Prev: Let's face it: There's no Frugality without Biking or Walking
Next: Ramon Herrera and Repo star in new anti-White film by Hispanic director.
From: Dänk 110100100 on 8 May 2010 16:53
On May 7, 11:57 am, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, ComandanteBanana
and Chief of Quixotic Enterprises" <comandante.ban...(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> You and only you can get on a bicycle and assume personal
> responsibility. This is the "ANARCHIST" solution. The role of
> government is to make it SAFE for you --or we live by the Law of the
> Jungle.

A famous anarchist philosopher once observed that technological
progress REDUCES freedom, and used the invention of the automobile as
an example. When first introduced, autos seemed to provide greater
freedom of mobility, but today they have reduced it by changing the
very nature of society. For the last century, cities and suburbs have
been designed around the automobile, making it impractical to walk or
even ride a bike to work or shop. The freedom to walk has been
curtailed, since roads are for cars, not pedestrians, and now there
really no place to walk to, since everything is located so far away.

Your proposed bike solution also reduces freedom, making it the
opposite of anarchism. To bike safely, bike lanes must be built and
maintained, just like roads for automobiles. The government has an
interest in reducing national energy usage, so once bike lanes are
built, energy taxes will be increased to discourage driving. What you
think is a 'choice' to ride a bicycle becomes just another government
mandate, and your freedom to drive a car is now curtailed.

From: Matthew Russotto on 8 May 2010 23:36
In article <b78d517c-6c24-48e1-a7c9-ad3b9e8780d7(a)t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E4nk_110100100?= <dank420(a)rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>A famous anarchist philosopher once observed that technological
>progress REDUCES freedom, and used the invention of the automobile as
>an example. When first introduced, autos seemed to provide greater
>freedom of mobility, but today they have reduced it by changing the
>very nature of society. For the last century, cities and suburbs have
>been designed around the automobile, making it impractical to walk or
>even ride a bike to work or shop.

Before the car, a person might spend his whole damn life in one small
town. Or worse, on his own farm, only walking into the small town at
intervals.... because it took all day and he didn't have the time to spare.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Phlip on 9 May 2010 01:13
On May 8, 8:36 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
wrote:

> Before the car, a person might spend his whole damn life in one small
> town.

Uh, they thought trains were magical, and refused to board one?

(-;
From: Phlip on 9 May 2010 01:13
On May 8, 8:36 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
wrote:

> The problem with socialism is there's always
> someone with less ability and more need.

And if he's the CEO, you are _totally_ screwed.
From: His Highness the TibetanMonkey, ComandanteBanana and Chief of Quixotic Enterprises on 9 May 2010 02:35
On May 8, 4:53 pm, Dänk 110100100 <dank...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 11:57 am, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, ComandanteBanana
> and Chief of Quixotic Enterprises" <comandante.ban...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You and only you can get on a bicycle and assume personal
> > responsibility. This is the "ANARCHIST" solution. The role of
> > government is to make it SAFE for you --or we live by the Law of the
> > Jungle.
>
> A famous anarchist philosopher once observed that technological
> progress REDUCES freedom, and used the invention of the automobile as
> an example.  When first introduced, autos seemed to provide greater
> freedom of mobility, but today they have reduced it by changing the
> very nature of society.  For the last century, cities and suburbs have
> been designed around the automobile, making it impractical to walk or
> even ride a bike to work or shop.  The freedom to walk has been
> curtailed, since roads are for cars, not pedestrians, and now there
> really no place to walk to, since everything is located so far away.
>
> Your proposed bike solution also reduces freedom, making it the
> opposite of anarchism.  To bike safely, bike lanes must be built and
> maintained, just like roads for automobiles.  The government has an
> interest in reducing national energy usage, so once bike lanes are
> built, energy taxes will be increased to discourage driving.  What you
> think is a 'choice' to ride a bicycle becomes just another government
> mandate, and your freedom to drive a car is now curtailed.

Let's call "BUILDING BIKE FACILITIES" the socialist way, and having
the "BIKES TAKE THE LANE" the anarchist way. Notice that minimal
government intervention allowing the bike to run like a vehicle, with
the huge difference that the car MUST EXIT THE LANE 30' before and
after the bike, making it much safer for the cyclist.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Let's face it: There's no Frugality without Biking or Walking
Next: Ramon Herrera and Repo star in new anti-White film by Hispanic director.