Libertarians are always right / Leftists are always wrong
#1
Whenever a leftist or cryptoleftist performatively whines about “car culture” or “urbanism” you have to remind them that car culture has always been, and still is, a leftist program. The number one rebuttal leftists have to people who want smaller or more efficient government “Then who will build the ROADS???? HAHAHAHAHA PRIVATE ROADS LOOL??!!! WE NEEDS LOTS OF ROAFS TO BE BUILT”. They have never apologized for that or admitted that libertarians were right about roads not being the most efficient allocation of capital.

Also, a big reason high density housing and high speed rail are undesirable and unprofitable is because of black people acting violently, not paying their fares, and the big anarcho-tyranny government that enables them to do this.

There are many other reasons that the Chungus urbanism that leftists pretend to love is unprofitable to create. ALL of these reasons are due to leftists. These include: overregulation in general, overtaxation, no freedom of association, environmental protections, disability requirements (fat elderly people), homeless encampments, etc.

[Image: https://i.ibb.co/x7xZfWR/68-E064-B7-9432...-FF2-A.jpg]
#2
I also would like to see more non-chungus urbanism. I think the Kowloon Walled City could really have gone somewhere if the leftists hadn't stepped in prematurely.
#3
I think there's a certain leftist/progressive hate for car cultural that I'm utterly repulsed by, and you're right to lay the blame at the feet of leftists. In Pre-WWII America, it wasn't uncommon for White Americans to live in cities and raise families there. In fact, it makes perfect sense that they would: living in the city would mean a short commute to work for the white collar professional or even the blue-collar factory worker; why would someone who works in the city want to live far outside the city and have to commute? As @BillyONare pointed out:
(04-15-2022, 10:12 AM)BillyONare Wrote: There are many other reasons that the Chungus urbanism that leftists pretend to love is unprofitable to create. ALL of these reasons are due to leftists. These include: overregulation in general, overtaxation, no freedom of association, environmental protections, disability requirements (fat elderly people), homeless encampments, etc.
The biggest one for me is freedom of association. With the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954, representing the inauguration of the Civil Rights Era, American life was to be forever ruptured. With desegregation of pubic schools came leftists criticisms of redlining and mortgage discrimination. Middle and upper-class whites who were once able to live among themselves while also being within city limits had to live in increasingly diverse neighborhoods. As the northern states were more leftist, they accepted federal pressures for desegregation  and racial integration more quickly, which also resulted in a massive flux of southern blacks moving to northern states. The only answer for whites who wished to remain among their own kind, and to escape plummeting housing prices and the rise of crime, was to move outside the city - White Flight. Now a new system of roads between the newly-created suburbs and the cities had to be created, and as more and more suburbs get created, you have the whole issue of massively congested traffic and long commutes and all the other things people complain about. But even though this can be tied back to leftists, as Billionaire said, they still find the time to complain about it. Perfect example:
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-ca...-again?s=r

[Image: http://img.travel.rakuten.co.jp/mytrip/c...ma-eki.jpg]
If only America could be like Japan, thinks Noah, with it's cute walkable cities and adorable train stations. The problem, Noah, is progressives like yourself admonish rural citizens and want to see them all driven to the cities, so forget the rural-to-city pipeline. Second, the suburbs you so hate are the product of your own infringement on the right of free association. Third, and attempt at 'cutesy' train stations here in America would be trashed by inner-city niggers who never developed the respect for public property or the commons in general. He cries:
Quote:Like many Americans who live in East Asia, Europe, or other places with dense transit-centric cities, I returned to the U.S. wishing that I could transform the suburban wastelands of my youth into something closer to what I had enjoyed overseas. I wasn’t alone.
Well Noah, I can guarantee you all those places in East Asia and Europe had something America doesn't: ethnic homogeneity, and (as a result) a high-trust society. We saw a new wave of this discourse recently as a result of a Netflix show:
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/15136...O2ntL7zMUQ
And the QT of some tr00n trying to blame this on 'car culture':
https://twitter.com/Natcromancer/status/...O2ntL7zMUQ
But the real reason you could never send a young child on errands in an American city has nothing to do with the proliferation of roads and cars. If a young child was sent out on an errand in say, New York City, it's not the cars that would be his biggest worry. He'd be more likely to be robbed or abducted, and everyone knows this deep down. The cities simply aren't a safe place to raise children because of the degenerates and miscreants who live there.

And while I get where you're coming from with saying that the 'car culture' is a leftist program (it wouldn't exist without the massive spending programs that built the interstate highways), I dislike the reflexive leftist hatred for car culture because in some sense I actually have a deep love for it. Not the bullshit commute between the suburbs and the cities of course, but I love the open road. The way I feel towards the open road is highly reminiscent of what I feel men from previous centuries felt towards the open sea. Take this opening passage from Moby Dick for instance:
Quote:Call me Ishmael. Some years ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people’s hats off—then, I account it high time tozz get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.

While Cato throws himself upon his sword, and Ishmael quietly takes to the ship, for many decades, we Americans have taken to the road.
[Image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOtXv-EXMAYY...me=900x900]
When I see leftists try to shit on car culture, in some sense I feel like they're hating on what was the last element of the American Frontier Spirit. It's shitting on American culture itself. Whether it's road movies like Paris, Texas and Easy Rider, or novels like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and On the Road, for a period of time the highway system and the open road were in inspiration for American culture, and served as a mode of adventure for the young american male. And they want us to trade the freedom of the road in a car we own with a crowded train or bus? They want you to trade in your private estate and return you to the longhouse.
#4
"Ethnic homogeneity" (= no blacks) is the automatic RW response to American liberals who want to emulate Japan, but I think it's not the real explanation for why Japan is 'high trust'. I think Japanese have so much respect for the law because they have lived under a highly efficient police state for a long time. If the right policing methods are used, any group could be made 'high trust', including American blacks. It's simply a matter of adopting East Asian innovations such as the baojia and gonin-gumi in America, and being willing to administer collective punishment and efficient beatings.

[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUt045JOXVc]
#5
(04-16-2022, 02:00 AM)obscurefish Wrote: "Ethnic homogeneity" (= no blacks) is the automatic RW response to American liberals who want to emulate Japan, but I think it's not the real explanation for why Japan is 'high trust'. I think Japanese have so much respect for the law because they have lived under a highly efficient police state for a long time. If the right policing methods are used, any group could be made 'high trust', including American blacks. It's simply a matter of adopting East Asian innovations such as the baojia and gonin-gumi in America, and being willing to administer collective punishment and efficient beatings.

Definitely some truth to that. It does seem to be the case that even free blacks were more well-behaved during slavery times and the jim crow era. And looking at nonmarital birth rates and single-parent household rates, it only explodes with the onset of the civil rights era and all the attempts to uplift the negro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-Am..._structure
[Image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...0-2014.png]
That being said, I think there are limits. As you can see, blacks always had worse household structure than whites, and have committed crimes at higher rates for most of our history. People can be kept in line with a whip, but I think it's hard to maintain that kind of authority at a certain level of multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. I guess the Roman Empire was rather successful at this for a while, so maybe not impossible, but incredibly difficult.
#6
all these things require having seized power, so: make NSA surveillance records admissible as evidence without the need for parallel construction (or make parallel construction trivial for any prosecutor), ensure the formal description of jury selection corresponds to reality (no gangster rappers in gangster rap trials), ensure federal judges at all levels are appointed according to a meritocratic standard (sentences given having corresponded to sentencing guidelines issued by a Party committee, whether publicly or privately) - and the vast majority of crime in the US will disappear.
#7
Not to get too off topic here but the Japs being a high trust society is facilitated by the constant bullshit they have to go through, i.e. earthquakes and typhoons. For society to thrive, people need to fall in line to rebuild and whoever does not chip in is ostracized.
#8
(04-16-2022, 05:06 AM)Fresh Prince Wrote: Not to get too off topic here but the Japs being a high trust society is facilitated by the constant bullshit they have to go through, i.e. earthquakes and typhoons. For society to thrive, people need to fall in line to rebuild and whoever does not chip in is ostracized.

I don't think it works that easy. They could simply not be inclined to or choose not to thrive. Sub Saharan Africa goes through constant bullshit and they haven't developed any highly socialised and orderly spirit in response. The most Japanese-like Africans are probably the Tutsi, and they seem quite different to their neighbours, who they would share a lot of more recent (centuries) history with.

To get this back in line with the thread, I've seen twitter people commenting that Rwandan roads look as nice as Japanese ones. Look at the picture in this article:

https://africa.cgtn.com/2016/12/28/rwand...r-project/

Kigali looks really nice. Not nice for Africa, just nice.

[Image: https://mediaim.expedia.com/localexpert/...005&rh=565]

I think the "bullshit" everyone associates with Rwanda may have brought this about, but not how you might think. Some of you may know what I think of Rwanda already, but that really deserves its own thread.
#9
I don't know, you probably can find enough African capital cities which look equally presentable. Before you cherrypick parts of these cities that have slums in them: There are slums in Kigali as well. The Japanese have developed discipline through adversity because like in other asian countries, their farming model is characterized by rice farms which need a semi-complex irrigation model to thrive. If communities don't rebuild that through constant effort everytime a typhoon or an earthquake wrecks that, they'll just starve. Plus they are limited in space. In Africa, people traditionally might just move inland instead.

Anyhow, the problem is not the state doing all of these things, the problem is the state (or any other actor really, this includes many private enterprises) doing all these things without a proper cost benefit analysis or vision. The type of heroic capitalism some people here idolize is infinitely more similar to 19th century paternalistic economics than the contemporary neoliberal model.
#10
(04-16-2022, 05:21 AM)anthony Wrote:
(04-16-2022, 05:06 AM)Fresh Prince Wrote: Not to get too off topic here but the Japs being a high trust society is facilitated by the constant bullshit they have to go through, i.e. earthquakes and typhoons. For society to thrive, people need to fall in line to rebuild and whoever does not chip in is ostracized.

I don't think it works that easy. They could simply not be inclined to or choose not to thrive. Sub Saharan Africa goes through constant bullshit and they haven't developed any highly socialised and orderly spirit in response. The most Japanese-like Africans are probably the Tutsi, and they seem quite different to their neighbours, who they would share a lot of more recent (centuries) history with.

To get this back in line with the thread, I've seen twitter people commenting that Rwandan roads look as nice as Japanese ones. Look at the picture in this article:

https://africa.cgtn.com/2016/12/28/rwand...r-project/

Kigali looks really nice. Not nice for Africa, just nice.

[Image: https://mediaim.expedia.com/localexpert/...005&rh=565]

I think the "bullshit" everyone associates with Rwanda may have brought this about, but not how you might think. Some of you may know what I think of Rwanda already, but that really deserves its own thread.

There's a very simple reason SSA never really went that route despite the constant bullshit: compare population density between Japan and SSA at any point in time. Hence why now when it's rather highly populated, cutting them off and letting them kill each other for 100 years will do the trick
#11
(04-16-2022, 09:08 AM)Svevlad Wrote: There's a very simple reason SSA never really went that route despite the constant bullshit: compare population density between Japan and SSA at any point in time. Hence why now when it's rather highly populated, cutting them off and letting them kill each other for 100 years will do the trick

That kind of happened in Rwanda, but it wasn't selection within fixed populations. It was superior peoples winning over inferiors. Rwanda works because it's run by Tutsis, who are tall, sharp-featured, and intelligent. They were the aristocrats and masters before western powers showed up and imposed a 'democratic' rule of their former serfs, the hutus. The Rwandan Genocide wasn't actually a genocide of Tutsis by Hutus. It was a reconquista by an army of exiled Tutsi aristocrats backed by certain western interests.

If Africa were cut off to fend for itself the smarter ethnicities within would probably genocide a lot of the duller ones. Did this happen in Japan? Or were they just sharper all along? I don't know enough to say for sure but I don't know if I agree with 'population pressure = intelligence and civilised traits'.
#12
(04-16-2022, 09:19 PM)anthony Wrote:
(04-16-2022, 09:08 AM)Svevlad Wrote: There's a very simple reason SSA never really went that route despite the constant bullshit: compare population density between Japan and SSA at any point in time. Hence why now when it's rather highly populated, cutting them off and letting them kill each other for 100 years will do the trick

That kind of happened in Rwanda, but it wasn't selection within fixed populations. It was superior peoples winning over inferiors. Rwanda works because it's run by Tutsis, who are tall, sharp-featured, and intelligent. They were the aristocrats and masters before western powers showed up and imposed a 'democratic' rule of their former serfs, the hutus. The Rwandan Genocide wasn't actually a genocide of Tutsis by Hutus. It was a reconquista by an army of exiled Tutsi aristocrats backed by certain western interests.

If Africa were cut off to fend for itself the smarter ethnicities within would probably genocide a lot of the duller ones. Did this happen in Japan? Or were they just sharper all along? I don't know enough to say for sure but I don't know if I agree with 'population pressure = intelligence and civilised traits'.

Seeing Japan's geography probably a bit of both. Densely populated valleys and such, over time blending together because they're an island.

On a side note, it also demonstrates the importance of a "working animal" like a horse - Amerindians didn't have them which caused ludicrous logistic issues, small communities, lack of imperial mindset... I suspect Papua could have been a jungle Japan - they did start out pretty strongly with cultivation of the banana and such agriculture
#13
https://tweet.lambda.dance/PeterSchiff/s...8679737344

"I agree with @kanyewest. George Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose. That's consistent with the original autopsy, the physical evidence, witness testimony, and body cam footage the jury ignored. Even if I'm wrong, I have a right to my opinion. I dare Roxie Washington to sue me too."

-Peter "cucked libertarian" Schiff

How many anonymous third positionist wignats had the courage and clarity of thinking to say this? 15%? Wignat minds are full of mud and fog.
#14
From Hitler's Table Talk, recorded the night of 5th-6th July 1941 - read this hadith saheeh -

Quote:The beauties of the Crimea, which we shall make accessible by means of an autobahn—for us Germans, that will be our Riviera. Crete is scorching and dry. Cyprus would be lovely, but we can reach the Crimea by road. Along that road lies Kiev! And Croatia, too, a tourists' paradise for us. I expect that after the war there will be a great upsurge of rejoicing. Better than the railway, which has something impersonal about it, it's the road that will bring peoples together. What progress in the direction of the New Europe! Just as the auto-bahn has caused the inner frontiers of Germany to disappear, so it will abolish the frontiers of the countries of Europe.

The Untermensch merely rides the train in meek conformity. The Ubermensch, meanwhile, drives his car according to his will. There is something meaningful in this! People (usually those with receding hairlines) often moan and whine about "assholes" driving huge trucks with bright headlights on the road - but is there no purer embodiment of the mythic Aryan Sun-Chariot than this? The HUGE CAR, full of crushing, murderous Power, blasting Swarthoids with blazing Light, and invariably driven by a White Man swimming with Vril! Schopenhauer wrote about this without knowing it -
[Image: https://archive.amarna-forum.net/hakan/h...rnauts.png]
"And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied [...]."

[Image: https://imgs.search.brave.com/tCIu4O5-9K...9tXzEuanBn]
"Stay mad."
#15
and yet, the driver can only go where the road has been laid for him. our ancestors, who conquered the steppes and the seas, could choose to go in any direction they wished.
#16
(11-01-2022, 04:36 PM)parsifal Wrote: and yet, the driver can only go where the road has been laid for him. our ancestors, who conquered the steppes and the seas, could choose to go in any direction they wished.

This objection is not the case for any large, practical vehicles (e.g. Jeeps and pickup trucks) but stands for most people's cars. Perhaps we could rank means of transportation by their practical freedom of movement, like so:

  1. Airplane: Expensive, complex, requires fuel, strongly regulated, and can usually only land at specialized airports, but overall the ability to traverse land, sea, and even mountain ranges with great ease puts this as the freest and therefore most "Aryan" form of transport.
  2. Helicopter: Has more freedom of landing than an airplane, but has a more limited distance.
  3. Boat: Free and rapid travel across any sufficiently large waterways.
  4. Hot air balloon: Similar freedom of movement to an airplane, but far slower with less control over direction.
  5. Automobile: Rapid, powered, and mostly unrestricted movement within the road system (including sufficiently wide dirt & gravel backroads, not just the paved asphalt ones) of the country, as well as certain somewhat flat terrains (i.e. deserts and plains) if your vehicle is properly built for it.
  6. Motorcycle/dirt bike: Slightly better than the car due to increased maneuverability through narrow passages (alleyways, crevices, narrow dirt backroads, even sparser forests) and agility.
  7. Horse: Requires food, water, shelter, and a number of other significant upkeep costs, but allows quick and mostly unrestricted travel at no fuel cost.
  8. Bicycle: Like the motorcycle but significantly slower, less powerful, and reliant on manpower. Frees the user from reliance on buying fuel. Nevertheless, speed concerns still place it below the automobile.
  9. Rocket ship: Grants the ability to escape the Planet itself and even travel to other worlds, but severely limited if one wants to travel to places on Earth (even though it is technically the fastest means of such travel) due to lack of sufficient landing areas, among other things.
  10. Bus: Travel restricted between set stops, usually within just one city. Still above a train because it has the option of being hijacked and driven elsewhere.
  11. Train: Fast but totally restricted and controlled travel from one place to another along a set track.
#17
(10-29-2022, 10:16 PM)BillyONare Wrote: https://tweet.lambda.dance/PeterSchiff/s...8679737344

"I agree with @kanyewest. George Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose. That's consistent with the original autopsy, the physical evidence, witness testimony, and body cam footage the jury ignored. Even if I'm wrong, I have a right to my opinion. I dare Roxie Washington to sue me too."

-Peter "cucked libertarian" Schiff

How many anonymous third positionist wignats had the courage and clarity of thinking to say this? 15%? Wignat minds are full of mud and fog.

It's good to see a libertarian calling out the bullshit narrative about Saint Floyd. The best thing I can personally hope for as far as the libertarian movement is concerned is that they will finally have a 'Waking Up Moment' as regards race. It's important for them to both recognize and call out the Ruling Regime's support of negroid criminality, and the general leftists culture that's promoted to defending petty criminals and drains on society, at the detriment of normal, working people. They need to make a sort of Hoppean turn and admit that radical leftist organizations are empowering minority criminals to basically do whatever they want: the old 'Anarcho-Tyranny' dilemma that's visible in almost every major city in America. 

I see too many libertarians pussy-footing around, trying to liken the right's antiliberal moves with the left's and thus being unwilling to support people like Masters or Trump (neither are perfect figures, but still). Republicans who are attempting to prevent teachers from teaching their children about transgenderism are not the same as leftists who actively try to get people fired for not supporting 'troons rights,' and to try and equate these two things can only result in a loss for both the illiberal right and libertarians alike. As Hoppe says:

Quote:In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, . . . naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society.

Here's an example of what I mean:
https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/15...RMmH9DXqTg
A guy who works for Reason Mag. and with other libertarian affiliations trying to make this bullshit 'Well Blake Masters and Mark Kelly are actually the same, so you shouldn't support either of them, there's no moral high ground here.' It's the same bullshit you hear from 'libertarian' leaning Republicans like David French who call out any attempt to stop leftists from pushing their ideology via public institutions is bad. Teachers talking to kids about gender identity is bad, but you can't do anything to stop it, because that would be an overreach of power. Drag kid story our is immoral, but you can't do anything to stop it, it might violate the Constitution. They're point-and-cry Republicans, who entirely lack the will to create a better society.
#18
I think that many of the chief problems with Libertarianism in practice could be solved by eliminating this silly "N.A.P." - "Non-Aggression Principle" - which is not only unnatural, but anti-Nature, anti-Strength, anti-Life, etc. Aggression, Drive, Danger, Spiritual Carnivory, these are the chief aspects of Vitality, which is the Spirit of God inhabiting Things and Beings. I propose that for a more properly "Keyed Libertaryanism" we install within it the core value of the "A.P." - the Aggression Principle. This is in keeping with the Classical Liberal Tradition - the American colonists first seceded to be allowed to continue their conquest of the Redskins across the Appalachians, and the Founding Fathers wished to conquer Canada, then a generation later, Mexico was the target. Libertarianism has been distorted into an ideology of passive Critique - you get to criticize falsehoods of the Regime, but also get a free excuse to not put up any actual Resistance to it, because fighting ZOG is scary and difficult, and most lesser Hue-mans take the path of less resistance. True Libertaryanism, true Classical Liberalism, is simply the restoration of the Natural Highest State of Man, that being Aristocracy, which stands against centralized Statist Tyranny, Absolute Monarchy, Oriental Despotism, which is the natural enemy of the Aryan style of Aristocracy as seen in Greece, Rome, ancient Germanics, etc. and the first Great Equalizer. It is the Liberation, not of all Huemans (which is an impossibility), but only of the Higher Differentiated Men, Jefferson's "Aristocracy of Nature," the only ones actually capable of using and keeping Liberty instead of trading it for safe and comfortable Slavery at the first sign of Danger.
#19
The NAP is an extremely accurate economic and governmental theory for maximizing the freedom and wealth of the citizens of a nation. It is also a very good moral guideline for how you should treat your brothers and people you do business with to maximize long term success. The Science is not settled on whether it applies to women.

If white people followed the NAP for 3 days we would all become millionaires and thwart all of the problems caused by southerners and jewish people.

You don’t have to believe it is Universal True Morality like Stefan Molyneux thinks, but most of what he says is very true and helpful. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

You are Being A, Being B is not hostile to you, Beings C, D, and E are hostile to you. You should engage in win-win transactions with Being B to increase your utility.

Absolutely deranged that wignats cannot understand such a simple concept.

The wignat version of this is: Wealthy white people will be friendly to you no matter what, leftist whites will be hostile to you no matter what and are your number one threat to existence, brown people will be hostile to you no matter what, Jews will be hostile to you in proportion to how hostile you are to them, and leftist whites and brown people will be hostile to Jews no matter what. What is the optimal thing to do?

Keith Woods and Eric Striker: “Obviously be maximally hostile to Jews, exploit the friendliness of wealthy whites to steal all of their utility and give it to leftists and brown people. BADASS VIOLANCE AGAINST THE CAPITALISTS AND CHOSEN PEOPLE.”

Wignats are like women. They respond to hostility by spreading their holes.
#20
(11-02-2022, 12:21 PM)JohnnyRomero Wrote:
(11-01-2022, 04:36 PM)parsifal Wrote: and yet, the driver can only go where the road has been laid for him. our ancestors, who conquered the steppes and the seas, could choose to go in any direction they wished.

This objection is not the case for any large, practical vehicles (e.g. Jeeps and pickup trucks) but stands for most people's cars. Perhaps we could rank means of transportation by their practical freedom of movement, like so:

  1. Airplane: Expensive, complex, requires fuel, strongly regulated, and can usually only land at specialized airports, but overall the ability to traverse land, sea, and even mountain ranges with great ease puts this as the freest and therefore most "Aryan" form of transport.
  2. Helicopter: Has more freedom of landing than an airplane, but has a more limited distance.
  3. Boat: Free and rapid travel across any sufficiently large waterways.
  4. Hot air balloon: Similar freedom of movement to an airplane, but far slower with less control over direction.
  5. Automobile: Rapid, powered, and mostly unrestricted movement within the road system (including sufficiently wide dirt & gravel backroads, not just the paved asphalt ones) of the country, as well as certain somewhat flat terrains (i.e. deserts and plains) if your vehicle is properly built for it.
  6. Motorcycle/dirt bike: Slightly better than the car due to increased maneuverability through narrow passages (alleyways, crevices, narrow dirt backroads, even sparser forests) and agility.
  7. Horse: Requires food, water, shelter, and a number of other significant upkeep costs, but allows quick and mostly unrestricted travel at no fuel cost.
  8. Bicycle: Like the motorcycle but significantly slower, less powerful, and reliant on manpower. Frees the user from reliance on buying fuel. Nevertheless, speed concerns still place it below the automobile.
  9. Rocket ship: Grants the ability to escape the Planet itself and even travel to other worlds, but severely limited if one wants to travel to places on Earth (even though it is technically the fastest means of such travel) due to lack of sufficient landing areas, among other things.
  10. Bus: Travel restricted between set stops, usually within just one city. Still above a train because it has the option of being hijacked and driven elsewhere.
  11. Train: Fast but totally restricted and controlled travel from one place to another along a set track.

I'd put Airships as #1 - much cheaper and simpler, less fuel usage, can travel ludicrous distances in any direction, and can land basically anywhere, as you just tie it to a sturdy place. It's the airplane, helicopter and balloon combined.


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)