>> You can't actually point to anything real, so you retreat to vague paranoid insinuations.

TIL history is not real, and learning from history is paranoia... nice...

>>And it may surprise and please you to know that I'm pro-gun too; I wish we had 2A here. Once upon a time, England had gun laws that would make Texas look effeminate. And as a practical matter, I think fewer drivers would make dangerous close passes if I had a loaded rifle strapped to my back.

That does surprise me, and Texas is effeminate, contrary to the public persona of Texas being "Ultra conservative" they are not, The red states of the MidWest are far far more "red" than Texas.

>>you must surely be against mandatory parking minimums, where local governments compel private businesses to over-provide free parking. Or are you okay with it, because it makes your life more convenient?

In general I am against all government regulations that do not protect the personal or property rights of individuals against harm, theft or fraud. So not I do not support compelling private businesses to provide free parking.

>Most highway and road spending comes from federal and state funds, not local.

Highway funding sure, Highways are owned by the Federal and State governments.

Highways do not have sidewalks so I am not sure why that is relevant. Roads with sidewalks are 100% funded by local tax revenues.

>>They still don't cover the cost,

They would if they were 100% used for roads only... they not though

>>Again, you seem to demand everything pay for itself, except the things you personally benefit from. Everyone's a socialist about what he loves best.

>> and at any rate they're unlike the gasoline tax in that they are taxes on one-time purchases, not ongoing use

100% false, of the taxes I listed only one of them are on one-time purchases (sales), I pay excise and property taxes annually on my vehicle(s), I pay things like wheel taxes, and other related taxes annually. Further excluding sales taxes on Automobile for road maintenance seems to be odd to me. Why would those taxes not count?

I never said I disagreed with raising the user taxes, I said I believe they already collect enough to cover the roads and instead they appropriated the money in correctly to other programs. If however there an actual need for more money they I would support that provided they are actually using the money for the roads and not just adding it to the general fund where by they use it for pet projects and continue to ignore the road.

>>It's becoming a little exasperating talking to you, that I need to spell out these quite mundane matters of existence, and reassure you that there aren't sinister forces at work

you have confused the order of conversation here. You are the one wanting to use governmental force to impose your preferred life on to others via government regulated and owned roads, sidewalks, etc

I want to leave that up to individual property owner to choose for themselves if that is what they want.

IF you want to create, and with other create a walkable city, through voluntary cooperation more power to you, however it seems you do not want anyone to be able to have a non-walkable city, you believe that is "barbaric" or something close to that, and those types of communities should be abolished.

I think both can and should exist, that is the point I have been trying to get across and in all of your comments you have done nothing but attempt to justify the use of government to impose your preference, while in an odd and convoluted way twisting my comments to where me not wanting government to do something is some how forcing others to live my way. They are free to use non-governmental resources and voluntary exchange on their property to put in sidewalks, they are free to advocate other do the same, but they should not be free to force me do follow them via government.