Cars need to be banned

[Bluelight-R006]

Stone age or Futuristic world?

take one or accept today's world

All in one.

[facepalm] You can literally only choose one. The reason why you wanted the Stone Ages is because they were much more free. In this world of ours today, with more power and technology, there is more chances of taking advantage and fighting.

You can’t live this dream of ours by denying the facts and then saying what you think may save your opinion. You say Stone Age, then now you change because you realise your thinking is impossible. Make up your mind.

[Walkerfort]

I thought we were living in the Stone Age?

Yes, well... I guess "Big Ugg is Watching You"

Not sure what any of this has to do with banning cars, though, which I incidentally think would be impractical as not everyone lives near public transport links, there are emergencies for which using public transport is impractical (some broken bones that don't require an ambulance, giving birth), and it's also impractical for people with mobility issues to use public transport.

heh Big Ugg, good one

[Bluelight-R006]

I thought we were living in the Stone Age?

Yes, well... I guess "Big Ugg is Watching You"

Not sure what any of this has to do with banning cars, though, which I incidentally think would be impractical as not everyone lives near public transport links, there are emergencies for which using public transport is impractical (some broken bones that don't require an ambulance, giving birth), and it's also impractical for people with mobility issues to use public transport.

The Lord has spoken.

[Ayissor]

All in one.

[facepalm] You can literally only choose one. The reason why you wanted the Stone Ages is because they were much more free. In this world of ours today, with more power and technology, there is more chances of taking advantage and fighting.

You can’t live this dream of ours by denying the facts and then saying what you think may save your opinion. You say Stone Age, then now you change because you realise your thinking is impossible. Make up your mind.

I'm convinced this is a joke and we are wasting our time at this point, no one can be so delusional.

[Walkerfort]

[facepalm] You can literally only choose one. The reason why you wanted the Stone Ages is because they were much more free. In this world of ours today, with more power and technology, there is more chances of taking advantage and fighting.

You can’t live this dream of ours by denying the facts and then saying what you think may save your opinion. You say Stone Age, then now you change because you realise your thinking is impossible. Make up your mind.

I'm convinced this is a joke and we are wasting our time at this point, no one can be so delusional.

or it's billy!... he found intrest in tribes, nature and nationstates!

[Alien Overlord]

They don't, but not because of the effort of the party-they just don't because...plot i guess?

That's not a good enough reason.

Er-well that's the reason given by the book.

[Bluelight-R006]

[facepalm] You can literally only choose one. The reason why you wanted the Stone Ages is because they were much more free. In this world of ours today, with more power and technology, there is more chances of taking advantage and fighting.

You can’t live this dream of ours by denying the facts and then saying what you think may save your opinion. You say Stone Age, then now you change because you realise your thinking is impossible. Make up your mind.

I'm convinced this is a joke and we are wasting our time at this point, no one can be so delusional.

This is definitely a joke. Reminds me of those Flat earthers who constantly change their own logic to fight others. But we defend our logic.

[The Brine]

Yes, yes, we all know, we should be switching the television off stand-by when not in use. And that we should be getting out of our cars and getting on trains, buses and bicycles to reduce global warming. It certainly is not easy, particularly when generations of today have become so used to modern conveniences, namely cars. As soon as an individual passes their driving test, many are unlikely to get on a bus again! But the reality is, using rail travel is much better for the environment. The Manchester Commute Challenge recorded that the train commuter produced 382 grams of CO2, the bus commuter 603 grams and the car produced 1123 grams. If everybody were to cut down how much they used their car, it really would make the world of difference for the future. Additionally, the creation of car parks uses land that could be used for more homes in Britain or maintaining a greener country. Imagine the amount of car parking space would be needed during a global event, such as at the Olympics in 2012.

With the ever increasing rise in fuel prices, it is difficult to tell when it will ever stop. Car users are shelling out more and more money to pay at the pumps for their petrol and feel bitter having done so. Travelling by rail means that you do not pay to fill up your car, only for your fare and do not have to concern yourself with where to park your car or bike and do not have to pay for the pleasure: particularly trying to park in London. Perhaps travelling by train makes us all better off in the long run.

For much of your journey, a train reaches a speed twice that of the limit allowed on roads. When travelling by plane, you have to get to the airport, check-in, endure the flight and then any onward travel to your destination. A train takes you from city to city efficiently: from London to Brussels in 2 hours 40 minutes; from London to Paris in three hours, saving us all plenty of much-needed time. Roads and motorways do get very congested and this is unlikely to happen on a train.

I think trains are a great form of transportation. Have you ever been to Japan?
That is THE mode of transportation. Cheap, easy, fast. Crowded? Yes for sure but it gets you from point A to B in a fast fashion.
It may not be ideal for traveling out of state, but going from city to city in a train is a great way for transportation.

If trains were more widely recognised as a transport mode for the future, government would feel pressured to make some intervention on the train industry so they could provide more trains and so they would not be so crowded. If people are put off by it and simply drive, they are not helping the problem but hindering it.

This is manipulating statistics to the worst degree.

Of course a terrorist is not going to bomb a bicycle as its travelling along the road! But it is more likely a bike will be hit by a car than a terrorist planting a bomb on the train you are on. If we totalled up statistics, compared train accidents/bombings with car crashes and bike accidents I ma sure you would find that the train is a far safer mode of transport.

I rest my case.

[Australian rePublic]

Well first off the most obvious reason is that cars are really really really harmful to our world through vehicles emitting large amounts of pollutants. The earth is our home and our provider, we lived without cars before why can't we repeat that.

Just because something used to be the case in the past, it doesn't mean that modern people should live by. People used to use blood letting as the primary form of medicine. Should we repeat that too? Also, as the carer for disabled people, I can assure you that banning cars is a really bad idea. Besides, cars don't require us to ride animals, which is less cruel to them

Accidents are caused and lives are lost each year precious lives.

People also die from swimming in the ocean? Should we ban that too? People also die from snow skiing. Should we ban them too? People die from falling down the stairs. Should we ban stairs? People die from falling out of bed. Should we ban beds?

Back before the cars invention people use to walk on the streets;

Not disabled people

imagine all that space could be put into good use.

I don't need to imagine. I can use Google Street View to see what Athens used to look like before cars. Or Rome. Or London. Don't like Google? I can also travel to their. I don't see this space being put to "good use"

I feel like city/metropolitan area would be better off using public transport.

So do most people who live in cities/metropolitan areas. That's why trains/buses/trams etc. are full. I mean, have you tried parking in the CBD?
Now, on the flip side, Mudgee to Gulgong is a 30 minute drive. Okay, now get me there at a convenient time. Now, make my proposal profitable.


Okay, we can ban cars for city dwellers? Fine, goodbye rural tourism industry

Maybe not banning all vehicles immediately but in the distant future it would be a great decision.

You know who else thought that it would be a good idea to ban cars? The Kim Dynasty of North Korea. The reason- restricting people's freedom of movement makes it easier to control them

[The New California Republic]

Yes, yes, we all know, we should be switching the television off stand-by when not in use. And that we should be getting out of our cars and getting on trains, buses and bicycles to reduce global warming. It certainly is not easy, particularly when generations of today have become so used to modern conveniences, namely cars. As soon as an individual passes their driving test, many are unlikely to get on a bus again! But the reality is, using rail travel is much better for the environment. The Manchester Commute Challenge recorded that the train commuter produced 382 grams of CO2, the bus commuter 603 grams and the car produced 1123 grams. If everybody were to cut down how much they used their car, it really would make the world of difference for the future. Additionally, the creation of car parks uses land that could be used for more homes in Britain or maintaining a greener country. Imagine the amount of car parking space would be needed during a global event, such as at the Olympics in 2012.

With the ever increasing rise in fuel prices, it is difficult to tell when it will ever stop. Car users are shelling out more and more money to pay at the pumps for their petrol and feel bitter having done so. Travelling by rail means that you do not pay to fill up your car, only for your fare and do not have to concern yourself with where to park your car or bike and do not have to pay for the pleasure: particularly trying to park in London. Perhaps travelling by train makes us all better off in the long run.

For much of your journey, a train reaches a speed twice that of the limit allowed on roads. When travelling by plane, you have to get to the airport, check-in, endure the flight and then any onward travel to your destination. A train takes you from city to city efficiently: from London to Brussels in 2 hours 40 minutes; from London to Paris in three hours, saving us all plenty of much-needed time. Roads and motorways do get very congested and this is unlikely to happen on a train.

I think trains are a great form of transportation. Have you ever been to Japan?
That is THE mode of transportation. Cheap, easy, fast. Crowded? Yes for sure but it gets you from point A to B in a fast fashion.
It may not be ideal for traveling out of state, but going from city to city in a train is a great way for transportation.

If trains were more widely recognised as a transport mode for the future, government would feel pressured to make some intervention on the train industry so they could provide more trains and so they would not be so crowded. If people are put off by it and simply drive, they are not helping the problem but hindering it.

This is manipulating statistics to the worst degree.

Of course a terrorist is not going to bomb a bicycle as its travelling along the road! But it is more likely a bike will be hit by a car than a terrorist planting a bomb on the train you are on. If we totalled up statistics, compared train accidents/bombings with car crashes and bike accidents I ma sure you would find that the train is a far safer mode of transport.

I rest my case.

Plagiarism. It isn't your case at all: https://debatewise.org/debates/534-rail ... he-future/

[Ayissor]

Yes, yes, we all know, we should be switching the television off stand-by when not in use. And that we should be getting out of our cars and getting on trains, buses and bicycles to reduce global warming. It certainly is not easy, particularly when generations of today have become so used to modern conveniences, namely cars. As soon as an individual passes their driving test, many are unlikely to get on a bus again! But the reality is, using rail travel is much better for the environment. The Manchester Commute Challenge recorded that the train commuter produced 382 grams of CO2, the bus commuter 603 grams and the car produced 1123 grams. If everybody were to cut down how much they used their car, it really would make the world of difference for the future. Additionally, the creation of car parks uses land that could be used for more homes in Britain or maintaining a greener country. Imagine the amount of car parking space would be needed during a global event, such as at the Olympics in 2012.

With the ever increasing rise in fuel prices, it is difficult to tell when it will ever stop. Car users are shelling out more and more money to pay at the pumps for their petrol and feel bitter having done so. Travelling by rail means that you do not pay to fill up your car, only for your fare and do not have to concern yourself with where to park your car or bike and do not have to pay for the pleasure: particularly trying to park in London. Perhaps travelling by train makes us all better off in the long run.

For much of your journey, a train reaches a speed twice that of the limit allowed on roads. When travelling by plane, you have to get to the airport, check-in, endure the flight and then any onward travel to your destination. A train takes you from city to city efficiently: from London to Brussels in 2 hours 40 minutes; from London to Paris in three hours, saving us all plenty of much-needed time. Roads and motorways do get very congested and this is unlikely to happen on a train.

I think trains are a great form of transportation. Have you ever been to Japan?
That is THE mode of transportation. Cheap, easy, fast. Crowded? Yes for sure but it gets you from point A to B in a fast fashion.
It may not be ideal for traveling out of state, but going from city to city in a train is a great way for transportation.

If trains were more widely recognised as a transport mode for the future, government would feel pressured to make some intervention on the train industry so they could provide more trains and so they would not be so crowded. If people are put off by it and simply drive, they are not helping the problem but hindering it.

This is manipulating statistics to the worst degree.

Of course a terrorist is not going to bomb a bicycle as its travelling along the road! But it is more likely a bike will be hit by a car than a terrorist planting a bomb on the train you are on. If we totalled up statistics, compared train accidents/bombings with car crashes and bike accidents I ma sure you would find that the train is a far safer mode of transport.

I rest my case.

Plagiarism. It isn't your case at all: https://debatewise.org/debates/534-rail ... he-future/

This is a joke, like, this entire thread is a bloody joke.

[The Brine]

Yes, yes, we all know, we should be switching the television off stand-by when not in use. And that we should be getting out of our cars and getting on trains, buses and bicycles to reduce global warming. It certainly is not easy, particularly when generations of today have become so used to modern conveniences, namely cars. As soon as an individual passes their driving test, many are unlikely to get on a bus again! But the reality is, using rail travel is much better for the environment. The Manchester Commute Challenge recorded that the train commuter produced 382 grams of CO2, the bus commuter 603 grams and the car produced 1123 grams. If everybody were to cut down how much they used their car, it really would make the world of difference for the future. Additionally, the creation of car parks uses land that could be used for more homes in Britain or maintaining a greener country. Imagine the amount of car parking space would be needed during a global event, such as at the Olympics in 2012.

With the ever increasing rise in fuel prices, it is difficult to tell when it will ever stop. Car users are shelling out more and more money to pay at the pumps for their petrol and feel bitter having done so. Travelling by rail means that you do not pay to fill up your car, only for your fare and do not have to concern yourself with where to park your car or bike and do not have to pay for the pleasure: particularly trying to park in London. Perhaps travelling by train makes us all better off in the long run.

For much of your journey, a train reaches a speed twice that of the limit allowed on roads. When travelling by plane, you have to get to the airport, check-in, endure the flight and then any onward travel to your destination. A train takes you from city to city efficiently: from London to Brussels in 2 hours 40 minutes; from London to Paris in three hours, saving us all plenty of much-needed time. Roads and motorways do get very congested and this is unlikely to happen on a train.

I think trains are a great form of transportation. Have you ever been to Japan?
That is THE mode of transportation. Cheap, easy, fast. Crowded? Yes for sure but it gets you from point A to B in a fast fashion.
It may not be ideal for traveling out of state, but going from city to city in a train is a great way for transportation.

If trains were more widely recognised as a transport mode for the future, government would feel pressured to make some intervention on the train industry so they could provide more trains and so they would not be so crowded. If people are put off by it and simply drive, they are not helping the problem but hindering it.

This is manipulating statistics to the worst degree.

Of course a terrorist is not going to bomb a bicycle as its travelling along the road! But it is more likely a bike will be hit by a car than a terrorist planting a bomb on the train you are on. If we totalled up statistics, compared train accidents/bombings with car crashes and bike accidents I ma sure you would find that the train is a far safer mode of transport.

I rest my case.

Plagiarism. It isn't your case at all: https://debatewise.org/debates/534-rail ... he-future/

But it's a credible source. You can't deny the facts that trains are superior to cars and we should ban cars and use them instead.

[Sterkistan]

Yes, yes, we all know, we should be switching the television off stand-by when not in use. And that we should be getting out of our cars and getting on trains, buses and bicycles to reduce global warming. It certainly is not easy, particularly when generations of today have become so used to modern conveniences, namely cars. As soon as an individual passes their driving test, many are unlikely to get on a bus again! But the reality is, using rail travel is much better for the environment. The Manchester Commute Challenge recorded that the train commuter produced 382 grams of CO2, the bus commuter 603 grams and the car produced 1123 grams. If everybody were to cut down how much they used their car, it really would make the world of difference for the future. Additionally, the creation of car parks uses land that could be used for more homes in Britain or maintaining a greener country. Imagine the amount of car parking space would be needed during a global event, such as at the Olympics in 2012.

With the ever increasing rise in fuel prices, it is difficult to tell when it will ever stop. Car users are shelling out more and more money to pay at the pumps for their petrol and feel bitter having done so. Travelling by rail means that you do not pay to fill up your car, only for your fare and do not have to concern yourself with where to park your car or bike and do not have to pay for the pleasure: particularly trying to park in London. Perhaps travelling by train makes us all better off in the long run.

For much of your journey, a train reaches a speed twice that of the limit allowed on roads. When travelling by plane, you have to get to the airport, check-in, endure the flight and then any onward travel to your destination. A train takes you from city to city efficiently: from London to Brussels in 2 hours 40 minutes; from London to Paris in three hours, saving us all plenty of much-needed time. Roads and motorways do get very congested and this is unlikely to happen on a train.

I think trains are a great form of transportation. Have you ever been to Japan?
That is THE mode of transportation. Cheap, easy, fast. Crowded? Yes for sure but it gets you from point A to B in a fast fashion.
It may not be ideal for traveling out of state, but going from city to city in a train is a great way for transportation.

If trains were more widely recognised as a transport mode for the future, government would feel pressured to make some intervention on the train industry so they could provide more trains and so they would not be so crowded. If people are put off by it and simply drive, they are not helping the problem but hindering it.

This is manipulating statistics to the worst degree.

Of course a terrorist is not going to bomb a bicycle as its travelling along the road! But it is more likely a bike will be hit by a car than a terrorist planting a bomb on the train you are on. If we totalled up statistics, compared train accidents/bombings with car crashes and bike accidents I ma sure you would find that the train is a far safer mode of transport.

I rest my case.

The ludicrous speed of this post, as well as the above post by NCR gives me no shadow of a doubt this is plagiarism. Additionally, you only cited one source, the rest is uncited and frankly opinionated. Invalidating a vast number of 'your' recommendations.

[Walkerfort]

Plagiarism. It isn't your case at all: https://debatewise.org/debates/534-rail ... he-future/

This is a joke, like, this entire thread is a bloody joke.

yep


A funny one at that... Had a blast watching this

[Rothbardian Paradise]

That's a bad argument that fails to even consider the possibility of methodological individualism. You can't just define society collectively from the get-go.

the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
"drugs, crime, and other dangers to society"
synonyms: the community, the public, the general public, the people, the population

Even methodological individualism is collectivist in nature.

That's just circular reasoning.

[The New California Republic]

Plagiarism. It isn't your case at all: https://debatewise.org/debates/534-rail ... he-future/

But it's a credible source.

You gave no source. You tried to pass off that shit as your own work. Fucking shameless. And the source isn't credible at all.

[Bluelight-R006]

Plagiarism. It isn't your case at all: https://debatewise.org/debates/534-rail ... he-future/

This is a joke, like, this entire thread is a bloody joke.

It’s not a joke.

It’s a space-fairing empire of jokes.

Also, trains aren’t the future. Electrical vehicles are. No matter how inconvenient they are, it’s for the greater good and it’s better than your (OP) idea of brainwashing in the Stone Age. Just accept it. No one needs to give a crap about emission of CO^2.

I rest my case, but unlikely this rest will last long. Perhaps a power nap for a few seconds.

I power nap my case.

[Walkerfort]

hey when will the mods close this? Just curious

[The Free Joy State]

Plagiarism. It isn't your case at all: https://debatewise.org/debates/534-rail ... he-future/

But it's a credible source. You can't deny the facts that trains are superior to cars and we should ban cars and use them instead.

If you're quoting a source, link to the source and put the text in a box or quote, to show it's not yours.

Dumping the whole text and presenting it as your case was barely one up from copypasta.

[Alien Overlord]

Yes, yes, we all know, we should be switching the television off stand-by when not in use. And that we should be getting out of our cars and getting on trains, buses and bicycles to reduce global warming. It certainly is not easy, particularly when generations of today have become so used to modern conveniences, namely cars. As soon as an individual passes their driving test, many are unlikely to get on a bus again! But the reality is, using rail travel is much better for the environment. The Manchester Commute Challenge recorded that the train commuter produced 382 grams of CO2, the bus commuter 603 grams and the car produced 1123 grams. If everybody were to cut down how much they used their car, it really would make the world of difference for the future. Additionally, the creation of car parks uses land that could be used for more homes in Britain or maintaining a greener country. Imagine the amount of car parking space would be needed during a global event, such as at the Olympics in 2012.

With the ever increasing rise in fuel prices, it is difficult to tell when it will ever stop. Car users are shelling out more and more money to pay at the pumps for their petrol and feel bitter having done so. Travelling by rail means that you do not pay to fill up your car, only for your fare and do not have to concern yourself with where to park your car or bike and do not have to pay for the pleasure: particularly trying to park in London. Perhaps travelling by train makes us all better off in the long run.

For much of your journey, a train reaches a speed twice that of the limit allowed on roads. When travelling by plane, you have to get to the airport, check-in, endure the flight and then any onward travel to your destination. A train takes you from city to city efficiently: from London to Brussels in 2 hours 40 minutes; from London to Paris in three hours, saving us all plenty of much-needed time. Roads and motorways do get very congested and this is unlikely to happen on a train.

I think trains are a great form of transportation. Have you ever been to Japan?
That is THE mode of transportation. Cheap, easy, fast. Crowded? Yes for sure but it gets you from point A to B in a fast fashion.
It may not be ideal for traveling out of state, but going from city to city in a train is a great way for transportation.

If trains were more widely recognised as a transport mode for the future, government would feel pressured to make some intervention on the train industry so they could provide more trains and so they would not be so crowded. If people are put off by it and simply drive, they are not helping the problem but hindering it.

This is manipulating statistics to the worst degree.

Of course a terrorist is not going to bomb a bicycle as its travelling along the road! But it is more likely a bike will be hit by a car than a terrorist planting a bomb on the train you are on. If we totalled up statistics, compared train accidents/bombings with car crashes and bike accidents I ma sure you would find that the train is a far safer mode of transport.

I rest my case.

I refuse to regress and give up my car. What can you do about this? Nothing-because by your own principles, we are giving up all cars. So if i hide my car until after you've outlawed them, then bring it back out, what can you do? Especially if i have a means to get gasoline for it. You aren't going to catch me on a bicycle. Imagine me, multiplied by millions.

[The Brine]

But it's a credible source. You can't deny the facts that trains are superior to cars and we should ban cars and use them instead.

If you're quoting a source, link to the source and put the text in a box or quote, to show it's not yours.

Dumping the whole text and presenting it as your case was barely one up from copypasta.

Wow, I didn't know you could do that!???

[Bluelight-R006]

Plagiarism. It isn't your case at all: https://debatewise.org/debates/534-rail ... he-future/

But it's a credible source. You can't deny the facts that trains are superior to cars and we should ban cars and use them instead.

CORRECTION: Fossil fueled-operated trains are better than the other fossil fueled-cars and buses.

ELECTRIC! WHY DO YOU KEEP FORGETTING! My goodness, you can simply say we can change to electric, instead of fossil fuels, and we’d all agree. Even you, but you refuse! Read our messages fully, consider them and see if it matches, then reply individually instead of dumping an entire text to justify yourself and not read!

[The Brine]

Yes, yes, we all know, we should be switching the television off stand-by when not in use. And that we should be getting out of our cars and getting on trains, buses and bicycles to reduce global warming. It certainly is not easy, particularly when generations of today have become so used to modern conveniences, namely cars. As soon as an individual passes their driving test, many are unlikely to get on a bus again! But the reality is, using rail travel is much better for the environment. The Manchester Commute Challenge recorded that the train commuter produced 382 grams of CO2, the bus commuter 603 grams and the car produced 1123 grams. If everybody were to cut down how much they used their car, it really would make the world of difference for the future. Additionally, the creation of car parks uses land that could be used for more homes in Britain or maintaining a greener country. Imagine the amount of car parking space would be needed during a global event, such as at the Olympics in 2012.

With the ever increasing rise in fuel prices, it is difficult to tell when it will ever stop. Car users are shelling out more and more money to pay at the pumps for their petrol and feel bitter having done so. Travelling by rail means that you do not pay to fill up your car, only for your fare and do not have to concern yourself with where to park your car or bike and do not have to pay for the pleasure: particularly trying to park in London. Perhaps travelling by train makes us all better off in the long run.

For much of your journey, a train reaches a speed twice that of the limit allowed on roads. When travelling by plane, you have to get to the airport, check-in, endure the flight and then any onward travel to your destination. A train takes you from city to city efficiently: from London to Brussels in 2 hours 40 minutes; from London to Paris in three hours, saving us all plenty of much-needed time. Roads and motorways do get very congested and this is unlikely to happen on a train.

I think trains are a great form of transportation. Have you ever been to Japan?
That is THE mode of transportation. Cheap, easy, fast. Crowded? Yes for sure but it gets you from point A to B in a fast fashion.
It may not be ideal for traveling out of state, but going from city to city in a train is a great way for transportation.

If trains were more widely recognised as a transport mode for the future, government would feel pressured to make some intervention on the train industry so they could provide more trains and so they would not be so crowded. If people are put off by it and simply drive, they are not helping the problem but hindering it.

This is manipulating statistics to the worst degree.

Of course a terrorist is not going to bomb a bicycle as its travelling along the road! But it is more likely a bike will be hit by a car than a terrorist planting a bomb on the train you are on. If we totalled up statistics, compared train accidents/bombings with car crashes and bike accidents I ma sure you would find that the train is a far safer mode of transport.

I rest my case.

I refuse to regress and give up my car. What can you do about this? Nothing-because by your own principles, we are giving up all cars. So if i hide my car until after you've outlawed them, then bring it back out, what can you do? Especially if i have a means to get gasoline for it. You aren't going to catch me on a bicycle. Imagine me, multiplied by millions.

We will send an elite death squad after you and your cohorts, they will be riding in helicopters.

[The New California Republic]

If you're quoting a source, link to the source and put the text in a box or quote, to show it's not yours.

Dumping the whole text and presenting it as your case was barely one up from copypasta.

Wow, I didn't know you could do that!???

Well please do so in the future.

[Rothbardian Paradise]

Should cars be banned?

My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about cars. All right, here is how I feel about cars:

If when you say cars you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil vehicle that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

But, if when you say cars you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drives that pu the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the car which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that car, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.