> I would argue that the urban planning that enables the use of cars actually restricts your freedom; you can't go anywhere without your car, and god forbid if you want to go to the store across the stroad, you have to cross 5 lanes of traffic. You can't walk that--or if you do, you have to cross that, and another square mile of parking lot.
On the other hand, even in my urban environment, I can get to another neighborhood in less than half the time it would take me to get there by train or bus (especially if there is a transfer involved). It's also a lot more comfortable than waiting on a platform/bus stop exposed to the elements only to squeeze myself into a small box (that smells at once of urine, vomit, BO, and cigarette smoke) with dozens of strangers, some of whom are panhandling, blasting music, threatening other commuters, etc.
Moreover, my wife and I share a car, and we spend quite a lot less on it (all in: maintenance, fuel, parking, insurance, etc) than we did on public transit + rideshare + car rentals even without amortizing the car payment over the useful lifetime of the car. And of course our time and comfort are also valuable to us.
> Cars are only synonymous with "independence" in the US because we've made it impossible to be independent unless you use this giant metal box to engage with the world. To me, that's the opposite of independence.
This is a feature of the new world (not just the US), and it's a consequence of our post-car development. If Europe had the bulk of its development in the post-car era, it would've turned out the same way. Also, if you're getting around by public transit you need even bigger metal boxes and you need more of them and you have to wait for them and they are often late and you will be packed onto them like cattle and you're limited by where they go (hence the "independence" of the car).