[dogruck]

This is a complicated topic. Here is one example line of thought:

1. Wow, all of these cars are annoying -- let's restrict them

2. But, rich people own these cars, and many of them drive into the city to spend money, which pays the workers

3. We all agree traffic is annoying, so those rich people sure must prefer to drive their cars

4. Hmmm, what will happen if we punish/tax/regulate their cars? Possible they'll stop coming into the city?

5. If that happens, what happens to the workers?

My primary point is that it's easy to say, "these cars suck, so let's tax them" without thinking through all of the ramifications.

[intev]

I'm going to branch out from 3. here:

4) Why do they prefer driving these cars? Can we make public transport as good or even better than driving a car?

5) Let's put in place a plan to improve public infrastructure while restricting new cars on the road.

6) Once we satisfactorily accomplish 5, we can phase out cars.

My primary point being it's easy to create strawman lines of thought and have no meaningful conversation. ;)

[dogruck]

I completely agree with you, and I think your branch is a good one. Also, personally, I look forward to the day when cities are essentially free of car traffic. I envision wide pedestrian boulevards.

Speaking by analogy, most of us rational thinkers accept that we cannot make conclusions such as "our government needs more money, therefore we must increase taxes." Maybe, but maybe not.

But I've noticed with cars (or, maybe insects) it seems to be easier to jump to "let's tax and regulate these bothersome machines away."