> It’s not a regression. It’s an advance in way of life.

You're framing, and in a very intellectually dishonest way.

> In the past, if you wanted to move fast, you had to own the car. Now you don’t need to own it, and can use the space for something else. Now you don’t need to drive it, and can have your hands free while someone else drives the car.

That's not true. Taxis have been around longer than cars have. Why did you ignore this?

> Owning a car is not freedom.

It certainly is, just as owning a bicycle or having legs and feet that work are.

> Owning a car is being separated from friends and family, because the car is literally, physically, coming between you.

You're being bizarre here. According to you, my car separates me from my family that lives hundreds of miles away, because the metal and glass physically separate us while I'm in the car driving to see them? Are you being serious, or is this an elaborate trolling?

> Owning a car is being stuck in traffic.

Depends on where you live. Many millions of people live where traffic is not an issue. And when the alternative to being stuck in traffic for a few minutes is spending 5x that long walking or riding a bike, it's a net savings of time.

> Owning a car is being a slave to the DMV, the gas station, and the repair shop.

By that logic, walking is being a slave to the shoe company and the supermarket. Again, are you being serious? Do you actually think this way?

> Living without a car is not giving up mobility. It’s living in a place where the car is just one option, and not necessarily the best option. Growing up, my family of five carted around town via public transit. We couldn’t afford to own a car, so living in a place built around car ownership would have meant living in isolation.

Do you actually believe these kinds of blanket statements? Have you ever met anyone who has trouble walking but can drive a car? Have you ever met anyone who needs to transport a walker or a scooter so they can get around after they get out of their car? I guess you would expect them to wait for the city's "old folks bus" to come along and scoop them up--if there even is one where they live. For all your talk about people living in isolation, you are incredibly narrow-minded and inconsiderate of those less fortunate than yourself.

> Requiring a car is not sustainable.

It certainly is. We've been using them for over 100 years and show no signs of slowing down. Cars are as sustainable as any other human activity, which is to say, as sustainable as we want it to be. Of course, there are people, such as yourself, who do not want it to be, therefore you claim that it is not, to convince people to stop, for reasons you would rather not admit to.

> Intensive agriculture has helped make food incredibly cheap, but the concentrated chemicals do not seem healthy to be near.

For you to make such a statement, implying that to live outside of urban areas is unhealthy, is beyond bizarre.

> Not everybody owned the horse-drawn carriage. And people did give up the horse, sometimes reluctantly, because they could not afford to keep it. Fortunately, they lived in places where the horse was just one option, and not necessarily the best option.

Not everyone did everything. Some people did somethings. Some people lived in some places, and some in others. From that, you would derive conclusions about what we should be allowed to do today. Amazing.