An argument was given as to why cars were a poor solution to the problem of personal transportation, and you've made it into an argument about personal freedom. The point is we can't design a system that optimises for both efficient personal transportation and widespread car usage (I'd argue we can't design a system for widespread car use at all, but that's by the way). So, as a society we make choices. Each choice we make impacts someone's personal freedom in some way, be that through making it harder to drive somewhere, or indeed making it harder to cycle or walk somewhere. Based on your perspective, any given change you might think is appalling or a very good thing; a curtailment of your personal freedom or a liberation.
So what should we do? My response is we should think holistically about the problem. How should most people get about most of the time? Optimise for that case, whilst allowing for the edge cases. Should is doing a lot in that previous statement, but thinking about efficiency and resource allocation is probably a good route towards establishing a reasonable "should".
Let's not get hung up on "freedom" rhetoric. It's not helpful.
Cars are, by far, the best and most universal solution to most people's transport needs. That's why they're so prolific. Because every other option has an asterisk next to it for certain use cases. If they weren't the best solution, we would be talking about something else.
So society has already made that choice, which is why it's the status quo. It's not perfect, but it's what we have. This discussion amounts to a relatively privileged minority decreeing that what the rest of society has settled on is, in fact, not the best solution, based on a fairly narrow set of criteria that doesn't take other people's circumstances into account.
If you don't want people driving cars as often, alternative transport solutions can take some of the load off. But take it from a guy who's lived in Asian megacities and didn't own a car until his thirties, people still own cars in those places because they either have responsibilities that mandate it, or because they don't want their movement dictated to them by where the train line ends.
>Because every other option has an asterisk next to it for certain use cases. If they weren't the best solution, we would be talking about something else.
This is the most North-american thing I've read today.
Where I live cars are probably the least useful thing for most people's transport need, we take the tram here.
>So society has already made that choice, which is why it's the status quo.
And yet I'd be willing to bet that cars are still commonplace where you live. I also live somewhere that has trams, and even used them myself for many years. They're still not a replacement for a car. And again, this isn't really a point that needs to be defended, because odds are you saw plenty of cars driving around today. Even if you yourself don't use one, you're relying on other people to do so for you. If you're not picking someone up from the airport yourself, you're paying someone else to do so. In a car. Or you're having your goods delivered to you, by car. I think you get my drift.
Cars allow us to do things that wouldn't be possible in their absence. The only real argument here is to what degree we can minimize the need for cars so that more people can opt to go without, but I think that's a losing battle. People vote with their wallets. Not only have they overwhelmingly voted for cars, but global urban density is actually decreasing, and is likely to do so for the next three decades. Trying to take away the freedom that a car provides is going to be a losing battle outside of notable exceptions (Singapore, HK, etc.).
The point isn't that cars aren't useful. The point is we shouldn't optimise for cars. People's individual choices are a poor guide for transport policy decisions. See Braess's paradox, and Downs-Thomson paradox (neither of which are actual paradoxes, just a noting of how individual rational decisions result in a net reduction in utility for all, including the individual).
It's not self-evident to me that we shouldn't optimize for cars. Again, global urban density has been falling for decades, and is likely to keep falling for decades further. There are many, many reasons for this, but at least one of them is that when push comes to shove, many people decide that owning a car is a worthwhile investment, and that additional mobility allows them to live further out. In order to nudge more people into forgoing car ownership, you would need to make cars less useful and less worthwhile, because as long as that advantage is present, people will want them, utilize them, and demand infrastructure for them.
So what should we do? My response is we should think holistically about the problem. How should most people get about most of the time? Optimise for that case, whilst allowing for the edge cases. Should is doing a lot in that previous statement, but thinking about efficiency and resource allocation is probably a good route towards establishing a reasonable "should".
Let's not get hung up on "freedom" rhetoric. It's not helpful.