[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The question is so conditional,contextual,a proper answer would have to address all possible conditions.
*If the average occupancy is 1.7-persons,then the average automobile would offer seating for two.

That depends on the standard deviation.

*If discretionary income is not an issue,then the motorist would own both,achieving 100% utility each time the specific vehicle were operated.At zero economic discomfort.

Every expenditure has infinite opportunity cost, regardless of ability to "afford". Utilization of each vehicle goes down when the same number of miles driven are spread across more vehicles, which represents an inefficiency.

*Any society which allows suburban development,without providing for mass transit,forcing residents into personal transportation units,would,on the surface,have failed the very society they're entrusted to serve,tax,fee,lien,seize, or expulse.

Public transit takes people from where they don't live, to not quite where they want to go. Most public transit consumes more fuel per passenger mile than personal transportation (most busses and light rail anyhow). People don't have the right to live in a particular place; they have the right to pay to live in a particular place, and that includes figuring out their transportation.

*Any government who's pension fund profits from the suffering of its most vulnerable citizens would by any metric be recognized as a pariah.

I'm not following this one. I wouldn't even know how to go about profiting from the suffering of someone else unless the job was specifically torture.

*If we the people have a say in what taxes, registration,and insurance cost,then whether owning more than one vehicle becomes a liability or not is a reflection upon us and our priorities.

Of course, we all make that calculus. Some people choose to have a commuter vehicle because it's cheaper than driving their truck to commute in.

The Volkswagen XL1 is the closest I've seen to a 'rational' vehicle,however,somewhere along the way,Volkswagen lost their moral/ethical compass,never having seriously considered producing an 'attainable' vehicle which might cover the needs of most drivers on most days,at a reasonable net profit.

Your definition of rational simply doesn't fit with most others. People that want a 2-seater want a sports car, not an economy car.

VW never had a moral/ethical compass because that isn't what drives business. Producing products that provide a return on investment is what drives business. It's up to individuals to exercise morals/ethics, and governments to set parameters that everyone is playing by.

*We might want to resolve the issue of whether driving is an entitlement or a privilege.

It's already resolved. People aren't going to vote for restrictions on driving if that means they are subject to them. Just because there's 5 people in the nation that object doesn't mean we haven't resolved the issue.

*If it's an entitlement,then a national car company,spitting out safe,affordable transportation units,which don't change over time,can be serviced anywhere,with universal parts availability,in all fifty states,within the means of anyone living on minimum wage would be a good move.No dealership.Buy them at the grocery store.
*This topic could easily become a book.

You've created a false dichotomy (entitlement/privilege). Entitlement means someone is owed something, and nobody is owed a car. A privilege is something only a selected few are allowed, which the DMV suggests is the case since only those who pass tests and pay a fee are granted the privilege of driving.

I'd like to see dealerships go away too, and I don't see how that model is even legal (requiring a manufacturer of a good to use a dealership model).

Economists agree, minimum wage should be eliminated. The government has no business saying what the least amount I can agree to work for should be. It's corruption of the highest order and very harmful to all.