes, other than the government? Smaller Government = More Freedom.