Does a car and suburban lifestyle equal freedom (or a democratic right)? Is it realistic to think that citizens might sacrifice this lifestyle for the greater good? This is a chance to reflect a bit on how personal goods (self interest) relate to environmental goods (collective interest).
-
Brandon Davis
Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
imnik, 
midara, 
jonl 10:08 am on February 29, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I believe that, especially in the rise of cars and suburban lifestyle, that it did equal freedom. It was a sign that you made it, got what everyone wanted. Now, a car and a suburban life is so expensive that it seems out of reach for most graduating students or young professionals.
I read somewhere that the tram was actually a relatively green way of transportation. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know. So I think that when the suburban lifestyle first started, there was no other “grater good” to sacrifice it for. Somehow I feel that the collective interest may be the self interest of every individual. That is to say, every body wants everyone to have everything (like not pay tax but get the government to keep expanding the budget). Sorry if I misunderstood what was meant here by personal good and environmental goods.
roypat 2:51 am on March 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think at the time, those items represented a certain level of socioeconomic class and represented in a way, “equality.” However, the environment and the collective interest of the people was not at the forefront of the brains of the populace. Nowadays, it may be that certain items typically related to self-interest should fall as secondary to its environmental effects and the corresponding collective interest.
jenniefrench 12:55 pm on March 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
No I do not believe that literally a car and suburban lifestyle equal freedom and democracy in this day and age. Perhaps in the past it did and it was an advancement in human society’s development of human rights and equality. Those were the values being developed in the past. They are still important and still need to be remembered and worked towards but now we are also working towards developing values towards nature and the environment. I do not think citizens will sacrifice this lifestyle just for the greater good – they will sacrifice it if it saves them money, gets them tax breaks, and if there are feasible and easy easy easy alternatives. Self interest and collective interest are still in conflict I believe. Historically I feel we have moved from a more tribal to a more individual world. Perhaps there was once more egalitarian ways of living that valued community and family before the self. It will be hard – very hard – to transition to a world where we really put others – the globe, our children, animals – before ourselves. We have been programmed to value the individual, the unique, and the special. It’ll be hard to make sacrifices that take away from what we perceive as our identity.
hannahepperson 1:18 pm on March 7, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In response, I want to share a quote from the Marquis de Condorcet, who was writing about commercial capitalism in its early years. He predicted that “liberty will be no more, in the eyes of an avid nation, than the necessary condition for the security of financial operations.” For Marquis, the revolutions of the age he was seeing unfold risked fostering confusion between freedom to make money and freedom itself. This is one of the most tragic and adverse confusions that we still carry in our contemporary understanding of liberty. It just seems that, for a society that champions its Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a paramount declaration of shared values, principles and prerogatives, it is problematic that the rights of its consumers seem to garner greater value than the freedoms of its citizens. Just consider this – in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the word “freedom” correlates to matters of the mind, namely – freedom of conscience, of religion, of thought, belief, expression, communication, peaceful assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of association. These are the foundational components of a participatory democracy, and which are vulnerable to corroding when economic and market-based values are mandated as normative. I think ultimately that our greatest freedom is in service, is in contributing to something much larger than ourselves. The two – giving and receiving – are only true if they are simultaneous in the self. On a grand scale, self interest is ultimately inseparable from selflessness … it is sometimes a wonder to me that we forget or neglect that truth to the degree that we do.
tsung 12:51 am on March 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I would say yes, a car and suburban lifestyle does equal freedom. I do want to point out that this is a privilege vs. right concept – at least in my opinion. I say it’s a privilege because a car comes with responsibilities. Those who work hard to get their license and make money will eventually get a car and with it comes its freedom of movement. A car signifies freedom and individualism therefore I would say yes it does equal freedom. Without a car, we would have to depend on transit however public transit is restricting and doesn’t go everywhere. Moreover, a suburb life is conceived as peaceful, quiet, calm and therefore associated as something highbrow. I would say this is a privilege as well as its costly to move there and usually if you move to a suburb, you would own a car. In terms of whether citizens will sacrifice this lifestyle for the greater good, I would say no, it is highly unlikely that we will sacrifice our lifestyles for greater good. Humans are selfish in general and we do weigh the pros and cons and what benefit us the most. We need to realize that we live in a capitalist society, there will always be inequality and the system has been constructed this way. It is impossible to tell rich people what to do with their money and ask them to sacrifice their lifestyle. This world is highly competitive and we will always be competing with each other for a better standard of living and greater privileges.
youngblutt 1:32 pm on March 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
While it is very difficult for us (comfy, cozy Canadians) to predict that an alternative to suburban, auto-mobile society might one day be desirable (beyond necessary, that is), it may be valuable to consider this idea in a broader historical context. Human beings have been around for 30,000 years. The practical applications of freedom and democracy are 30,000 years old. The social contract was unwritten, but applied 30,000 years ago. Adam Smith, seeing a few of his cronies accumulate wealth, said “Humans are selfish, so capitalism will work!”, about 230 years ago. America, as it stands, is about 230 years old. Auto-mobility has been with us for about 100 years. Suburbia has been with us for about 60 years. The socially alienating powers of American individualism are only 60 years old.
The idea that humans are inherently selfish is new. Money is new. Millions of people wanting more than they need is new. Millions of people walking the streets with their head down and music blaring into their ears, avoiding eye contact is new. People living together in communities is old. People working together is old. People merrily walking long distances is old. People stopping to chat with strangers (making them strange no longer) is old.
The collective consciousness of humankind won’t tolerate the socially destructive conveniences of individualism for much longer, so do not fret. The benefit of the greater good is what we’ve always been evolving towards. The individualism required to keep a relatively few people in power positions is a passing phase; environmentally damaging, but passing. And as soon as Hannah is ready to lead, the revolution will sweep through the Americas like a red tide (i mean rushing tide). [sorry everyone, I’m sick and have taken lots of cough medicine and I don’t want to erase all of this and write something more becoming of me].
nytsuen 6:23 pm on March 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
A car provides freedom as it allows one to go to where ever they want, and whenever they want but not everyone can get a car. Not everyone can afford to live in the suburbs either. So does this mean that not everyone has the same freedom? Is that democratic? Therefore, I don’t think it provides a democratic right or else, everyone would have access to it.
I don’t think that humans are able to give up this luxury for the betterment of the environment because our society not only wants cars as luxury items but need cards for our daily life. Our community, our city and internationally (Canada to U.S.) is built for cars. Our infrastructure is purposely for it. In the times when the automobile was just invented, they had to build specific roads for it and now, it is all built. Humans are self-interested. We are born to think about ourselves and what benefits us and if we can’t see very obviously the effects of driving on the environment, we’re not going to care!
brandond 7:48 pm on March 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Turner makes an excellent point in his chapter on sustainable transportation: that governments have made transit a part of the dream of prosperity in many cities and countries around the world. Perhaps there is some kind of tipping point, beyond which a culture of transit (over personal automobiles) catches on. Have any of you been to Portland Oregon? Do you think it’s a kind of ecotopia? Or is it still fundamentally similar to car-oriented cities around North America? Awhile back there was an article in Vancouver Sun, citing David Owen’s claim that New York is the greenest city in North America. Why? Density and prevalence of mass transit. Check it out:
http://www.straight.com/article-379478/vancouver/author-david-owen-says-dense-cities-benefit-planet
Anyone find any seeds for optimism in all this? Can we get excited about something as mundane as mass transit?
brenden 8:42 pm on March 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I do not believe that having a car and a suburban lifestyle equal freedom or a democratic right. I think that freedom is having the choice to choose. Many individuals such as myself are more then happy living in the downtown core and using public transit rather than living a suburban lifestyle and owning a car. I highly doubt however that individuals who do enjoy these lifestyles would be willing to sacrifice them for the greater good. Generally speaking, individuals living in suburbs have families and prefer to have bigger houses and yards with greater access to green space as a place to raise their families. The idea behind this lifestyle is that you can commute into the big city for work during the week and head back to suburbia which doesn’t have all the hustle and bustle of the city on the evenings and weekends. The city generally speaking is not the ideal place to raise a family. Limited access to schools and recreation coupled with the dangers of inner city life make suburbia an attractive alternative for families. Individuals are willing to commute so that they can enjoy these lifestyles. I also think that personal goods are much more desirable to individuals then environmental goods. Having a car gives an individual the ability to go where they please when they please and they are guaranteed a seat and need not have anyone within their “personal space”. Whereas taking the bus, individuals are forced to conform to schedules and often board crowded buses where they may have to stand for lengthy periods of time depending on the journey.
Danni 8:28 pm on March 18, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree that owning a car and a suburban lifestyle do not equal to freedom or a democratic right. Transportation tools and lifestyle, including the living place, are just the individual choices various from one and the others. It is more reasonable for graduate students and young professional couples to live close to their working place, in order to saving time and expense on transportation. They usually spend more time with friends or on their continuous education, if it is required. However, once they have children, it is more preferable to have suburban lifestyle, which help establishing a family with a friendly neighbourhood. I don’t think individual sacrifice their individual good to accommodate environmental greater goods, but I realize that less cars on the road actually reduce greenhouse gases emission to the environment. I think we discussed at the beginning of our lecture. Moreover, I think democracy and freedom signify that any individual has his/her own choices in selecting lifestyles and transportation tool based on what actually needed. As individual, one have his/her right to choose, and also need to respect others’ choices as well. Democracy and freedom doesn’t require everyone have only one opinion or lifestyle, but when have our individual choices, we could respect others’ choice as well. Finally, variation between lifestyle is preferable and should be respected in our society, in order to maintain our democracy and freedom.
Keaton Briscoe 10:27 pm on March 22, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
No, I don’t believe that owning a car and having a suburnban lifestyle equal freedom or are a democratic right. I think that in the past this might have equaled freedom but today they certainly do not. I think that they are still important and that everyone shoudl strive towards those goals, but they don’t equal freedom. I agree with the above that transportation tools and a lifestyle are individual choices and they will most likely change throughout the duration of one’s life. I also think that people will not sacrifce these for the greater good. I think the main reason for this is that people are pretty selfish (think about it) and that if we were to do this, there would have to be something coming our way in return.
midara 10:33 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think a car and suburban lifestyle is a freedom of citizens, but only that the freedom is building on others’ right/cost. This reminds me of an economic term “externalities” because the “freedom” is at the cost of others. While ones may enjoy the convenience a car may bring, and the suburban lifestyle they wanted, they are occupying others’ resources on their own good. It is not realistic to think citizens might sacrifice this lifestyle for the greater good of all people, especially to think of those who are already enjoying the good. However, I think in better promotion and education will gradually help the society as a whole by encouraging environmentally friendly actions of collective interest over self interest. Some other actions such as government subsidies on collective interests, or penalizing tax on over-luxurious actions may also be some nice ideas in improving the situation.
imnik 10:03 pm on July 20, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think owning a car represents freedom as the car owners were now able to move freely and go wherever they wanted. Before owning cars they were limited to the certain distance or dependent on the stoppage of the trains or trams.
I believe a suburban lifestyle does not represent freedom. People were forced to live in the houses that seem almost identical. People did not had freedom to design their own dream house and instead they were forced to live according to the dream of the builder (the person who developed the local suburbia).
To be honest, I will not change my lifestyle to the harder lifestyle just to save the planet. For example, walking every day instead of taking the bus or the car. This is simply because I know that unless there is a collective effort from the government and community my sacrifice will make negligible difference. Also, government of majority if the countries is not even bothered to save the planet.