And what about the cows? Make everyone vegetarians, too?
Well, that wouldn't serve any purpose... meat actually delivers more nutrition than vegetables. But I see your point. You see the scenario as though it were being implemented because of someone's personal values (like the belief that eating meat is wrong), rather than because it makes better use of our limited resources and cuts down on pollution. I don't agree that that's the case, but I will say that this should not be done because of anyone's values, but only because of the problems with continuing to do things the way we've done them.
If you disagree that there are problems with the way things are being done and have been done that must be addressed, and can explain why you believe this to be the case... then I will admit that my idea is wrong in principle, because it is founded on the assumption that what we are doing currently is unsustainable and ultimately bad for everyone.
Personally, I'm rather happy that we have problems implementing things like this.
Some other major countries do not, and they are not places where I'd prefer to live.
Yes, it may make you happy. But it's not good for the long term. That's the entire problem with democracy... people are driven to do things that are destructive and wasteful in the long-term, because they bring happiness in the present. I think that eventually, people will look back and say that those other major countries were like the ant, and America was like the grasshopper.
I think your plan sounds ok, but, just off the top of my head, I can see a number of problems with it.
When it would actually be implemented, I'm sure those problems would only be magnified tenfold.
You are probably right. I haven't thought out the details of the plan, I just created an outline for how we might go about getting rid of cars, if we were to do it. In reality, the best we can probably hope for is that they'll finally get all the older cars off the road, and insist that all cars meet current emissions standards. And maybe increase taxes on them. But that's about as far as they'll go, and while that might make a small dent in pollution, it won't be enough.
That being said, the lesson of the 20th century (market economy > command economy), is currently in a bit of a crisis.
Over the next several decades, even in the US, there will likely be increased experimentation with increased levels of government control/intervention in the economy.
I'm really not surprised. I think that ultimately, the current US model will be found to be terribly ineffective and wasteful. It will likely be found that a primarily market economy with significant government oversight is the best way to go. Neither system in pure form is adequate, and we know this from experience. The first country to realize this and create such an economy... will have a major advantage, and possibly even become a world leader.
Right now, though, I don't think there's any room at all in the local, state, or federal budgets to overhaul the transportation system in the way you've recommended.
Perhaps not, but it should still be done as soon as possible. In fact, it should have been done a long time ago. Things cannot be allowed to continue on the way they've been going indefinitely (according to my current understanding of the issue), because it's ultimately unsustainable and possibly suicidal.
Furthermore, the system you propounded would almost certainly eliminate lower-income peoples from car-ownership, while the rich would still have full access.
The question becomes: "Is all this really worth the potential costs of not doing it?"
Personally, I don't really know that it is...
This is true. I'm sure that would be the case, but... ultimately, it still serves the purpose because there are fewer wealthy people than low-income people. It will be upsetting to the lower-income people to see the rich continuing to drive around, though. As oil becomes more scarce, however, I think that market forces would naturally force us towards similar situations (where the wealthy drive, and the rest of us don't), but without the benefit of foresight or good public transportation systems to replace cars that people can no longer afford.
But still, I don't see a way around it that doesn't involve a solution similar to this. If one is possible, it would obviously be preferable.
But I thought it best to point out that there are other, better ways to tease.
, thinking you'd found the integrity to admit that the position you'd been arguing was wrong, but, considering, with this second post, you've basically just reversed your previous position while trying to appear like you haven't, well, I'll just leave it at that.
