10/11   Sprawl spreads development out over large amounts of land; puts long
        distances between homes, stores, and job centers; and makes people
        more and more dependent on driving in their daily lives.
        http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/overview
        \_ Why do people spend so much time fussing over a problem that
           will solve itself? When driving sucks so hard and is so
           expensive that no one wants to do it, no one will do it. We're
           not at that point yet. If you don't like to drive, don't. Lots
           of people are voting with their dollars and they prefer to drive.
           \_ uh, maybe because the damage to our society and environment
              will be already done by the time the invisible hand gets around
              to doing anything about it.  -tom
              \_ I WILL NOT BE MOCKED! --the invisible hand
              \_ And some of the problems are governmental (like city
                 regulations that limit density, or poor public transit),
                 which the free market isn't in a good position to solve.
              \_ You'll have a hard time proving any damage to society,
                 but if you want more environmental regulations that's
                 cool, but it's tangential. In fact, emissions requirements
                 for cars are much stricter than they used to be. The
                 person above seems more concerned about sprawl than the
                 environment, though. Even a zero emissions vehicle won't
                 have any impact on sprawl.
              \_ The free market has determined that your idea of damage is
                 not the same as the market's idea of damage.  Otherwise we'd
                 already being living in your vision for society.
                 \_ You're equating government-subsidized sprawl with the
                    free market?  Right.  If strip malls and subdivisions are
                    part of your free market worldview, you must love the
                    brilliant capitalistic success that is Amtrak.
                    \_ There is no such thing as a pure free market.  And those
                       malls provide goods, services, and jobs while paying
                       taxes and generating revenue for the surrounding areas.
                       Yes, my idea of the free market involves having a place
                       for businesses to exist in sufficient size and number to
                       provide the goods, services, and jobs required by an
                       active economy.
                       \_ Right.  So when you say "free market", that's your
                          code word for corporate socialism with your people
                          in charge.  Thank you for admiting it.  Now most
                                \_ code word?  my people?  excuse me for a
                                   moment while i go find my tin foil.
                          people are perfectly willing to admit that the believe
                          government has a role to play in regulating business,
                          and that it's useful to debate what that role should
                          be.  What makes people like you so evil is that
                          you avoid admiting that and cloak your pet socialist
                          people are perfectly willing to admit that the
                          believe government has a role to play in regulating
                          business, and that it's useful to debate what that
                          role should be.  What makes people like you so evil
                          is that you avoid admiting that and cloak your pet
                          socialist
                                \_ i don't avoid that at all.  my opening line
                                   was "there is no such thing as a pure free
                                   market".
                          programs in free market rhetoric right up until you're
                          programs in free market rhetoric right up until
                          you're
                                \_ i have no pet social programs.  i believe in
                                   smaller government, lower taxes, and less
                                   government control over all aspects of
                                   daily life.
                          cornered, and all of a sudden --"there are no real
                          free markets!! I'm a realist!!".
                                \_ i'll fedex a whole roll of tin or aluminum
                                   foil (your choice or both if you feel the
                                   need) to any of your hide outs at my cost.
                 \_ The free market has classified your brain as: small
                    \_ Thanks for saying nothing.
                 \_ The free market on Easter Island decided it was a great
                    idea to cut down all the trees.  -tom
                    \_ Excellent point.  Haiti's abject poverty is partly
                       attributable to unregulated environmental exploitation,
                       and modern-day Montana is all fucked up because
                       unregulated mining companies have poisoned much
                       of the fresh water there, destroying sustainable
                       industry such as tourism and agriculture. --PeterM
                    \_ That's because they had protectionist policies.  They
                       should have imported their resources from more
                       efficient markets. <sarcasm/>
                    \_ I wasn't aware the Easter Islanders had a free market
                       capitalist society.  Do you have a reference for that?
                       Perhaps their real problem was lack of trade with their
                       neighbors.  Oh wait, they didn't have any.  They were
                       isolated and had too many people on too small an area
                       with an unlimited food supply.  So EI has nothing to do
                       with this but thanks anyway.
                       \_ More to the point, it has nothing to do with
                          transportion-induced sprawl.
                       \_ The idea that free markets always provide desireable
                          outcomes is mythical.  I don't think anyone smart,
                          including Adam Smith, ever made that assertion,
                                \_ nor did i, thanks.
                          and it has been mathematically proven to be
                          false.  Your response about how the U.S. isn't
                          like Easter Island is asinine; of course that's
                          true but it's completely and intentionally missing
                          the point.  Easter Islanders *would have been better
                                \_ there is no point. ei was a useless example
                                   of a mall driven suburban environment.
                          off in the long run* if they got together to protect
                          their environment before it was too late.  There
                          are plenty of examples of societies which protected
                          their environment, and of societies which didn't, and
                          you definitely want to be in the former group.  -tom
                          \_ I guess I'm just trying to find out why being
                             'dependent on driving' is, in itself, a bad
                             thing or even bad for the environment. Like I
                             said before, even a zero emissions vehicle
                             will encourage sprawl. Heck, horses and
                             bicycles encourage sprawl (and did back when
                             the first suburbs formed). In short, I don't
                             see any point to the original statement. What
                             *is* the problem and why can't the free market
                             solve it?
                             \_ Sprawl has environmental impacts, including
                                increased use of resources, loss of arable
                                land, pressure on ecosystems, and wilderness
                                encroachment.  -tom
                                \_ You are avoiding my question. Why is
                                   driving a negative aspect of sprawl?
                                   The original statement mentions driving
                                   and 'long distances' specifically. I do
                                   not advocate sprawl, but clearly if an
                                   IKEA warehouse is going to be built
                                   then why does it matter if it is in the
                                   central city or 40 miles away? It is
                                   going to take up xxx acres of land
                                   either way.
                                   \_ look, cars are 'bad', ok?
                                   \_ You're either being disingenuous or
                                      obtuse.  A society based on the private
                                      auto takes a lot more energy to move
                                      people and things around; energy is not
                                      free and is not going to be free any
                                      time soon.  The amount of space required
                                      for auto infrastructure, and the energy
                                      required to maintain that infrastructure,
                                      is also enormous.  -tom
                          \_ no i want to be in the society that has a rational
                             policy towards environment while still allowing
                             people to live well.  "you want to be in the group
                             that destroys itself".  silly.  you brought up a
                             bad example and people made fun of it.  maybe
                             next time.