I hear this type of argument all the time when I talk about the absurdly giant pick up trucks that dominate the market and our roads. "Well maybe people need them for work or recreation" and like yeah some do, but the vast majority simply do not. So I don't think your enjoyment of niche recreational activities are a compelling argument in the face of the myriad social and environmental harms of living in a car-centric society.
I think it's telling that you consider hiking and camping and hunting to be "niche recreational activities" in this country. If gas continues to cost $2/liter, it'll do more to get those lifted monster-trucks off the road than any number of snarky columns from Mx Marx.
I would love to see any cite that shows Paris Marx or anyone else calling for a complete and total ban on personal automobiles. Without such evidence, this whole thing smacks of a strawman.
They're not calling for a complete and total ban, they just don't want people to drive.
I'd be genuinely curious what percentage of vehicle trips are taken by choice for pleasure or recreation vs commuting to work, getting groceries, schlepping kids to school and activities. I'd be shocked if it was even 10%.
Does it matter? I use my vehicle primarily for recreation because I usually walk to work and the grocery store. So? If I was using my vehicle for that stuff in addition to recreation, would that make it more legitimate for me to use it for recreation?
Ultimately what Marx is advocating for is a world where we average folks lose our "automobility". They propose that the benefits of a car-free society would more than make up for the loss of the freedom to travel when I want, to go to the places I want, and so-on. I'm highly skeptical.
Because obviously it's all about you?
As if this was a decision I made for all of us? We as a
society have collectively made this choice.
If that weren't the case, why isn't anybody running for public office on a platform of getting rid of cars? Why doesn't somebody run to be mayor of Vancouver or Toronto or even Dethbridge with the promise of attacking cars? Why did Environment Minister Stephane Greasebault get all mad when somebody accused him of wanting to tax trucks?
Maybe this is something Justin and the Superfriends can jump on for the next election. "We know that there are many responsible vehicle owners in Canada, but you don't need an SUV to bring home the groceries."
You don't just need to convince me that it's selfish and unreasonable for me to want to go snowshoeing in the mountains, you also have to convince a mom that it's selfish and unreasonable to want to drop off one kid and his gear at hockey practice then drop off the other kid and her trombone at music class before she goes to work. and so on.
Also, as i said in my OP, the "freedom to travel" is not what it seems when it involves being chained to a costly and constantly depreciating asset.
It's exactly what it seems.
Yeah only rich urbanites would benefit from improved air quality, less dangerous streets, more financial freedom etc etc. Come on jack.
When I say "snob", I don't use it as a synonym for "rich". I'm skeptical that either Mx Marx or yourself are financially better off than most of the people you look down your noses at.
Improved air quality? Air quality is better now than it used to be thanks to cleaner-running and more efficient vehicles. That only continue to improve as hybrids and EVs take an increasing share of the market.
Safer streets? Sure, that's fine. No objection at all. I'm all for designing cities in a way that makes it easier for people to walk without getting hit by cars.
Financial freedom? I don't need Mx Marx to help me with my budget. I can decide for myself what's affordable.
-k