[osigurdson]

So fine then with a huge, shiny, lifted F-350 that the owner drives 5km once per week to the ice cream shop? Or is your largest issue perhaps "redneck culture"?

[coldtea]

Why would he be fine with a "huge, shiny, lifted F-350 that the owner drives 5km once per week to the ice cream shop"?

Didn't he already explained he's against buying of trucks when there's no real need?

[osigurdson]

Yes, and then explained precisely the harms being caused to them personally - all based on distance driven. Please just admit the thing you really don't like is the culture associated with large trucks. No one "needs" anything, least of all any kind of vehicle.

[coldtea]

>Yes, and then explained precisely the harms being caused to them personally - all based on distance driven.

To everybody, naturally including them personally.

And none of the harms are based on distance driven. US-sized trucks are worse than smaller regular cars on those metrics for the same distances too.

>Please just admit the thing you really don't like is the culture associated with large trucks

One can dislike both you know.

[osigurdson]

How much compensation, should you personally receive from the hypothetical situation described above?

[coldtea]

Let's say someone purposefully spits on you. How much compensation, should you personally receive from that hypothetical situation?

Just because some particular damage can't be measured financially or settled with a fine, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This is especially true about things economists call "externalities", which includes the damage to the environment and things outside direct economic dealing.

[osigurdson]

This is an incredibly flaw analogy. Spitting on someone is a direct assault. Legally owning something unliked by various random people worldwide is not morally equivalent to spitting in someone's face.