If you truly believe that freedom of movement is a right that should be applied to everyone, you should be arguing in favour of improved public transit and any other solution that isn't a personal vehicle, because personal vehicles aren't accessible to everybody. In addition to being financially out of reach for many, they cannot be used by the visually impaired and by people with certain motor function impairments, the young, or the old. Something as important as freedom of movement should be serviced by something that is accessible to all.
Traveling in a personal vehicle affords drastically more freedom of movement (you are literally in control of your movement) than any form of public transport and while it's not necessarily a need that should be subsidized by the state it is nonetheless a curtailment on freedom when the state deliberately makes it less convenient than it had been.
The state should make it less convenient. In the past they have been massively subsidizing it with free roads and military interventions abroad to safeguard the oil supply. Furthermore cars and gasoline should be taxed much more heavily to compensate for the negative externalities of cars: noise and air pollution and countless traffic victims (35.000 motor vehicle deaths in 2015 in the US alone [1]).
Your freedom to get somewhere in a car is not absolute (e.g. you have to follow roads), it should be balanced against other freedoms. Ponder this: cars have impinged on my freedom to go certain places (e.g. highways or certain neighborhoods that no longer have sidewalks) on foot.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
First, this is not what I was responding to. Parent claimed that restricting the freedom to use cars was not an impingement on personal freedom at all, because not everybody can drive a car. That is a different question than whether it is a tolerable infringement, and it is precisely the denial that people have a legitimate interest in car use that I have characterized as Orwellian.
Second, your comparison is equally silly. Complaining that I cannot walk on the highway is like complaining that I cannot drive my car through a building. It is normal that you cannot move literally everywhere. The question of the freedom of movement being infringed necessarily relies on the change in freedom relative to what was previously possible, and highways take up a small proportion of land which is hardly comparable to reducing by half or more the number of car-miles a person can afford to drive (or taking their car completely).
>Furthermore cars and gasoline should be taxed much more heavily to compensate for the negative externalities of cars: noise and air pollution and countless traffic victims (35.000 motor vehicle deaths in 2015 in the US alone [1]).
They are already taxed to compensate for those externalities, by requiring drivers to buy insurance policies that cover damage they may cause. There cannot always be the argument that because there are externalities, taxes must be raised. At some point the taxes have to be enough. This is yet more absurd gaslighting by rich jerks who like to push people around.
Insurance policies only cover damage that is directly attributable to individual drivers like traffic collisions. They don't cover any of the damage caused by air or noise pollution.
Any reasonably time-efficient transportation system is going to deny pedestrians some space.
As you said paying for parking is just a disadvantage of hauling around several tons of metal, which is not the same as being deprived of your ability to do something by someone who holds power over you.
Freedom of Movement is very much not a luxury. You might argue that lacking these 'luxuries' does not prevent you from going anywhere, but it is very much a restriction of otherwise freer movement Also, it ignores the inherent timeliness our society has developed which make lower variance delays much more desireable.