[cp9]

freedom is not "everyone has a car". freedom is no one has to have a car to get where they need to go and do what needs done. for example, my favorite bar in my city is like .75 miles away. I would love to walk there, but functionally you can't because the two roads you need to take to get there are dangerous with limited or no sidewalks and extremely dangerous intersections (one is a blind corner where the cars are regularly doing 60 off of an expressway). if I could walk there (or even better, if I could bike there!) then I would be much much much freer to move about my home.

I don't hate cars! I just don't want to have to jump in a car to go somewhere I could easily walk

[redox99]

Having a car is always more freedom than not having a car.

Where I live I sometimes walk, sometimes bike, sometimes take the subway, sometimes use my car, and sometimes use my truck.

I'm nowhere near rich enough, but having your own private jet would also give you a lot of extra freedom.

However I don't consider these self driving taxis to give you much freedom (because you don't own them).

[kfarr]

In a dense city car ownership is a financial trap. It’s a depreciating liability whose use is extremely limited by available real estate (normal people use the terms traffic and parking). (Also the number one killer of kids.) Lack of ownership is the point.

[redox99]

I'm talking about freedom. Every person's financial situation is a separate thing.