Ignoring the folly of the automobile being the only way to travel, and that independent mobility is all but dead in the United States, you are not the target of regulations like this. The target is needlessly large vehicles that do little but to stoke the ego of the owner, or maybe simply being another step up in the SUV safety arms race.
> Ignoring the folly of the automobile being the only way to travel...
Thing is, if you drive 10 people, you drive one van. If ten people take the train or the bus, you buy ten tickets. Even if there were much better public transportation in the US, the economics push toward driving with larger family sizes.
> ... and that independent mobility is all but dead in the United States...
Yes, my family is not in the mind of the people asking for pickup trucks to be banned, but generally people with that mindset don't ask for narrow, tailored legislation.
> Why can't the government stay out of my business?
As I see it, the moment you leave your private property you are interacting with society and it's not your business anymore. Of course you need the option for a bigger van, but that doesn't mean that nothing can be done about the SUVs. You can't just drive around on public(!) roads and think you're not bound to the rules of society. Also, it's a private citizen proposing this and not "the government". Environmental legislation is a product of changing attitudes in society and not some deep-state, technocratic action.
Technically, they're not. The SUVs that this article complains about are also technically not "cars". They're classified as trucks under many regulations.
Does the road being public mean that my family should have been forced to drive two cars, thus polluting more, all because of some people who can't stay out of other's business?
I understand the argument here, but I think it's bad. Government does get a say in what is driven on roads: safe cars that are often inspected and pose less danger to those around and inside them. That's already a lot of restriction, now we let the gov't pick favorites too? Government is not your fairy godmother, things you don't like will happen.
>my family should have been forced to drive two cars, thus polluting more, all because of some people who can't stay out of other's business
You're depicting one side of a question with a practical example ("more pollution") and the other side as though they are simply assholes ("they just can't stay out of other's business"). There is a reasonable version of both sides.
This is true, but someone else telling you how to live your life with obviously zero practical experience in how you live your life will generally seem unreasonable to you. My bias is showing, but my bias is, I think, reasonable.
This is silly reasoning. Of course the government has the authority to dictate their life, even if they didn’t drive in public roads. This doesn’t mean that it’s good for them to do so in this case.
Maybe the government should have been more in your parents' business. I'm not usually one to think that the government has any place in the family, but 10 children seem like too many for 2 parents to wrangle well. Unless your family has more than two adults, how were you supervised?
So far the four of us who have turned 18 are doing great for ourselves, so it turned out pretty well. No neglect, great food, and an excellent education.
Are you saying some of us should have been put in the notoriously abusive foster care system instead of having a great family?
You mentioned education, and I assume you attended public schools, because 10 tuitions sound like a lot (and homeschooling sounds impossible). I'm amazed your parents were able to afford to feed you well, but good for them.
But how on earth were you supervised. I guess one parent must have been stay-at-home. Which means the other had to earn an income for the whole dozen of you? Did you ever see that parent (seriously, did they have to work 80+ hrs a week?)
> Are you saying some of us should have been put in the notoriously abusive foster care system
I think if you have 10 kids, then someone checking in to make sure that the kids are being fed, supervised, educated becomes a thing that probably needs to happen. If your parents were able to pull it off, great. I just doubt many parents could.
Nope, homeschooled 100%. I did go to community college when I was 13, I guess.
Lots of books (4000 in our home library), Khan Academy, and no personal electronics for the kids.
>But how on earth were you supervised. I guess one parent must have been stay-at-home.
Mom still is, and she's good at it. The real answer is that it's not any more effort past 6 or so kids. I've been taking care of kids my entire life, essentially, and it really does become self-sustaining. Turns out tweens and young teens are great at taking care of babies. There's a picture somewhere of 10-year-old me wearing my new baby sister in a carrier.
Dad's a principal engineer, he's been remote for a long time, we saw him plenty. (he's also somewhat active here, Hi Dad!)
As long as you don't spend money on things like TV, and buy in bulk to cook at home, it's really not too expensive. We'd spend about $1300 a month in groceries.
> I think if you have 10 kids, then someone checking in to make sure that the kids are being fed, supervised, educated becomes a thing that probably needs to happen.
Where's the threshold for the state examining their anuses because obviously something must be wrong here?
We did have CPS called a couple times, once because I was doing my college coursework at 14 sitting on the patio roof. I hopped down, we sat around and listened to the spiel, then I politely asked them if they could fuck off because my Sociology 204 class was about to happen.
We also scored at the top of our (good) school district in standardized testing. Like, all of us were the top score in our grade.
My understanding is that it is pretty common and not mysterious at all that as children get older they start to look after each other. Being the youngest of 4 kids, the older ones often watched over me.
This is bizarre nonsense. Because you don't know how to do something successfully then the government should regulate it for everyone? People have been raising huge families for ages. Mormon families for example are known for often being massive and still successful.
"seems" is doing a lot of work here, and you are presuming your worldview to be more correct than the OP's parents? on what basis do you make that judgement? are you not the descendent of someone who once had more than a single child?
Firstly, births are (usually) spread out over time (20 years for my family). Secondly, the older children help the younger ones (in all respects: I am deeply grateful for the socializing influence of my elder (by 4 years) sister). Thirdly, there is more to life than "family" life (neighborhood children, friends, school, sports, job, etc.) and so we were often under the care of others or on our own. Consequently my friends and I roamed the woods and swamps, cycled around town, to/from school and generally, wandered everywhere within the city limits (~20-mile radius). Once we could drive a car, trips became shorter, less varied, more task- and family-oriented.
I remember the first time my mom told me to "hold down the fort!", rushed out in an emergency and left me in charge of my younger siblings. Pretty exciting to be handed such responsibility but it was easier than it sounds and a lot of fun really.
This is precisely the kind of socializing influence my 4-year elder sister brought to me! Her words are burned into my brain: "Other people don't think the way you do!"
With that simple statement she opened up a whole new world to me.
Honestly, this is a weird thing to see. My parents just... did it, while so many people wait for the perfect time, have kids into their 40s, and then have to deal with teenagers in their 60s. Perhaps not for everyone, but there are perks.