Originally Posted by
jon c.
Driving is not a precondition to any inalienable right. Getting to where you feel like going just isn't a right. And that doesn't change if you pose it as a need to go somewhere. I'm not sure if you truly don't understand this or if you are just wishing it to be true. "The pursuit of happiness" is really nothing more than the right to be left alone to do as you please.
You keep speaking of 'freedom' but what you're calling freedom is actually a desire to impose a detriment on someone else. You want someone to provide you with something and you just have no such rights in that regard. Every single thing you speak of has a cost. Whether or not you can say that cost is lower than some alternative makes no difference. There's a cost involved that someone must pay, thus your suggested freedom must infringe on the freedom of another. And that just doesn't work.
.......
And disparity is not an infringement on freedom. Ever.
I
Actually, the right to travel HAS been found to be a RIGHT.
Contrary to your assertion, I think that the disparity in access to transportation resources IS an infringement on the right to travel.
Case in point: Interstate 35W south of Minneapolis. ONLY automobile traffic is allowed on the 35W bridge over the Minnesota river; nevermind that my tax dollars helped to pay for that bridge. If I'm not in a car, I can't use that bridge.
The disparity? The nearest bridge across the the river to the west is the Bloomington Ferry Bridge, 11 miles by bicycle. The nearest bridge to the east is the 494 interstate bridge, which does have a bike lane - 9 miles by bicycle to the east.
And this is not in some out of the way river town - this is a Minneapolis suburb, the city consistently rated among the most bicycle friendly cities in the USA.
Maybe you don't think that being prohibited from using infrastructure YOU paid for is an infringement, and cycling an extra 18 or 22 miles is no big deal. I beg to differ.