More than just what is best for society at large, paying to educate the kids you don't have, in the long run, makes the world better for you too.

> what’s best for society at large

The idea that simply slowing cars down is best for society at large is a big claim. It might help in some ways, but it will hurt in others.

It doesn't help society for everyone to travel at 90mph. Faster speeds are deadlier full stop, denial of this sort of thing is as asinine as climate denial or creationism, it's an already established fact accepted by anyone who studies traffic statistics.

Unfortunately the relationship between speed and energy is unintuitive (square rather than linear). Increasing speed from 60mph to 70mph doesn't sound like much but it increases energy by over a third.

In an unachievable ideal world instead of a speedometer and speed limits we would have an "energy meter" and energy limits, which would also take into account the mass of your car.

Higher speeds mean less time wasted in cars, so presumably more time to work

Not that simple. Higher speeds mean commutes over longer distance are feasible.

People simply move further out for cheaper bigger houses and drive further.

You are only considering safety and discounting everything else. The capacity of the road network is absolutely related to speed. Slowing down transportation across the board amounts to slowing the economy, which has it's own health impacts. It's not obvious what the ideal balance is. For certain, 1 fatality about every 100 million miles driven is pretty low, especially compared to the sheer amount of utility we get from all of these cars.

You’re not considering glaring effects too. Wind resistance increases with the square of speed. Going 85 instead of 70 or even 75 is a significant change in fuel economy.

Is climate change not a thing?

Indeed, and I would even say that I want to pay my taxes if I know most of it goes to societally useful activities even though I may not utilize all of them now, or some even ever.

I wonder what percentage of people would vote for the OPs idea in the US. 10%? Maybe 15% :)

Perhaps one of the biggest problems with this country right now is that people are too damn selfish, and vote “in their own best interest” to the detriment of not only everyone else but—ironically—to the detriment of themselves as well.

On an issue that boils down to social consensus such as how much selfishness is reasonable or what the speed limits should be it's impossible for the overwhelming majority of people to be wrong since they form the consensus.

Most "selfish Americans" people would be more "wounded animal" selfish than "position of power" selfish. That's a big difference.

huh?

One consequence is that we're in a low trust <-> bad social safety net feedback loop, rather than an innate consequence of a fixed "American disposition".

Jam one thing like through like Healthcare or Federal Rerserve accounts for all, and the feedback loop might find a markedly different equilibrium.

Maybe out in the countryside, the votes would be on your side, but that is not that big of a deal, because the issues of cars are not as bad there.

But in the city, there are many more people who may not even have a car, or be bothered by reduced speedlimits.

In these cities, we can outvote you.

Speed limits, and the like, are controlled locally.

op here! I definitely do believe that regulation is the path forward to shrinking and slowing cars. But that's not actually what I suggested. I just want the ability to PURCHASE one of these in north america - and for them to catch on

You can buy similar things already, just not EV.

EV part is pretty critical, since I'm trying to avoid fossil fuels whenever possible - but what are my options? A fiat 500 starts at $16,500, smartcars were not much less, and are no longer sold in the usa anyway.

You actually can't anymore. Car sellers have stopped selling them to Americans because they make more profit out of SUVs.

Car salesman will sell you anything just to get some of that commission. Not everyone wants to drive an SUV. You make it sound like people will only buy what a car salesman wants them to buy, if that were so we would all be driving luxury cars and severely in debt.

Maybe the majority just prefer SUVs instead. There is a lot more comfort in larger cars. I personally prefer an SUV to a mini van which turns funny in my experience.

Historically taxes were (and theoretically still should be) collected to finance the government (and, during a war, the military) and not for the redistribution of wealth. Socialism is a different theory, of course...

Historically taxes were (and theoretically still should be) to fund the lifestyles of the king, the king's family and the nobility.

America was founded on breaking from traditions to try new ideas (a government for the people by the people), but somewhere along the way y'all stopped innovating and started resisting all change. Redistribution of wealth fits perfectly into "gov for the people by the people". The many benefiting from the work of the many.

It is the wealthy and above average earners that already pay most of the taxes in America and some disagree with where the government is spending funds and even what they are taxing (one of the primary causes of our Civil War mind you). Redistribution of wealth has been tried in countries like Venezuela and many places but it collapses eventually when you have a single point of failure. Hell theres Social Security which got basically ruined by the government.

Any kind of redistribution would need to be at the full discretion of local governments instead of a federal body. The amount of power our federal government has amassed itself would make the founding fathers roll over in their graves, or pick up their musquets and revolt.

> one of the primary causes of our Civil War mind you

Yeah don’t mention slavery. Everything else was a big second.

And cherry pick some extreme examples.

I wasn't trying to list out all the causes of the civil war, it wasn't topical when discussing taxes. I didn't say it was "THE" cause.

The concept of free schooling emerged before socialism, and would not generally be thought of as socialist (or redistributive) by most people.

Really? If I remember correctly it was mentioned in The Communist Manifesto.

Noted Communist Thomas Jefferson proposed it rather before the Communist Manifesto was written (not that he came up with the idea, of course), and some US states and various other places started introducing it from the early 19th century on.

Just because Marx was in favour of something doesn’t necessarily make it inherently socialist.

But something can be socialist even if it came about before the idea of socialism was put forth.

Remote villages have lived in communistic systems but have no idea about the concept of communism.

Are you using ‘socialism’ to mean ‘doing anything for the common good’? I mean, free education seems completely orthogonal to socialism as normally defined.

How so? Please give me your definition of socialism and reasoning for calling it "orthogonal" to free education.

Not the OP, but Socialism is generally concerned with democratic ownership of the means of production.

Like stock options for employees?

Only if the company doesn’t have any other shareholders. I think John Lewis is run like that? Devil is in the details, and I’ve never had reason to look closely in their case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership

I would argue that “things in the Communist Manifesto” defines communism, in the same way that “things in the Bible” defines Christianity even though some (lots?) of the Bible originated in Judaism.

That said, I was asking for an example of the concept of free schooling from before socialism, and I got it :)

... but you literally are on here complaining.

If society deems it’s better off with out free speech, can we ride our straw horses together?

So long as its only the speech of those I disagree with thats banned then sure. ;)