Here’s another guest post, from “Douglas,” on the subject of carlessness.
Most of my oh-so-enlightened (all of them college drop outs like me) liberal-minded freaks of friends (no, they are freaks, social deviants) are in fact smart people, but they assume an intelligence that isn’t theirs based upon their defiance of social norms.
Most of them live in the Lincoln Park area of Chicago, and don’t own cars any more; they only update their driver’s licences so that they can defer portions of their taxes to Indiana rules rather than Illinois.
One of them, since he got rid of his car, hasn’t visited his mother once in almost ten years. Since then, he’s gotten married, had two kids, filed for bankruptcy, taken “loans” from his mother, who was there to visit her boy, but he has never found his way across the border for any reason other than pretending he’s an Indiana resident.
Same for some of the other friends, but to a lesser degree.
There is a selfishness to this “I don’t need to go anywhere I can’t walk” attitude. I lived in other countries, and was technically poor, but I still visited my mother, I still made my brother’s wedding, and if I was somewhere that there were roads that got me somewhere, I would get in my car and I would make it to important moments for my friends.
I drove from Chicago to Vegas for a one-night trip three times, so that I could be a part of my friends’ getting married. I got in my car and drove to Florida for the same reason, I made it to Kentucky twice for a cousin’s christening, and again for another cousin’s divorce. (the divorce one is a complicated story)
I drove from Chicago to Hammond, Louisiana four times, because I was the only one who could be counted on to help a friend move back to my area, in an escort, since my friend was so possessive of certain possessions, that he didn’t trust the mover.
It took four trips.
If I didn’t have a car, my friend in Louisiana would have been assed out, if I didn’t have a car, I wouldn’t have been able to be a part of those other very cherished (other than the divorce one, though there is a degree of satisfaction that I felt) events. If I hadn’t had a car.
If you don’t have a car, if you don’t have freedom of independent movement, you are a parasite, and must depend on people who DO have cars, or on people who are taxed to pay for inefficient buses and trains to get you where you need to go.
This “walking” society is a lie. They will walk a few blocks, they won’t walk the miles that the working class did at the turn of the century to get to where they needed to go, instead, they parasitically demand that they have a right to go from one place to another, and everyone else that is not them pay for it.
I’m carless at the moment (living in Arlington, VA for a while), and it’s not bad. Interestingly, I can get a car whenever I want one for a few hours via ZipCar. For seven bucks an hour I can get the use of a Civic Hybrid that lets me go wherever I need to, with gas and insurance included. I could see this as a useful middle ground between doing entirely without a car and being dependent on one.
I can often get by without a car in DC, but I recognize that this is because the taxpayers are paying for my transportation via Metro subsidies.
most cities in the 19th century had highly effective private mass transit.
The subsidized car killed commercial bus and rail.
The laying of rails along city streets wasn’t exactly an unsubsidized activity, Jack.
Folks that demand that other people subsidize their non-generalizable lifestyle choices are indeed parasites upon the body politic.
I contrast that with people whose lives are subsidized by others, but gratefully acknowledge that they are beneficiaries of others.
Also, the “highly effective private mass transit” of the 19th century rather begs the question of how to define “high”, “effective” (for whom?), “private”, and “mass”.
The laying of rails along city streets wasn’t exactly an unsubsidized activity, Jack.
Actually, in some cases it was. The original New York subways were private.
most cities in the 19th century had highly effective private mass transit.
The subsidized car killed commercial bus and rail.
The laying of rails along city streets wasn’t exactly an unsubsidized activity, Jack.
Actually, in some cases it was. The original New York subways were private.
if all subsidies were eliminated Suburbs would implode.
Cities have a 4000 year human history.
small towns have a 10,000 year history.
Suburbs were a outgrowth of subsidized infrastructure and subsidized
highways.
Of course, the notion that transportation infrastructure constitutes a “subsidy” is laughable in light of the finite nature of the real estate on which that infrastructure has to be built. An entirely private transportation network would very quickly devolve into near monopoly.
And they were not built by tunneling as we know it, but by digging up the street, building the tunnel in the trench, and filling in on top of the structure.
This could not be done without some kind of municipal protection of the builder’s right to close the street and then subsequently to operate the railway in the tunnel. By Jack’s definition that ought to be considered every bit as subsidized as a taxpayer-funded highway.
I think it’s rather much to label carless people “parasites.” It all depends upon how they handle being carless. I was without a car for four years. I hated it, but I learned to cope. I learned the bus schedule and planned accordingly. If I had to ask someone to drive me somewhere I made sure I offered to pay for gas. And if I wanted to visit someone out of town, I figured out how to get there. (For example: I took the Amtrak from Florida to North Carolina to buy the car I now drive.) Those people who refuse to go anywhere “they can’t walk” are not just avoiding owning a car; they have deeper problems. If they really wanted to visit their out of town families they would find a way — there’s the Amtrak, a Greyhound bus, their precious “walking.”
Then there are people who are crippled and can’t drive, but need to go places. Are they parasites?
I don’t see anything wrong with mass transit that is subsidized by taxes as long as the community agrees that this is one of the services they want their taxes to pay for. And I don’t see anything wrong with privately owned transit services either. People will use whichever service is more convenient.
I think it’s rather much to label carless people “parasites.” It all depends upon how they handle being carless.
Andrea, it’s not people without cars per se who are parasites. It’s those who are self righteous about it…
” An entirely private transportation network would very quickly devolve into near monopoly.
The original New York subways were private.
And they were not built by tunneling as we know it, but by digging up the street, building the tunnel in the trench, and filling in on top of the structure.
This could not be done without some kind of municipal protection of the builder’s right to close the street and then subsequently to operate the railway in the tunnel. By Jack’s definition that ought to be considered every bit as subsidized as a taxpayer-funded highway.”
When did Libertarians, republicans and conservatives ever care about
Monopolies? I believe Milton Friedman argued that a monopoly would encourage additional investment as excess profits attracted new entrants.
and when the gas company digs up my street, is that a subsidy?
BTW, when I was living in Chicago, the IC and the CNW ran on private
Rights of way.
“When did Libertarians, republicans and conservatives ever care about monopolies?”
Ever study history jack?
*cough*Teddy Roosevelt*cough*
When we understood the philosophical basis of property and property rights.
I haven’t followed Milton Friedman all that much. He first caught my attention with monetarism and his proposal to replace the current tax system and the welfare state with a kind of “reverse income tax” for those with incomes below a certain point. So, I’m not sure Friedman is exactly a poster boy for libertarianism or conservatism.
The gas company has an easement for its pipelines; if the easement is on private property the easement is a property interest on a par with outright ownership and is a consequence of real property law — again, the finitude of real property makes it a special case compared to other forms of property, but all property ownership depends on either the rule of law or the rule of the sword. If the easement is on public property that may be a different animal altogether, and one I don’t understand quite as well since my education in the matter focused by necessity on private property. Nevertheless, the very concept of a private company having easement rights on public property would be hard to separate from the idea of public ownership of roads.
I take it these are surface railroads? You might want to look into the history of who owned the land before the railroads got it. Unless they bought the property early enough in Chicago’s past that the land wasn’t very expensive, there was almost certainly a public-policy contribution to bringing those rights-of-way into being.
In the case of subways, many routes pass under private property, in which case either the builders obtained a subsurface easement voluntarily from the property owner, or the city brought the easement into being over the owners’ objections.
Easements are a fun and fascinating permutation of property law. They involve “dominant estates” by the easement holder against “servient estates” by the deeded owner of the property. Learning about these things gives a wonderful glimpse of the medieval roots of most of the legal concepts surrounding land ownership, and the most amazing thing about it is that despite being medieval in origin it’s still the best there is.
“*cough*Teddy Roosevelt*cough*”
Who would be decried as a socialist by most Republicans today.
Seizing land for national parks, and prohibiting most industrial use on there.
Breaking up trusts.
regulating banks.
Sorry, Republicans can’t claim TR when it’s convenient when they have spent
30 years denying his legacy. Besides TR broke with the party to form the bull moose party. Even he had enough of these bankers.
“Andrea, it’s not people without cars per se who are parasites. It’s those who are self righteous about it…”
On that I agree. It’s just the way he wrote this passage:
“If you don’t have a car, if you don’t have freedom of independent movement, you are a parasite, and must depend on people who DO have cars, or on people who are taxed to pay for inefficient buses and trains to get you where you need to go.”
He seems to be sweeping with a rather large broom there. He precedes this passage with descriptions of just one sort of non-driver — the self-righteous, self-regarding, self-involved sort — but with his closer he seems to be saying that anyone who doesn’t own a car is like his old college buddies.
Who would be decried as a socialist by most Republicans today.
I don’t know what Republicans think of him, but he was actually a “progressive” and a fascist (our first fascist president, before the term had been invented). Kind of like you, except he was a lot smarter.
“I don’t know what Republicans think of him, but he was actually a “progressive” and a fascist”
TR broke with the GOP and formed the Progressive party because he
thought the GOP was in bed with the trusts and the Banks. It’s a pity
it didn’t hold together.
> If I had to ask someone to drive me somewhere I made sure I offered to pay for gas.
That’s less than half of the cost of driving you.