I'm wondering how folks view the car free movement's future. As a conservative libertarian, I favor a bottom up approach. This seeks to sell the car free options to people on the basis of personal money savings, fitness and general well being. As I see it, people have been brainwashed and beguiled by generations of intense advertising trying to convince them that you need a car to be sexy or even to be a man. If you don't have a car, you're seen as an adult child. Someone who won't grow up. Viewed from outside the system, this is both absurd and obscene. We've given power to make our most fundamental choices over to a lethal machine. The further I get from the car culture, the more bizarre it seems. We spend enormous amounts of time and energy forcing and convincing people to stop smoking, because smoking over many decades may kill you. But we go around every day in devices who's exhaust will kill a man stone dead in about three minutes. Not to mention the lethality of the car's business end. Both to the object hit and the people inside.

But at the same time, I don't think we're going to be able to make much of a change by trying "top down" approaches such as declaring large sections of downtown areas car free. I've seen just that approach taken, and seen it fail. What do others think?

...As a conservative libertarian...
Would a conservative libertarian have problems with eliminating the existing government subsidies for motor infrastructure? That would be a good start.

I agree with you 100%. I see the car free movement as a revolution. I've never heard of a top down revolution. Action and advocacy at the grass roots level may not be very effective either, but it's the only way significant change will occur. And it starts with one's self, since that is the only one that any of us can change. We can help others to change mainly through "leading" by example. But we will never be led to freedom from the top.

I agree with you 100%. I see the car free movement as a revolution. I've never heard of a top down revolution. Action and advocacy at the grass roots level may not be very effective either, but it's the only way significant change will occur. And it starts with one's self, since that is the only one that any of us can change. We can help others to change mainly through "leading" by example. But we will never be led to freedom from the top. well don't forget the car lite people.
There're only 9 percent of the American people who don't own a car.
Are you the nine? Or do you want to be 10.

Price I belive is the main factor.

Go revolution may you tranport my phat arse around.

I'm wondering how folks view the car free movement's future. As a conservative libertarian, I favor a bottom up approach. This seeks to sell the car free options to people on the basis of personal money savings, fitness and general well being. As I see it, people have been brainwashed and beguiled by generations of intense advertising trying to convince them that you need a car to be sexy or even to be a man. If you don't have a car, you're seen as an adult child. Someone who won't grow up. Viewed from outside the system, this is both absurd and obscene. We've given power to make our most fundamental choices over to a lethal machine. The further I get from the car culture, the more bizarre it seems. We spend enormous amounts of time and energy forcing and convincing people to stop smoking, because smoking over many decades may kill you. But we go around every day in devices who's exhaust will kill a man stone dead in about three minutes. Not to mention the lethality of the car's business end. Both to the object hit and the people inside.

But at the same time, I don't think we're going to be able to make much of a change by trying "top down" approaches such as declaring large sections of downtown areas car free. I've seen just that approach taken, and seen it fail. What do others think?

I find modern times interesting, I see both approaches can compliment each other.

Top down, gets support from bottom up, so laws can be changed, although the grass roots is where the biggest gains will be accomplished. Population wise, the grass roots is usually youth, it's the people in their 20s who are University educated, who often can't afford a car on their first job, with a University loan to pay, who will decide that they don't want to be part of the suburban car-centric establishment, so they rent a tiny apartment in the city, with it's fun night life.

It's the young architectural firm, who bids that the 20 square block, McFahart Park development, can be built cheaper and with more units, by leaving the cars outside. So you have the McFahart Park subway station in the middle, with commercial space around it, and groups of townhomes around that, smaller because there are no garages, no wide streets, and no underground parking. They have smaller front yards, and larger back yards, because you don't need a 25' deep front yard, with 25% of it paved over, when you don't need a driveway. It's similar young people, who will buy into such developments, with lower cost per unit, and ready access to the subway. Besides the central commercial area, has shopping and night life, you don't even have to go out of the development, except for work. Not to say a few of us 40 and 50 somethings, tired of paying a fortune to keep a car on the road, will not also be interested in this kind of development.

I'm wondering how folks view the car free movement's future. As a conservative libertarian, I favor a bottom up approach.

But at the same time, I don't think we're going to be able to make much of a change by trying "top down" approaches such as declaring large sections of downtown areas car free. I've seen just that approach taken, and seen it fail. What do others think?

I'm a conservative liberatarian as well and also favor the bottom-up approach.

Let each individual make the choices which are best for him. If he decides to spend 1/3 of his money on cars & gas, (as in another thread...) so be it. I can judge his actions to be unwise and wouldn't do it myself, but who am I (or anyone else) to take that freedom of choice away from him?
cheers

You could sell it this way. If you have kids, would you rather drive a car or ride a bike? When you drive, you have to give almost all of your attention to piloting a large chunk of metal and very little to your kids. If you bike with your kids, you can talk to them.

If you bike with your kids, you can talk to them.
nah.. pArents buy their kids toys and video games ad naseum so they don't have to deal with em:rolleyes:
Sad but true

Bottom up is the only way it would work long term. Governments can only force people to do something for so long, whether it makes sense or not.

I see no reason why the problem can't be attacked from the top AND the bottom.

I am a conservative libertarian also. Best way for going car free is for people to do it themselves, as with everything in life. I have a feeling our economy is going to come crashing down soon enough which will also make bicycles an attractive mode of transportation for many of the poorer and middle class people.

When I first saw "top down," I was thinking on income levels.

Wouldn't it be great for bicycle commuting if, say, Surly paid a celebrity to show up to an event on a Big Dummy or something?

^^^right on, I'm sure the bike manufacturers that make Lance's pals Jake Gyllenhal's and Matthew McConaughey's bikes doesn't mind seeing them on their bikes on the front of magazines.

I don't think you'll ever "sell" carfree to many people. The real incentive is that eventually we (as a species) will HAVE to make the decision to go not carfree, but fossil-fuel-free.

The best way would be to decide collectively through our democratic governments to make the steps necessary to accomplish this gradually but rather quickly.

The worst way is to just wait around until people decide on their own--as individuals--to change habits that work well for them as individuals. It just won't happen--never, never, never.

Hyperindividualism is unsustainable.

When I first saw "top down," I was thinking on income levels.

Wouldn't it be great for bicycle commuting if, say, Surly paid a celebrity to show up to an event on a Big Dummy or something?
Quite the opposite. The driving source of neocon "libertarianism" is to coerce the poor to make changes that benefit the wealthy. I never met a poor man who was a libertarian!

Hyperindividualism is unsustainable.

I'm not sure about the conventional wisdom that the automobile is the product of hyperindividualism. As others have pointed out, it is in fact a HIGHLY subsidized and bloated industrial system, from the manufacturing plants to the freeways. It's been top-down from the start. That's why so many local governments were pressured into ripping out trolley systems after WWII. People have been TOLD that the car = freedom, but it's Orwellian newspeak. The car is actually enslavement. The further I get from car culture, the more obvious it becomes. All these hot, enraged drivers alienated from everything in their lives jockying for space in rush "hours" that last all day. I do think we need to stop helping the auto industry and all that goes with it. That step alone would force the collapse of at least a few of the manufacturers. Think of it. No more government bail outs, no more government road building, no more government wars for oil. Whatever is going to happen, we let it happen. How long would those things last? Not as long as the bikes, I can pretty much guarantee that.

I never met a poor man who was a libertarian!

I have. They're all over this state, and all over every state. Folks who just want to be left alone. All the government can offer the poor is dependency and a loss of control.

I see bottom-up approaches to just about anything as pretty pointless. They give people bragging rights, but that's about it. Yes, you need the dynamicism of the grass roots and the support of the people, but when literally a few hundred money managers in maybe 4 or 5 countries dictate where and how the majority of the world's wealth is spent, and international treaties specifically abrogate local rights to corporate interests, power really only exists in two places: finance and government. And I must point out: Government is people. It's not supposed to be the "top" and it doesn't have to be. It's just apathy and ignorance that keep people from remembering this. Also, local government decides how your city is set up. I don't see how "people doing what they want to do" will get sidewalks or bike lanes built.

Just a refresher- a few things that obviously, self-evidently were the right thing to do and would never have been done if just left for "people to do themselves":

The abolition of slavery.

Women's suffrage.

Creation of the SEC.

Fair Labor Standards act.

Indian reorganization act.

Entering into WW2.

The civil rights movement.

The EPA.

I think I'll probably spend the rest of my life pointing out to "conservative libertarians" that the buck stops with the law of the land. All of the things I've mentioned above (plus many more) had grass-roots support but were resisted and fought, tooth and nail by the people of the time who called themselves "conservative", and they're still fighting the same battles to this day.

If you think oil running out is going to come as a surprise to the world's oil companies and financial centers, I think you're fooling yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if somehow the world's economies were just quietly transferred over to some new dependancy global corporations could control. People are already doing what they want to do and what they want to do, apparently, is give control of the nation over to monied interests so that developers looking to make a profit design where and how we live, multi-national money-handlers decide who gets capital for growth, and industrial concerns decide how clean our air and water is. Yeah, letting people do what they want has always worked gangbusters, jsut ask the Cuyahoga river.

conservative libertarian? WTF is that

conservative libertarian? WTF is that

According to Wikipedia:

"Among outside political watchers, some consider Libertarians to be conservative (primarily because of their support of the right to bear arms and because of their views on taxes and states' rights); while others consider them liberal because of their advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy, the repeal of drug prohibition, and the elimination of laws that interfere with private consensual acts (such as prostitution and gambling). Libertarians consider themselves neither conservative nor liberal; rather, they believe they represent a unique philosophy that is all their own."

ok, thats the definition of libertarian which I already knew, conservative? thats not so clear these days is it? conservative as in the old classic definition? or conservative as in the neo liberal policies espoused as conservative for the last few years? doesnt jive too well with libertarian.......in either case

ok, thats the definition of libertarian which I already knew, conservative? thats not so clear these days is it? conservative as in the old classic definition? or conservative as in the neo liberal policies espoused as conservative for the last few years? doesnt jive too well with libertarian.......in either case

True. What the hell does "neo-liberal" have to do what "liberal" used to mean when it stands for the misguided belief that an unregulated free market is essential for the fair distribution of wealth and for political democracy? :roflmao: And when the "conservative" trend in American politics refers to little more than a resurgence of the pseudo-scientific theory of social Darwinism.

dunno, but if you ask me a switcheroo happened somewhere along the way........the new liberal isnt liberal, and the new conservative isnt conservative either, and both have been made out to be thought of as some sort of disease

dunno, but if you ask me a switcheroo happened somewhere along the way........the new liberal isnt liberal, and the new conservative isnt conservative either, and both have been made out to be thought of as some sort of disease
The newer brand of "neo-conservatism" is, in fact, a disease, and a potentially dangerous one. A more honest label would be "fascism."

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

ok, thats the definition of libertarian which I already knew, conservative? thats not so clear these days is it? conservative as in the old classic definition? or conservative as in the neo liberal policies espoused as conservative for the last few years? doesnt jive too well with libertarian.......in either case

There's like 3 people in this thread alone who label themselves "conservative libertarian". You're splitting hairs, they know why they're calling themselves that and politically speaking, no one was arguing "conservative" didn't mean conservative until recently, when it became clear even to the most deluded that George Bush and his administration are incompetent and the GOP is corrupt to the bone. Suddenly "conservative" is something totally different than "how conservatives have been operating, politically, since forever".

Who or what a conservative is changes over time, but "conservative" isn't a timeless archetype set in stone, it's the sum of what conservative means at the time in question. But one thing "conservatives" have always had in common since the very notion of the word is socially and politically speaking they always fight for deference to an elite. Whatever a conservative does, politically, whether they "shrink" government or expand it, raise taxes or lower them- all the petty logistical markers that are supposed to define political ideology- for conservatives it's always in the service of entrenching or expanding priviledge. That's not what the ideology is "supposed" to be about, that's not what most people who call themselves conservative think they're subscribing to, but that's what it is, that's what it always ends up being.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is just a utopian ideology- a fantasy- much like communism. If you ever talk to a "real" libertarian, someone who heart and soul walks the walk and talks the talk, it's like talking to someone who's on some very powerful drugs. Much like talking to a "real" communist. Both seem to appeal to people who are self-obsessed and fundamentally don't understand how the world works (self-obsession tends to do that). But then a lot of people add "libertarian" onto their description because to them it's a projection of their self-reliance and their political independence. I have yet to meet a libertarian online or in real life who's entire political thinking wasn't almost completely informed by the notion that: "I am/am not [this way] so other people should [be able to also] be/not be this way". Basically, I don't need no stinking laws.

Here's a little taste of how them roads get made, a road in Florida no one wants via Alaska's most principled conservative.

This is why I believe in change through the democratic process. The key is to get people who aren't complete cretins into office.

It is no secret that campaign contributions sometimes lead to lucrative official favors. Rarely, though, are the tradeoffs quite as obvious as in the twisted case of Coconut Road.

The road, a stretch of pavement near Fort Myers, Fla., that touches five golf clubs on its way to the Gulf of Mexico, is the target of a $10 million earmark that appeared mysteriously in a 2006 transportation bill written by Representative Don Young, Republican of Alaska.

Mr. Young, who last year steered more than $200 million to a so-called bridge to nowhere reaching 80 people on Gravina Island, Alaska, has no constituents in Florida.

The Republican congressman whose district does include Coconut Road says he did not seek the money. County authorities have twice voted not to use it, until Mr. Young and the district congressman wrote letters warning that a refusal could jeopardize future federal money for the county.

The Coconut Road money is a boon, however, to Daniel J. Aronoff, a real estate developer who helped raise $40,000 for Mr. Young at the nearby Hyatt Coconut Point hotel days before he introduced the measure.

Mr. Aronoff owns as much as 4,000 acres along Coconut Road. The $10 million in federal money would pay for the first steps to connect the road to Interstate 75, multiplying the value of Mr. Aronoff’s land.

He did not return phone calls seeking comment. A consultant who helped push for the project spelled out why its supporters held the fund-raiser.

“We were looking for a lot of money,” said the consultant, Joe Mazurkiewicz. “We evidently made a very good impression on Congressman Young, and thanks to a lot of great work from Congressman Young, we got $81 million to expand Interstate 75 and $10 million for the Coconut Road interchange.”
...
When he was approached near the House floor by a reporter, Mr. Young responded with an obscene gesture.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/washington/07earmark.html?ei=5090&en=5a3dae07266e5809&ex=1338868800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1181230208-EtJaENR5QhUkEn/NUQhPsQ

Very good points on the libertarian beliefs, TimJ.

Myself, I'm IDEALLY a libertarian, but just like the completely unrestricted free market, the libertarian system only works if everyone in it is a rational actor.

And, it applies just as much for libertarianism as it does for the free market... there is no such thing as a rational actor in the real world.

The real problem I have with politics is attack ads that say "OMG MY OPPONENT DIDN'T VOTE FOR THIS BILL THAT SAVES CHILDREN AND PUPPIES!" Never mind that "this bill" had a rider that allowed the government to screw everyone over. :rolleyes:

I will never vote for someone who runs an attack ad for this reason. When I voted in November, you should've seen all the error messages ("OMG YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR THIS!") that Diebold machine was throwing for not voting for certain positions. (I didn't know of a write-in candidate, and a no-vote gets recorded as a no-vote.)

Personally, I believe that the labels of conservative and liberal just stand in the way of the real discussions that we need to be having. More useful categoreis are global vs. local, secular vs. fundamentalist, communitarian vs. individualist, economic growth vs. economic sustainability. Or, as Bill McKibben put it, "more vs. better."

BTW, often, "conservative libertarian" refers to the branch of traditional conservatism that believes government should be weak and small, and unininvolved in people's daily lives. A good example would be Barry Goldwater.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is just a utopian ideology- a fantasy- much like communism. If you ever talk to a "real" libertarian, someone who heart and soul walks the walk and talks the talk, it's like talking to someone who's on some very powerful drugs. Much like talking to a "real" communist. Both seem to appeal to people who are self-obsessed and fundamentally don't understand how the world works (self-obsession tends to do that). But then a lot of people add "libertarian" onto their description because to them it's a projection of their self-reliance and their political independence. I have yet to meet a libertarian online or in real life who's entire political thinking wasn't almost completely informed by the notion that: "I am/am not [this way] so other people should [be able to also] be/not be this way". Basically, I don't need no stinking laws.

So some unnamed person you claim is a "real" libertarian was (you claim) self-obsessed and didn't understand how the world worked. Maybe you can argue with him sometime. Until then, why don't you try to actually respond to the issues in THIS THREAD. I don't want to get into yet another pointless argument about labels. You can call me liberal or whatever, I don't care.

Government is people.

It's some people who are in control of the rest of us. People like Don Young. And I find it very ironic that you claim only a central government can effect real change while pointing out how deeply worthless and corrupt that same government is a few posts later. The same government that gives people roads they don't want in Florida while refusing bridges they do want in Alaska is not a government we should be trusting with anything of importance.

I don't see how "people doing what they want to do" will get sidewalks or bike lanes built.

As to local government, I've seen what happens when it tries to impose a car-free vision on the public--it's an ABJECT FAILURE. The infamous car-free downtown Eugene is a good example. When they shut it off from auto traffic, the place died. They had to break up the streets again at great expense (again) and let cars back in. The only way the system works is if more and more people start riding bikes and stop driving cars. Then, and only then, you will see LG grow responsive to what they actually need. But it must start from the bottom up, as the movement to stop slavery did and women's suffrage did. That doesn't mean government isn't part of the process. It's a part that comes into play later on in the process.

Personally, I believe that the labels of conservative and liberal just stand in the way of the real discussions that we need to be having. More useful categoreis are global vs. local, secular vs. fundamentalist, communitarian vs. individualist, economic growth vs. economic sustainability. Or, as Bill McKibben put it, "more vs. better."


Roody, if the "discussions that we need to be having." are about car free living then it seems to me that your categories also get in the way. I see car free living fitting in with both sides of each of your "vs." abbreviations. For example in DC there are always these guys in white shirt and ties biking around trying to convert people to their religion and people like me who feel that religion is a fraud or delusion, biking serves us both. As far as living car free goes there isn't much of a "vs." to it.

So some unnamed person you claim is a "real" libertarian was (you claim) self-obsessed and didn't understand how the world worked. Maybe you can argue with him sometime. Until then, why don't you try to actually respond to the issues in THIS THREAD. I don't want to get into yet another pointless argument about labels. You can call me liberal or whatever, I don't care.
No, not one unamed libertarian, every libertarian I've ever met in real life or online. Including you. And libertarian being b.s. is germane to the topic, why else would you start out telling everyone you're a conservative libertarian? It's part and parcel of your viewpoint on this, right?

It's some people who are in control of the rest of us. People like Don Young. And I find it very ironic that you claim only a central government can effect real change while pointing out how deeply worthless and corrupt that same government is a few posts later. The same government that gives people roads they don't want in Florida while refusing bridges they do want in Alaska is not a government we should be trusting with anything of importance.
That's ironic to you? A person, Don Young, elected by other persons from your great state, get a road built in FLORIDA, and that's not evidence to you of how real change occurs through government? Uh, he built a road to nowhere and then got reelected by people who wanted him to continue to represent them.

So let me get this straight... would you say in general you think the people who elected Don Young are more likely to walk away from car culture than vote for someone who isn't a complete ass? If the options were: wait for the kind of people who would elect Don Young to reject cars, vs. try to get those people to elect someone competent who may be persuaded to work for policies that favor a more car-free lifestyle, or elect people in your own district, local government, federal, etc., who might work toward such goals, which option would you take as the most efficient means for change?

Waiting around for the people who elected Don Young to change one bit? Yeah, a long time ago we fought something called the civil war because we waited around for nearly 100 years hoping the south would abolish slavery on its own. Didn't happen, wasn't about to happen.

As to local government, I've seen what happens when it tries to impose a car-free vision on the public--it's an ABJECT FAILURE. The infamous car-free downtown Eugene is a good example. When they shut it off from auto traffic, the place died. They had to break up the streets again at great expense (again) and let cars back in. The only way the system works is if more and more people start riding bikes and stop driving cars. Then, and only then, you will see LG grow responsive to what they actually need. But it must start from the bottom up, as the movement to stop slavery did and women's suffrage did. That doesn't mean government isn't part of the process. It's a part that comes into play later on in the process.
I think I know the problem. You think in 1s and 0s. Eugene tried to force a car free culture and it didn't work, so therefore government is bad. My response is: anything so massively revulotionary in terms of sheer infrastructure has to arise incrementally. Are the only two choices shutting out cars from downtown or not shutting out cars? What, you can't imagine positive change from the top? I sure can. Bike lanes. Requiring businesses to install bike racks. Putting an end to big-box commercial zoning on the outskirts of town off the interstate. Requiring pedestrian and sycling accessability to publically accessable garages and what-not. Cycling awareness programs. Etc.

As for grass-roots movements in general, I already said the dynamicism and support has to come from the people but ultimately the government, people representing people, have the power. Government corrupts when people like you become apathetic toward it. You ask nothing of it and you expect nothing of it. These people create the context in which all our lives are lived and you're not even interested enough to even consider how it can be different.

Any power not protected or granted by the government will be abrogated by whomever has the power and interest to do so. That's an historical fact every libertarian should be quite aware of.

Roody, if the "discussions that we need to be having." are about car free living then it seems to me that your categories also get in the way. I see car free living fitting in with both sides of each of your "vs." abbreviations. For example in DC there are always these guys in white shirt and ties biking around trying to convert people to their religion and people like me who feel that religion is a fraud or delusion, biking serves us both. As far as living car free goes there isn't much of a "vs." to it.

You're absolutely right -- if the issue is simply, "It's better for an individual to ride a bike than to drive a car." That's a matter of personal preference, and you can make the argument with statements about saving money, getting more exercise, having more fun, or other individual factors.

But what if you carry the argument to a different level: "It's better for society if all or most people ride bikes instead of driving cars"? At that point you need arguments based on social, political and economic factors. And at that point, I don't think the liberal-conservative dichotomy makes much sense.

No, not one unamed libertarian, every libertarian I've ever met in real life or online. Including you. And libertarian being b.s. is germane to the topic, why else would you start out telling everyone you're a conservative libertarian? It's part and parcel of your viewpoint on this, right?

If you want to argue with a specific point I've made, fine. But making crap up about libertarians and beating down those straw men doesn't do anything to help your arguments here.

A person, Don Young, elected by other persons from your great state, get a road built in FLORIDA, and that's not evidence to you of how real change occurs through government? Uh, he built a road to nowhere and then got reelected by people who wanted him to continue to represent them.

Have you taken the time to ask yourself how we ended up with a FEDERAL government that gets to decide whether roads are built either here or in Florida. Why on Earth do you think any useful change can come from a government that's completely corrupt and insane?

wait for the kind of people who would elect Don Young to reject cars, vs. try to get those people to elect someone competent who may be persuaded to work for policies that favor a more car-free lifestyle, or elect people in your own district, local government, federal, etc., who might work toward such goals, which option would you take as the most efficient means for change?

The people of any state are only going to start electing better representatives if they learn a new way. Your notion that they will vote for some Great Leader who will show the way is unrealistic. The impetus change has to come from the bottom up, or it will accomplish nothing in the end. BTW, I voted for Don Young. So did quite a few others who pedal around here.

Yeah, a long time ago we fought something called the civil war because we waited around for nearly 100 years hoping the south would abolish slavery on its own. Didn't happen, wasn't about to happen.

If you think it only happened because the Great Leader Lincoln issued his proclamation out of the blue, you need to read up about the very long grass roots movement and military setbacks that led to that decision. It did not start with Lincoln. Indeed he was on record that preserving the Union was his sole goal in the war. If you want to thank anyone for it--thank Robert E. Lee for stomping McClellan and ensuring the war would last long beyond 1862.

What, you can't imagine positive change from the top? I sure can. Bike lanes. Requiring businesses to install bike racks.

And without a movement from the bottom, you get bike lanes from nowhere to nowhere, bike racks that don't work and a car free system that fails before it begins. I've seen it.

You turn everything I say into a bizarre absolute so you can just shoot it down rather than argue a point on it's merits. If I said "I don't like coffee" you'd say "Oh so everyone has to drink nothing but tea now forrever and ever?!" It's like arguing with a 10 year old.

I makes me wince and a little naseous that a guy who voted for Don Young- one of the biggest gasbag ******'s in congress- is trying to lecture me on how best to effect positive social change. Good lord. I wouldn't ask directions from you.

But it was just getting interesting.

OK, I have like no work today, again, so I thought I'd go back to the beginning of this and explain myself. I'd like to illustrate why I think this is all a bunch of hot-air and although on a personal level I'm sure most here are fine human beings, in the context of this thread some of you need to be mocked vicously and repeatedly for the good of society.

I'm wondering how folks view the car free movement's future. As a conservative libertarian, I favor a bottom up approach.
2nd sentence. You're saying your view is informed by your politics. Most people don't label themselves politically the 2nd sentence they write or speak unless they really, really want everyone to know it and hope it will enter the discussion.

This seeks to sell the car free options to people on the basis of personal money savings, fitness and general well being. As I see it, people have been brainwashed and beguiled by generations of intense advertising trying to convince them that you need a car to be sexy or even to be a man. If you don't have a car, you're seen as an adult child. Someone who won't grow up. Viewed from outside the system, this is both absurd and obscene.
What's "this"? What are you referring to? The car-free movement? Is "this" what you're trying to come up with? As in "I want to figure out some way to sell the car free option..."? I mean, I get you're just setting the stage, but way to be incoherent from the start.

People have been brainwashed by advertising? Not very conservative libertarian of you. First of all, advertising is essential to free market capitalism so you lose your membership card right there. 2nd, following the law of "personal responsibility", advertising, advertisers, the free market etc., are not to blame. Every individual who thinks they need a car made a choice to be influenced by advertising. Right? And to refer to it as a "system"? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

From a conservative libertarian standpoint- your standpoint- you sound like a hippie. Unless of course you're blaming the government for everything. Like, it's the government that's been forcing car culture upon us...

Oh! You've done just that in a different post:

As others have pointed out, it is in fact a HIGHLY subsidized and bloated industrial system, from the manufacturing plants to the freeways. It's been top-down from the start. That's why so many local governments were pressured into ripping out trolley systems after WWII. People have been TOLD that the car = freedom, but it's Orwellian newspeak.
...
No more government bail outs, no more government road building, no more government wars for oil. Whatever is going to happen, we let it happen. How long would those things last? Not as long as the bikes, I can pretty much guarantee that.
OK, now I see what you're saying. You're saying the government forced car-culture upon the people both directly and indirectly... somehow. Those generations of advertising- advertising made by capitalists in a quite unregulated market (advertising itself, that is)- the government is still to blame because the car companies wouldn't have been able to make it without the government, right? So people were brainwashed, ultimately, by the government? The "system" you refer to is governmental? Not a case of people doing what they want to do (form corporations and make craploads of money), but a case of people having something forced down their throats by the only entity that can force anything, the government.

Close?

We've given power to make our most fundamental choices over to a lethal machine. The further I get from the car culture, the more bizarre it seems. We spend enormous amounts of time and energy forcing and convincing people to stop smoking, because smoking over many decades may kill you. But we go around every day in devices who's exhaust will kill a man stone dead in about three minutes. Not to mention the lethality of the car's business end. Both to the object hit and the people inside.
The first sentence is just gobblety-gook. Flim flam. It's a literary device. Moving on.

There seems to be two different "we's", but it's not clear what the pronoun refers to. "We spend enormous amounts of time and energy forcing and convincing people to stop smoking.... But we go around every day in devices..." Who's we? The government? and the second "we" is the general population? That doesn't make sense. Are you instead trying to say something like this: "the government spends time and money... smoking etc.,.... but the government doesn't spend any time or money talking about cars"? If so...

But at the same time, I don't think we're going to be able to make much of a change by trying "top down" approaches such as declaring large sections of downtown areas car free. I've seen just that approach taken, and seen it fail. What do others think?

OK, the top down approach you mean government action, I guess. It seems like you're saying "the government spends time and energy trying to get people off smoking but they don't spend any time trying to get them out of their cars, and we've been convinced by the government that we need to drive. The government lectures us about smoking but not cars which are far more dangerous, clearly it would make more sense for the government to lecture us on cars but since it's their fault anyway, and they simply cannot do anything right, what do you think?"

Which is just muddled and crazy, but I think it's muddled and crazy because it's not a real question in the first place.

See, you opened up your politics to the forum by declaring 'This is what I think because these are my politics'. But you haven't explained any part of your confused opening statement in any meaningful way. You want/are looking for/would like to create a car-free movement? Yes? No? It sounds more like you just wanted to make a statement about yourself. I mean, what's your point? You haven't made one. You've stated your fuzzy, confused opinion and linked it to your politics and that's it. If you want to be engaged on specific points, then make some.

I attack your politics, and libertarianism and "conservative libertarianism", for two reasons. 1- because it's part of the topic at hand. 2- because your "thinking" and opinions on the subject- as well as those from the other "conservative libertarians"- though flatly stated with confidence, are muddled, vague, unclear and incoherant precisely because they're being made by "conservative libertarians". Your politics completely inform your thinking. Which came first the chicken or the egg, doesn't matter, I'm interested in tearing you a new one because I think you deserve a new one. You and the other self-proclaimed libertarians.

Your politics are abhorrent to me. Not because of what you might avow to believe or not believe but because of how your politics shape your world. You've made it clear you have nothing but contempt for government, that you're completely apathetic toward government, yet at the same time you acknowledge the government has a tremendous amount of power and you resent that power. What you've done is drop out of civil society. Or at least that's what you would do if you had the courage of your convictions. Rather, you vote for someone like Don Young, a guy who does all the things that you seem to be saying make you hate the government. (btw, I didn't realize alaska had only one congressperson)

You voted for one of the biggest oil-company subsidizing, taxpayer money wasting, big business favoring jerks in the place, actively effecting the lives of everyone in the country. This is why I'm attacking your so-called politics. It's all just your ego. It's just masturbation. You don't even have the courage to just opt-out. You say the government can't be trusted, shouldn't be trusted, and you make it worse by voting for one of the biggest theives. What kind of hypocrite are you?

You're your own worst enemy. You're so lost in your self-centered, utopian fantasy-world, your "conservative libertarian" clubhouse -where real men go online and declare how government's a circus and then vote for the biggest clowns- you have no idea what effect your political outlook has on your own life or anyone else's. And I'm not attacking strawmen, I'm attacking you. It's just that you're a cliche'.

You believe in a bottom-up approach? No you don't. You believe in the fundamental goodness of yourself. You extend that to other selfs, to other individuals and to "individual" as a concept and that's where you get your politics. That's where calling yourself a libertarian comes from. You'll include anyone sufficiently like you, but basically all of your thinking and all your ideas are about you. You'd love Ayn Rand. You should read "The Virtue of Selfishness".

You don't have a clue what bottom-up means. You have zero sense of civic responsibility, zero understanding of civil society. How can someone who rejects liberal democracy- the most powerful force for positive change the world has ever witnessed- pretend they know how collective change comes about?

Your original post was about you. This whole "dicussion" is ego stroking on your part. Next time, be more succinct:

"Hey everyone! I'm an intelligent, thoughtful, rugged individualist who don't need no government handout. Boy, don't you hate the way the government is to blame for everything that's OK to whine about? Anyway, being an uber-mensch I see a grand future for those of us smart enough- like me- to bike all the time. Love me!"

Now feel free to selectively quote me, reduce everything to absolutes, and don't forget the "what's you idea, smart guy?"

2nd sentence. You're saying your view is informed by your politics. Most people don't label themselves politically the 2nd sentence they write or speak unless they really, really want everyone to know it and hope it will enter the discussion.

I was simply trying to put my point of view in context, but it really isn't that important. If you don't like libertarians you can call me something else. It's not the point of the thread.

What's "this"? What are you referring to? The car-free movement? Is "this" what you're trying to come up with? As in "I want to figure out some way to sell the car free option..."? I mean, I get you're just setting the stage, but way to be incoherent from the start.

"This," in context, refers to a bottom-up approach to moving towars a car free society.

People have been brainwashed by advertising? Not very conservative libertarian of you.

Again, I have zero interest in getting into a big fuss about labels. You seem to be fixated on them, because you've apparently had bad experiences with libertarian thinking. I don't care. The label means very little to me, and I'm not wedded to it. I should have simply said "as a free thinking person who isn't loyal to any political party."

First of all, advertising is essential to free market capitalism so you lose your membership card right there.

You are confusing libertarian with Libertarian. There's a big difference. I have no membership card in any political party. I don't want one. I've never claimed that free market capitalism was a cure-all.

2nd, following the law of "personal responsibility", advertising, advertisers, the free market etc., are not to blame. Every individual who thinks they need a car made a choice to be influenced by advertising. Right? And to refer to it as a "system"? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

It's not a question of blame. My point is that the car free movement should sell its positive points and reveal the auto for what it truly is.

From a conservative libertarian standpoint- your standpoint- you sound like a hippie.

Fine, call me a hippie. How many times do I have to tell you I don't care before you finally give up on the whole libertarian debate? It has nothing to do with this thread.

Unless of course you're blaming the government for everything. Like, it's the government that's been forcing car culture upon us...

I don't blame the government for everything, but there's no denying that federal state and local governments have all aided the auto industry and car culture.

the government is still to blame because the car companies wouldn't have been able to make it without the government, right?

Many of them would have gone under long ago, that's absolute fact. Remember when the US taxpayers had to bail out Chrysler? And we've been helping prop them up directly and indirectly through truly enormous DOD and government agency auto purchases.

So people were brainwashed, ultimately, by the government?

By a rather fascist combination of industry and government, yes. Absolutely. How else can you explain hundreds of millions of people willing bankrupting themselves so they can sit for hours in hot death boxes?

There seems to be two different "we's", but it's not clear what the pronoun refers to.

We--the people who pay for it. The government has no money of its own to spend, so when it spends money trying to convince people to stop smoking or enoforce bans, it's spending our money.


OK, the top down approach you mean government action, I guess.

I mean an approach to the problem which RELIES on government action. An approach which looks to the government, esp. the federal government, to pass laws that will somehow get everyone on a bike. It can also include a reliance on the bike companies to lead the way. Either way, that's a long wait for a train don't come. And when it does come, it's usually the wrong train.

I think we need to emphasize instead the personal advantages to owning a bicycle for everyday activities, and get people out there. There are a lot of people doing this now, and I believe the future of the movement lies in small, local steps by people. Not in sweeping edicts from on high.

Your politics are abhorrent to me.

?? You don't even know me. How can you make such a claim? Is the notion that we should concentrate on the personal advantages of cycling abhorrent?

You've made it clear you have nothing but contempt for government, that you're completely apathetic toward government, yet at the same time you acknowledge the government has a tremendous amount of power and you resent that power.

You're the one who's complaining bitterly about my Rep pushing a road project in Florida. You tell me--is that a great and wonderful government? I have little respect for the federal government because it deserves little respect. The best thing it could do at this point is simply get out of the road building business completely. To the extent we're going to get help, it's got to be from local government. And I put it to you that that will only happen when enough people are on two wheels locally. It starts with getting asses out on the streets.

What you've done is drop out of civil society. Or at least that's what you would do if you had the courage of your convictions.

You don't even know what my convictions are. You know nothing about me. You saw the word "libertarian" and you started frothing at the mouth. It's a personal issue with you.

You voted for one of the biggest oil-company subsidizing, taxpayer money wasting, big business favoring jerks in the place, actively effecting the lives of everyone in the country.

He brings home the bacon. If we're going to be stuck with the feds, we might as well rape and pillage as much in DC as possible before the whole damn thing falls apart. That's what guys like Young and Stevens are good at, and that's why we vote for them. It goes way beyond any political issues. They land the big whales. If I thought for a moment that we could actually *fix* government in DC, I might try to get someone else elected. But we can't. The only solution now is to hasten its demise. It's simply become too bloated and too remote. Only a collapse of the financing, probably spurred on by a collapse of the Chinese bubble and a lot of bouncing Social Security checks, will bring any positive change. If you think there's any hope of getting help from the feds at promoting a car-free lifestyle, I think you're smoking crack. Which is all the more reason to give up on a purely top-down approach.

As to the rest of your rant, you are again off on your hatred of what you think libertarians are. That's fine, but maybe better for a Foo topic.

You're absolutely right -- if the issue is simply, "It's better for an individual to ride a bike than to drive a car." That's a matter of personal preference, and you can make the argument with statements about saving money, getting more exercise, having more fun, or other individual factors.

But what if you carry the argument to a different level: "It's better for society if all or most people ride bikes instead of driving cars"? At that point you need arguments based on social, political and economic factors. And at that point, I don't think the liberal-conservative dichotomy makes much sense.
Well, I guess I thought society is made from individuals. I believe that it is possible that what is good for me as an individual might be bad if everybody who could be car free were car free. I hope not but who knows? When cars first came out only a few people predicted that if most people had them then bad things would occur. It looks like when people make invidious distinctions on this subforum it leads to long threads that contribute little to informing readers about car free life. Haven't we had people come in here redefining car free in order to claim we're a bunch of hypocrites? Even the sustainable / unsustainable point of view can get out of hand. If someone whose lifestyle symbolizes everything unsustainable, SUV driving suburban mcmansion lifestyle, comes here wondering about bike transportation we should help. Maybe the person will use a bike to attend a suburban barbecue or take the kid shopping. The unit of measure for car free should a substituted car trip. Maybe a substituted car-mile. For that one mile the person making that trip is car free without regard to the person's other behaviours. As for getting some collective action, like getting our various governments to facilitate car free behaviour, I'm not convinced that any philisophical point of view other than the same individual considerations should be required. Physics, health, and finance provide very strong arguments collectively as well as individually. I think that capitalists are beginning to understand that they can profit from dense cities and public transportation projects. When I visited Chicago in April they were still building sky scrapers and repairing the train system. The people building those projects aren't doing it for charity. Here in DC the same infill building is going on- mixed use projects all over the city.

Well, I guess I thought society is made from individuals. I believe that it is possible that what is good for me as an individual might be bad if everybody who could be car free were car free. I hope not but who knows? When cars first came out only a few people predicted that if most people had them then bad things would occur. It looks like when people make invidious distinctions on this subforum it leads to long threads that contribute little to informing readers about car free life. Haven't we had people come in here redefining car free in order to claim we're a bunch of hypocrites? Even the sustainable / unsustainable point of view can get out of hand. If someone whose lifestyle symbolizes everything unsustainable, SUV driving suburban mcmansion lifestyle, comes here wondering about bike transportation we should help. Maybe the person will use a bike to attend a suburban barbecue or take the kid shopping. The unit of measure for car free should a substituted car trip. Maybe a substituted car-mile. For that one mile the person making that trip is car free without regard to the person's other behaviours. As for getting some collective action, like getting our various governments to facilitate car free behaviour, I'm not convinced that any philisophical point of view other than the same individual considerations should be required. Physics, health, and finance provide very strong arguments collectively as well as individually. I think that capitalists are beginning to understand that they can profit from dense cities and public transportation projects. When I visited Chicago in April they were still building sky scrapers and repairing the train system. The people building those projects aren't doing it for charity. Here in DC the same infill building is going on- mixed use projects all over the city.
I'm not sure that I disagree with anything you've said. :)

If capitalism moves us toward better carfree living, I'm fine with it. But at some point capitalists must realize that absolute freedom to make money is incompatible with happy, sustainable living. At some point (why not now?) we are going to have to, for example, curtail unlimited release of carbon.

In a democracy, change is BOTH top-down and bottom-up, is it not? Both are needed: the freedom to decide on changes, and the authority to enforce the decisions once they've been made.

I think we need to emphasize instead the personal advantages to owning a bicycle for everyday activities, and get people out there. There are a lot of people doing this now, and I believe the future of the movement lies in small, local steps by people. Not in sweeping edicts from on high.
...
He brings home the bacon. If we're going to be stuck with the feds, we might as well rape and pillage as much in DC as possible before the whole damn thing falls apart. That's what guys like Young and Stevens are good at, and that's why we vote for them. It goes way beyond any political issues. They land the big whales. If I thought for a moment that we could actually *fix* government in DC, I might try to get someone else elected. But we can't. The only solution now is to hasten its demise. It's simply become too bloated and too remote. Only a collapse of the financing, probably spurred on by a collapse of the Chinese bubble and a lot of bouncing Social Security checks, will bring any positive change. If you think there's any hope of getting help from the feds at promoting a car-free lifestyle, I think you're smoking crack. Which is all the more reason to give up on a purely top-down approach.

I do know you because you're very, very typical. I could probably tell you what you're going to write before you write it (and responding to my last post as if it was happening in real-time? Like writing "how many times do I have to tell you?" as if you weren't responding to a complete message but instead transcribing a conversation we had? Classic!).

I'll repeat, you politics are abhorrent to me, for all the reasons I listed, which you've come back and illustrated better than I could. You write "I think we need to emphasize..." and "I believe the future of the movement lies in small, local steps by people." But it's all just vague pleasantries, isn't it? You mention somewhere else local government, but you're not really saying anything- again. It's just another self-referential statement. And although I thought you could understand it the first time I explained, this nothingness, this saying nothing at all while supposedly taking a substantive position, informs your political thinking and is why you have no idea how collective effort works.

The last paragraph illustrates this perfectly. I mean, geez, if I would have tried writing a parody of your reasoning for voting for some cretin like Don Young I would have said the same things- because they are typical- but I wouldn't have done such a great job. Bravo. Anyway, you conceive government as a "them". They're in DC, they screw things up, they take money, they are corrupt, they can't be fixed. You've put "government" is a box and there it sits, just a box full of crap and that's all it is so you have no problem voting for an absolute jackass like Young who cynically manipulates his position to do stuff like build a multi-million dollar bridge to no where that no one wants. You probably get a kick out of it. You probably think Young is sort of sticking it to DC or something or just admire his crepulance because it's directed at a thing you find just completely worthless- government.

You don't even seem to understand that Don Young is government. I mean, you get it on the face, he's a congressperson, but you seem to think government is something other than the elected officials. You don't seem to understand how you're part of the problem: and you most certainly are. Everyone like you. Everyone who hates "the government" and votes for other puffed up jackasses who also hate "the government" or who they think are going to "rape and pillage" so you can at least get yours. There's always an other to blame, isn't there? Reagan said "it's government's fault" and rather than roll your eyes or laugh out loud, people like you nodded their heads, "Yeah. Damn government! I'm gonna vote for more guys who hate the government just like me!"

I'm trying to think of a polite way to say you're not nearly as bright as you think you are, but I can't. Don Young is the government. Our elected officials are the government. All of the agencies and bureaus and departments, you have no idea what they do. They aren't the government, first of all, they're infrastructure. They're the bridges and water mains of the nation. Government is the officials we elect and, in the case of the administration, the people they bring along. You perpetuate corruption in the federal government by your voting and you perpetuate the "screw you, I got mine" cynicism surrounding politics with your reasoning. You, and people like you, are why there's so much corruption. You. There's no "them" to blame except the "thems" we elect- you elect.

"Only a collapse of the financing, probably spurred on by a collapse of the Chinese bubble and a lot of bouncing Social Security checks" I mean, can you even explain that? Do you even know what you mean? So you're saying the only way the government can possibly ever again do anything good is if the US defaults on it's debt? Can you even begin to describe how voting for pigs like Don Young makes sense in that (bizarre) context? Don Young is going to pork his way out of a job? Don Young is helping bring the US closer to default and Don Young, when the time comes, won't vote to raise taxes or won't vote to increase tarrifs or whatever else? How does this make any sense?

It doesn't, because you don't even know what government is. You can't even seem to conceive of civic duty or civil society. You certainly have no idea, just on a nuts and bolts logistical basis, how the federal government actually operates or what the various departments do, why they exist, why they were created, what the reality was before they existed, etc. And it's this fundamental ignorance of how liberal democracy works that makes your even vague pronouncments of quiet revolution a feaking joke. Essentially you're saying "I would like there to be a more robust car-free culture/society. I propose nothing be done unless it just happens organically when I'm in the immediate area, because that's the only way things ever work out."

"If you think there's any hope of getting help from the feds at promoting a car-free lifestyle, I think you're smoking crack."

Feds? I don't use the word feds or even think in the terms that would prompt me to use it because it's stupid. There's the federal government, and the federal government is the people we elect, and the people we elect could, for instance, raise CAFE standards. Automakers say they'd have to build smaller cars to meet higher mpg standards... they're probably lying, just like they did in the 70s, but if not- great! Smaller cars! Less pollution, less need for more car infrastructure, perhaps it could spur retail to scale down a bit, not have to build on the sides of highways, more mixed-use stuff... little subtle lifestyle changes that just set the scene for construction on a more human scale rather than SUV scale maybe? Our officials could pass a carbon tax. Car owners would have to pay to pollute. Suddenly walking to the store looks more attractive. Maybe biking a couple days a week would be feasible. Suddenly it's blindingly obvious that all the stores are meant to be driven to. There's no sidewalks, you can only get there by highway, there's no bus service. Gee, a year ago a carbon tax gets implemented and now I realize how everything is built around the car. Never noticed that, or cared about that, before.

The federal government can do all kinds of things because the federal government crafts the legal infrastructure we all live in. But I was never talking about the federal government, I was talking about government in general. Local, municipal, state, federal, it's all the same and it all works together to craft the situation we live in. There's a walmart off the interstate, completely inaccessable by walking or biking, because whatever local entity is in charge of zoning let there be. That's how it is, that's how it's always going to be. If you think even a default on US debt would change that, you're just illustrating how little you know about the country you live in. But of course, surely, the best approach is always to just proclaim how cool you are and how you're willing to do the hard work of waiting around for other people to become as cool as you.

I told you to go ahead and turn anything I wrote into an absolute and you obliged:

"Which is all the more reason to give up on a purely top-down approach."

No one's arguing purely here except you. I'm been fighting against your pointless, vauge posturing, because it's not just nothing, it's less than nothing. No change, in any way, is going to come from a guy like you, or anyone else who's concept of our nation is "them". It's not "them" it's you and me. Government is people. Change is collective action. Government is the response of people to the need for collective action.

But it's all just vague pleasantries, isn't it?

There was nothing vague about killing my car forever and going to the bike. Maybe pleasant, but not vague. I advocate others take the same radical yet astonishingly simple step. That's all. It's just that simple. If I can convince just two people by example, and they can each convince two more--why we'll quickly have a nice snowball effect. That's how change is best made, when you're dealing with a beast as big as the automobile.


You mention somewhere else local government, but you're not really saying anything- again. It's just another self-referential statement.

Why is local government self-referential? I think the best hope for government action is local, not national. And I further think the best local government action will only come once there's a sufficient number (a critical mass, if you will) of avid bicycle riders, commuters and car haters in the area. That's what I mean by bottom-up. It's very simple, actually. Locally, it's the difference between the Anchorage city government building expensive sky bridges nobody will use and that same government finally putting a BIKE LANE (woo hoo!) on Artic.

Anyway, you conceive government as a "them".

The feds certainly are a "them." I have no connection with them.

You don't even seem to understand that Don Young is government.

He's Alaska's rep to the House, certainly. I understand he's our voice there, but I don't give a crap about the feds anymore. The whole mess can burn in hell as far as I care. The federal government is so far removed from its original purpose, and so far removed from the people, it might as well be a foreign government.


All of the agencies and bureaus and departments, you have no idea what they do. They aren't the government, first of all, they're infrastructure.

Infrastructure by broad buttocks. The bulk of the federal administrative agencies are said to be aspects of the Executive branch and are supposed to be there to enforce laws passed by Congress. But since the New Deal, through administrations both R and D, they've grown far beyond their original mandate. They now pass their own laws, free from all but the most superficial oversight. Many even have their own paramilitary forces to enforce those edicts. Call that representative government, cause I don't.

Feds? I don't use the word feds or even think in the terms that would prompt me to use it because it's stupid. There's the federal government, and the federal government is the people we elect, and the people we elect could, for instance, raise CAFE standards. Automakers say they'd have to build smaller cars to meet higher mpg standards...

The federal government is comprised of the three branches and includes an array of extraconstitutional agencies as well. We only elect a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who control that leviathan. If you're happy with that, so be it. Because even if the feds were a viable source for good government, it would still be far more effective to start at the grass roots to get people to reject cars, rather than trying to pass edicts from DC forcing them to.

Local, municipal, state, federal, it's all the same

No it isn't. Look up "federalism." The states and the federal government are co-sovereigns. You really need to read the Constitution.

Bottom up is the only way it would work long term. Governments can only force people to do something for so long, whether it makes sense or not.

Amen to that. Getting the general public to support a major change is the only way to make it stick. If it came top down there would be a lot of resistance and very little adaptation. That being said, reducing subsidies should also be a goal. I wouldn't say complete elimination because there are aspects of the transportation infrastructure that would be necessary (thinking of industry, food, etc) and handy (I like nice roads to bike on, something in short supply here in B'more).

Would a conservative libertarian have problems with eliminating the existing government subsidies for motor infrastructure? That would be a good start.

And how exactly do you propose to make that happen? Bear in mind, the subsidies are there because they are what people want. For better or worse, we live in a Democracy, meaning that governments are basically just puppets of the voters. If you want to get rid of motor vehicle subsidies, the first thing you need to do is convince people to vote accordingly.

FWIW, I'm convinced that any kind of social change (if it happens at all) can only be achieved through the bottom-up approach. It's all well and good for people on this list with little else to do to sit there and pontificate on the way that cars are destroying society or whatever, but the fact is most people really couldn't care less about the society they live in. And even if they did, most people would want no part in a society that tried to force them into doing something they didn't particularly want to do.

Every other political movement that's ever been successful has operated on this principle, yet for some reason, cyclists don't want to play the game.

And how exactly do you propose to make that happen? Bear in mind, the subsidies are there because they are what people want. For better or worse, we live in a Democracy, meaning that governments are basically just puppets of the voters. If you want to get rid of motor vehicle subsidies, the first thing you need to do is convince people to vote accordingly.

FWIW, I'm convinced that any kind of social change (if it happens at all) can only be achieved through the bottom-up approach. It's all well and good for people on this list with little else to do to sit there and pontificate on the way that cars are destroying society or whatever, but the fact is most people really couldn't care less about the society they live in. And even if they did, most people would want no part in a society that tried to force them into doing something they didn't particularly want to do.

Every other political movement that's ever been successful has operated on this principle, yet for some reason, cyclists don't want to play the game. More accurate to say that we live in a republic rather than a democracy. We do give authority to our elected leaders.

This is often effective. The people can initiate changes from the bottom-up, but for change to be implemented effectively, some amount of top-down authority is required.

(Of course leadership can be good or bad, recently more often bad than good.)

More accurate to say that we live in a republic rather than a democracy. We do give authority to our elected leaders.

This is often effective. The people can initiate changes from the bottom-up, but for change to be implemented effectively, some amount of top-down authority is required.

(Of course leadership can be good or bad, recently more often bad than good.)
Often effective? What have our leaders led us to that is worth a tinker's damn? Vietnam? Iraq? National debt? Trade deficit? Loss of jobs? Hunger, homelessness, insecurity? Invironmental degredation? No small group of “enlightened leaders” can lead us to freedom. We must make it for ourselves, all of us together.

Often effective? What have our leaders led us to that is worth a tinker's damn? Vietnam? Iraq? National debt? Trade deficit? Loss of jobs? Hunger, homelessness, insecurity? Invironmental degredation? No small group of “enlightened leaders” can lead us to freedom. We must make it for ourselves, all of us together.
I said that leadership is often bad, but it isn't fair to cite particularly bad examples without listing opposing instances of good leadership.

Usually a movement starts at the bottom, but resolution requires some degree of authority. For example, the Abolitionists fought against slavery for 100 years to no effect. It took Lincoln and the Union Army to actually end the injustice of slavery.

There are many recent examples. Millions of ordinary citizens protested against pollution in the 1970s, boycotting colored toilet paper and so forth. But eventually it took Congress to enact the Clean Air and Clean Water regulations, and President Nixon (!) to sign them into laws that had enough teeth to be effective.

The problem with "all of us together" is that it probably won't ever be all of us agreeing on any issue. For example, 60 per cent of the population might want to cap carbon emissions. But if the remaining 40 per cent includes the utility company share holders, there will be no automatic carbon caps. It will take laws with teeth to rein in these greedy exploiters of the planet.

I'm just saying that it takes both top-down and bottom-up action to bring about social and political change. Obviously I find value in the whole bottom-up carfree cycling movement, and I think this is a necessary stage in changing the transportation choices made by our nation. But I recognize that our individual and even collective actions will not be sufficient for changing public policy in the long run.

I think the best strategy is to continue riding your bikes, but also keep in touch with your government representatives on every level, and get involved with your local planning agencies.

Honestly, there's another direction I think we should be approaching this from.

Neither bottom-up nor top-down works very well when the average Joe goes to buy a bike, and has choices between $50 bikes that'll fall apart in a week, $100 bikes that'll fall apart in two weeks, $150 bikes that need adjustment to be ridable (because Wal-Mart can't adjust them worth a crap - of course, that goes for the $50 and $100 bikes... I was playing with a Mt. Fury at Wal-Mart the other day just to see just how bad it was... and it WAS bad, but adjustment was a LOT of it,) or $300+ bikes at the bike shop. Average Joe thinks that bikes should be really cheap, and that $50 bike would be a great deal... if it wouldn't fall apart.

I said that leadership is often bad, but it isn't fair to cite particularly bad examples without listing opposing instances of good leadership.

Usually a movement starts at the bottom, but resolution requires some degree of authority. For example, the Abolitionists fought against slavery for 100 years to no effect. It took Lincoln and the Union Army to actually end the injustice of slavery.

What's it gonna take to end the injustice of wage slavery? In some ways the chattel slaves were better off than wage slaves. They were fed, clothed, housed and provided with health care for free. What's it gonna take to end the injustices of war, poverty, hunger, the starkly uneven distribution of wealth, etc.?

There are many recent examples. Millions of ordinary citizens protested against pollution in the 1970s, boycotting colored toilet paper and so forth. But eventually it took Congress to enact the Clean Air and Clean Water regulations, and President Nixon (!) to sign them into laws that had enough teeth to be effective.

And how effective has that been? The Environment is still going to hell in a hand basket.

The problem with "all of us together" is that it probably won't ever be all of us agreeing on any issue. For example, 60 per cent of the population might want to cap carbon emissions. But if the remaining 40 per cent includes the utility company share holders, there will be no automatic carbon caps. It will take laws with teeth to rein in these greedy exploiters of the planet.

But as long as the wealthy minority controls the government and the corporations, as they now do, it will remain difficult if not impossible to create and enforce laws with teeth. On the other hand, if the means of production and distribution including natural resources were held in common and democratically controlled by every one, and in the absence of markets and the profit motive, there would be no incentive to do environmentally destructive things for short term profit.

I'm just saying that it takes both top-down and bottom-up action to bring about social and political change. Obviously I find value in the whole bottom-up carfree cycling movement, and I think this is a necessary stage in changing the transportation choices made by our nation. But I recognize that our individual and even collective actions will not be sufficient for changing public policy in the long run.

In the context of the flawed system were stuck with, that's true. But I think in the long run, it will be changing material conditions that force social and political change.

I think the best strategy is to continue riding your bikes, but also keep in touch with your government representatives on every level, and get involved with your local planning agencies.

I don't think most of our government representatives give a rat's ***** about the individuals that make up their constituency, just the corporations and the rich influential ones that can help them get re-elected. Sorry, I'm just very pessimistic when it comes to current system.

What's it gonna take to end the injustice of wage slavery? In some ways the chattel slaves were better off than wage slaves. They were fed, clothed, housed and provided with health care for free. What's it gonna take to end the injustices of war, poverty, hunger, the starkly uneven distribution of wealth, etc.?
You're getting a little carried away to equate modern wage slaves -- who often own three cars and a boat -- to actual slaves, past and present. Our American ancestors who were slaves would dispute your happy view of their condition. And most contemporary Americans don't view themselves as slaves, either. Your Marxist generalizations have a quaint 19th century feel to them.



And how effective has that [CWA & CAA] been? The Environment is still going to hell in a hand basket.
Again, you're getting carried away. The environmental situation today is vastly better than it would have been without the passage of pollution regulations in the 1970s. Keep in mind that these regulations are expiring, and we need to keep the pressure on to continue them, and to make them more effective.



But as long as the wealthy minority controls the government and the corporations, as they now do, it will remain difficult if not impossible to create and enforce laws with teeth. On the other hand, if the means of production and distribution including natural resources were held in common and democratically controlled by every one, and in the absence of markets and the profit motive, there would be no incentive to do environmentally destructive things for short term profit.
How long is it going to take to create your utopian socialist system, especially given that there is little "bottom-up" pressure for it's creation? Are you sure that it's prudent to establish a new social order before we tackle the problems of the day?



In the context of the flawed system were stuck with, that's true. But I think in the long run, it will be changing material conditions that force social and political change.
Of course. This is always the case.



I don't think most of our government representatives give a rat's ***** about the individuals that make up their constituency, just the corporations and the rich influential ones that can help them get re-elected. Sorry, I'm just very pessimistic when it comes to current system.
Yet you mention "re-election." Why are these same people continually re-elected? What can we do to change the situation, short of throwing the baby out with the bath water?

I know, Roody. I do get carried away with that stuff. And I really don't expect the world to change for the better in my lifetime. I'll get off my soapbox, now, and just ride.