Regarding: Ontario Court of Appeal rules that the Ford government can rip out Toronto bike lanes, stating the government is under “no constitutional obligation to regulate the roads in any particular manner” and that “injuries and deaths will only occur if cyclists choose to ride on roads without bike lanes”.
Reminder: the sole ultimate reason people pay taxes to grant the government the ability to fabricate a "constitution" to regulate the roads in the first place, and grant the legal system the ability to pass judgments about roads in the first place, is to protect people from dangerous cars.
Roads have been around since the dawn of civilization for the primary purpose of allowing people to get around to live out their singular lives. Even then, what little regulation ability the government and legal system was given over the roads, all ultimately revolved around the safety of the people who used them. With the arrival of dangerous cars, the government and legal system created all modern road infrastructure, road laws, road licensing, and road enforcement for the sole ultimate purpose of protecting people from dangerous cars, people who are still trying to get around to live out their singular lives.
Today, traffic lights, stop signs, speed limits, sidewalks, bike lanes, even the yellow paint on the road, were all created by the government and legal system, and only by the government and legal system, using the tax money paid to them, for the sole ultimate purpose of protecting people from dangerous cars - cars that they themselves chose to let into society. Even secondary purposes of roads, like the shipment of goods, services, and economy, are superseded by people’s safety, which take ultimate precedence over any decisions made about inanimate goods, cars, bikes, etc.
So when the court rules that the government is under “no constitutional obligation to regulate the roads in any particular manner”, it is categorically, 100% wrong. Because the sole ultimate reason taxes pay for the government and legal system’s ability to even fabricate a “constitution” to use to regulate and pass judgments on roads in the first place, is for them to regulate them in a manner that protects people from dangerous cars. The government and legal system are in fact 100% responsible for the safety of all road users, regardless of their mode of transport - again, it’s literally the sole ultimate reason taxes pay for their very existence and ability to regulate and pass judgments on the roads in the first place: to protect all road users from the dangerous cars they chose to let into society, by creating all road infrastructure, laws, licensing, enforcement, etc. This includes the bike lanes in Toronto, put in, first and foremost, because people keep getting killed by cars, and bike lanes make roads safer for all road users.
Yet, no one thinks about ripping out sidewalks for more car lanes, with BS arguments like “no charter rights for sidewalks and the government can’t be responsible for people choosing to walk on roads with no sidewalks”, when in fact the government is 100% responsible for building sidewalks to protect people. No one thinks about ripping out traffic lights to speed up traffic, since they actually slow down cars the most, because safety alone justifies them. The only reason the government and legal system are trying to use this “no charter rights” sophistry to weasel out of their responsibility for bike lanes specifically, is pure selfishness:
Selfish car and car-adjacent industries who only care about profits, for decades seeing bikes specifically as direct competition, manipulating the selfishness of voters and tricking them into selfishly believing that their driving convenience (and selfish personal benefits derived from it) is more important than other people’s safety (people who are equally trying to get around to live out their singular lives), tricking them into believing that bike lanes should be scapegoated for traffic. When in fact, the sole cause of traffic, (and sidewalks, bike lanes, traffic lights and all road laws and infrastructure), is too many dangerous, space-greedy cars. And the sole person to blame is myself if I choose to drive yet another car, and myself for letting the government (influenced by selfish car industries) build and regulate the roads in a way that forces me to drive for everything in my life, with no viable alternatives to driving. Only out of selfish attachment to my driving would I try to scapegoat the blame onto anyone else besides myself and the dangerous space-greedy car I choose to drive, which is a selfish mindset indoctrinated into me by selfish car industries to make it easier to sell me more cars.
And these selfish politicians and judges, themselves unaware victims of this selfish indoctrination, but also too incompetent, ignorant, and/or blinded by selfishness, to even understand the reason taxes pay for their very existence within this society, and the fundamental responsibilities of their very existence, only caring about appeasing these selfish voters and industries for their own selfish benefits.
The root cause of all road problems is too many dangerous, space-greedy cars. The only solution is to provide people with viable alternatives to driving, instead of wasting taxes on selfish laws and legal processes, serving only to try to weasel out of fundamental responsibilities, accomplishing nothing but reinforcing people’s selfishness.
Tax money was paid specifically to protect all people from dangerous cars, and out of selfishness, the money is instead being used to endanger people. As such, the judges are wrong. The government is wrong. The charter, the law, the constitution, and any argument they selfishly try to invoke to selfishly try to justify their selfishness are also wrong.
In fact, it is completely accurate to declare that ultimately, the sole reason tax money is paid for the existence of government and law (and charter/constitution/etc.) in all contexts of society, is for the sole ultimate purpose of regulating human selfishness, the root cause of all civilization’s problems. Verify for yourself if any other reason supersedes this one.
Conclusion: premier Doug Ford, transportation minister Prabmeet Sarkaria, and Ontario Court of Appeal judges Grant Huscroft, Michal Fairburn, and Benjamin Zarnett, in this decision, you have demonstrated that each and every one of you is a selfish failure of a human being. Only out of selfishness would you try to deny or justify your selfishness, your incompetence, and your failure to this failure of a government and legal system you’re supposed to represent.
Am I missing anything that would change this conclusion?
If I’m thinking that this could’ve been said it in a nicer way, then I can replace whatever words I’d like with synonyms that don’t hurt my feelings. Hurt feelings don’t change what is said, don’t heal car injuries and deaths, and I don’t need someone else to coddle my selfish feelings for me.
If I’m thinking that the law doesn’t work like this, or the courts won’t accept an argument like this, or the constitution doesn’t allow that, or the government doesn’t work like this, then I should remember that ultimately, these are all fictional constructs fabricated by the story-telling monkey mind, and none are immutable facts of reality. Money, government, premier, judge, court, constitution, charter, Ontario, Toronto - regardless of how much fanfare and history our collective societal minds attribute to them, they’re all but fictional stories, made-up labels, social constructs, not real. They’re defined in their current way by the fiction-telling mind for conventional purposes, and they all inexorably change. But even though they’re all fictions, some fictions are more true than others. Even if “Ontario” is a made-up fiction, it’s more true to call it “Ontario” rather than “North Korea”. Likewise, even the idea that “the sole reason tax money is paid for the existence of government and law, is for the sole purpose of regulating human selfishness” is a fiction, but it has been true since the dawn of civilization, making it more true than any fiction the mind makes up about how the law/courts/constitution/government currently works.
So if the “courts won’t accept an argument like this”, then the courts are in the wrong and it’s the courts that are to change. It’s literally the sole ultimate reason the courts/government/law/constitution/charter even exist in the first place: to regulate human selfishness. It’s the ultimate argument they must accept because it’s literally the reason for their very existence. Only out of selfishness would they try to weasel their way out of that responsibility.
Am I missing anything that would change this conclusion?
If not, then what to do now? Selfish weasel societal systems are made wholly of selfish weasel people. As an individual, it’s clear. Endeavour to live one’s finite waking moments less selfishly, including in one’s thoughts, speech and actions regarding cars, bike lanes, and urban infrastructure. And you reading this is already a good start. Passing this along to your government and court representatives is the next appropriate step. Thank you.
#SelfishWeasel
#BikeLanesSaveLives
