Frantisek didn't like what I wrote and responded: > TR> Riding a bicycle isn't a privilege, walking isn't a privilege, skateboarding > TR> isn't a privilege and neither is any other method of transport. Buying into > TR> that requires buying into the idea that freedom is something that the > TR> government can mete out as it sees fit. > > I think _that_ is a bunch of crap. Typically American way of petrol > drinking thinking.
That's the way the free market works. If I can afford the gasoline then I take a ride. If I can't then I stay home. I resent the fact that the government says it's a privilege that they allow me to drive my car. It implies that they can take away that privilege at anytime. I say that I'm free to drive my car unless I act in such a way that I endanger others. > I get rash all over when I hear that. Wow. You're easy. I bet if I tried I could get you itching like a man on a fuzzy tree. > Driving is > not a freedom because it infringes on others' freedom so much more > than walking. I have never heard that walking or bicycling damages the > environment that much, has people tortured in Nigeria or their rights trampled > everywhere else. > It is commonly said that my freedom ends where your > begins. Figure in the externalities (vis an economic dictionary), and > perhaps you see that driving a car has so much external costs that it > must be regulated. I vehemently disagree. Would you have us apply for a permit before we drive where we specify our destination and which route we'll take? I don't infringe on anyones rights by driving my car. I'll base my trips on the price of fuel. That's how the free market works. Tom Reese
