Nalivai

I didn‘t kill „everybody“. I killed the king, his family and his guards and maybe his ministers or generals

Not how civil wars work unfortunately

No, I am a member of one of many militias

Which makes you a part of the military power of the new rule. So yeah.

Yes. Thats how war works.

Yes. That's my point actually.

Exactly

Ok, but that's worse. You do get how that's worse, right?

When you killed everyone in a coup, you are by definition a new military. You might prefer less authoritarian system now, but all your friends who are running around with rifles trying to do a coup are in it for power, it's just how the selection process goes, for everyone bright eyed idealist who will immediately relinquish his absolute authority that he just won by fighting a civil war, there will be 10 people who fought in civil war to get this absolute authority.
We know that, because actually I deceived you earlier, it's not 19th century now, and we already saw how that happened. And also, both technologies and situations are different now

Then you get your single shot rifle and storm the the king's palace with it, against a bunch of people with single shot rifles, kill them all, kill a king, all his family, and thus establish a military goverment. Because it's apparently it's 19th century now.

It's the other way around. Cities in US are expensive now because there is not a lot of those compared to the amount of people who would like to live in them. If you allow builders to build more walkable cities they will become more affordable. And the scale is only part of it, the fact that city brings revenue to the government and suburbia isn't is a big part too.

Yeah, it is indeed a good approach for Walmart. They get to crush the competition due to their size and the economy of scale, be effectively a monopoly, and convince everyone that it's not only logical and inevitable, and the result of something normal, but good actually.
The question is, is it good for people who aren't Walmart shareholders?

No, good public transportation will not eliminate all the misery in the people's lives, but also it isn't suppose to, and nothing will. Good public transportation however helps with making it the same level of misery as anywhere else, and usually even more. The particular issue of harassment isn't an issue in a good public transportation, because there are people there, there are structures, there are authorities and systems that can help. And besides, it's not like people just decide to harass other people the second they go into metro.

It's, once again, comes with infrastructure. When I moved to Germany from the country with no bike infrastructure, I only thought of a bike as an expensive stuff, but here I bought a used commuter for 40 Euro and it's fucking great. I love it, but if it gets stolen, I would be mildly frustrated and buy another one of those for 40 Euro the next day.

People might talk about banning privately own cars, but nobody seriously talks about completely banning cars at all. Service vehicles have their place in a walkable city, and taxi and carsharing is part of that, and even the most fuck-cars people are in favour of those.
I mean, there is always someone with a weird position, but those are flat-earthers of the movement, nobody cares about those.

Car-free utopia doesn't mean, can't mean no roads and no taxis. Taxis are actually the important part of that car-free utopia. It just means you aren't expected to own your own car and use it as the prime source of transportation.

The opposite of that, actually, prolonged sitting on your ass without much movement linked to all sorts of problems down there

You just don't treat it as a competition, but as a relaxed stroll. Don't care about any buses, just vibe with the flow.

Hills are only the problem if you're not biking regularly. I'm way out of shape, but after a year on living in a country with good infrastructure, hills aren't a problem for me anymore, really. But first couple of months it was a bit brutal, for sure.