Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On 11 Apr 2007 13:55:05 -0700, "Robert" <kraft.fhs@gmail.com> wrote:

>dgk wrote:
>"Right, it doesn't matter if we burn all the oil in the world and
>mess
>up the planet beyond repair. Who really cares about that? Only green
>idiots. Tough nuggies on our grandchildren, we were here first."
>
>I am in no way an environmentalist (I drive a V8 Police Interceptor
>Mercury Grand Marquis every day, usually short trips too) but I do
>agree that it's not a bad idea to conserve oil or preserve nature for
>our grandchildren. However, I don't think that the government needs to
>play nanny and regulate car manufactures -- it should be up to the
>people what vehicle they drive, as long as they are aware of the
>consequences. I would go so far as to say that I should be able to
>drive a car that failed crash-safety tests, if I chose to -- as long
>as I was made aware that it failed. People are made aware of the gas
>mileage estimates, it's posted right on the window sticker when you
>purchase a new car. If we want to save the planet, we should be able
>to. If we want to ruin the planet, we should also have just as much
>leeway in that respect. Our great country was founded on the basis of
>FREEDOM...plain freedom, not regulated "freedom."

I don't care if you drive a car that failed passenger safety crash
tests. You can even carry passengers as long as they are adults
giving informed consent. In these circumstances everyone is knowingly
assuming a personal risk. I personally own and drive a go-kart that
goes ridiculous speeds and has no seat belt. I and everyone else on
the track know the risks and have signed the waiver.

But do I have the right to drive an 18 ton truck with bad brakes and
bald tires on public roads as long as I am aware of the defects? Most
people would say 'no.' While I may accept the risks, other motorists,
pedestrians and property owners may not. But what right do they have
to interfere with my plain, unregulated FREEDOM? Answer: They have
the constitutional right to elect representatives who can pass laws to
set standards for the safety and welfare of the community. And they
have done so.

If you don't like regulations, run for office as an anarchist. If you
get enough anarchists elected, you can repeal all those nasty health
and safety regulations. In the case of energy policy, that is pretty
much what has happened over the last 25 years anyway. So now we have
people commuting in monster trucks, lousy mass transit, $3 gas (and
that's just the start) and our dick in a vice in Iraq.

If you want to get indignant about laws interfering with personal
freedom, why not start with the laws prohibiting behaviors which
affect only consenting adults? I suggest:

http://tinyurl.com/37gydc

You can pick up a used copy for $1.27 plus shipping and I guarantee it
will be worth it just for the hundreds of quotes - one per page.

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:0hsq139eovjr46la06trjai74ovul3narl@4ax.com...
> On 11 Apr 2007 13:55:05 -0700, "Robert" <kraft.fhs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you don't like regulations, run for office as an anarchist.

How's that again?

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:47:52 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:0hsq139eovjr46la06trjai74ovul3narl@4ax.com.. .
>> On 11 Apr 2007 13:55:05 -0700, "Robert" <kraft.fhs@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you don't like regulations, run for office as an anarchist.
>
>How's that again?

It was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment but why not? At my college
a slate of candidates ran for the student government on a platform
that, if elected, they would immediately disband the student
government. They were and they did.

The point is that the previous poster implied that the government was
not entitled to regulate his "freedom." That is essentially an
argument for anarchy.

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

Believe it or not, I actually own that book you linked to. And I agree
with everything written in it. As long as I am not harming another
person or another person's property, I should be allowed to do what I
want. Personally, I would not partake in any of McWilliams' major
themes (drugs, sex, gambling, alcohol) because it goes against my
beliefs as a Southern Baptist. However, I do not have a problem with
other people participating in those other activities as long as they
are not harming others or others' property.

No, I do not support anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of government --
if we had no government, how would we be able to defend our country?
How would we be able to communicate with other nations? We would need
a leader, who would then transform into a dictator (i.e. Hitler's rise
to power), and then we'd be much worse off than we are now with our
democracy. What I do support is a limited government -- a government
that concentrates on REAL issues like national defense and homeland
security -- not nanny issues like CAFE regulations and seat belt laws.

To respond to your question about the 18 ton truck with bad brakes and
bald tires, no, that is not acceptable if you harm another person or
another person's property -- because that is jeopardizing another
person's freedom of life and, in terms of their property, their
freedom for the pursuit of happiness. No one has the freedom to put
others in harm's way without their consent. But if I can safely drive
while talking on my cell phone, I should be allowed to talk on my cell
phone and drive. If I can safely drive without a seat belt, I should
be allowed to drive without my seat belt. If I can afford to drive a
truck that gets 4MPG to work every day, I should be allowed to drive
that truck.

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On 12 Apr 2007 19:36:53 -0700, "Robert" <kraft.fhs@gmail.com> wrote:

>Believe it or not, I actually own that book you linked to. And I agree
>with everything written in it. As long as I am not harming another
>person or another person's property, I should be allowed to do what I
>want. Personally, I would not partake in any of McWilliams' major
>themes (drugs, sex, gambling, alcohol) because it goes against my
>beliefs as a Southern Baptist. However, I do not have a problem with
>other people participating in those other activities as long as they
>are not harming others or others' property.
>
>No, I do not support anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of government --
>if we had no government, how would we be able to defend our country?
>How would we be able to communicate with other nations? We would need
>a leader, who would then transform into a dictator (i.e. Hitler's rise
>to power), and then we'd be much worse off than we are now with our
>democracy. What I do support is a limited government -- a government
>that concentrates on REAL issues like national defense and homeland
>security -- not nanny issues like CAFE regulations and seat belt laws.
>
>To respond to your question about the 18 ton truck with bad brakes and
>bald tires, no, that is not acceptable if you harm another person or
>another person's property -- because that is jeopardizing another
>person's freedom of life and, in terms of their property, their
>freedom for the pursuit of happiness. No one has the freedom to put
>others in harm's way without their consent. But if I can safely drive
>while talking on my cell phone, I should be allowed to talk on my cell
>phone and drive. If I can safely drive without a seat belt, I should
>be allowed to drive without my seat belt. If I can afford to drive a
>truck that gets 4MPG to work every day, I should be allowed to drive
>that truck.


Ok. Now understand that every gallon of gas that gets burned releases
a set amount of CO2 as well as other pollutants. That has nothing to
do with the efficiency of the vehicle, it is chemistry. Those
substances hurt other people, and apparently our planet as a whole,
therefore harming future people. This leaves out the matter of
acquiring the gas in the first place, which also tends to harm other
people.

A more efficient vehicle burns less gas, therefore causing less damage
to other people. But it is tough for me to buy a more efficient
vehicle, because in collisions with less efficient vehicles (read
heavier), more damage is done to me even if I did not cause the
collision. So yes, I want to force you out of SUVs so that I can buy a
more efficient car and not risk my life.

Other countries do not buy American vehicles because our cars cannot
meet the standards of MPG of those countries. That is because they buy
sensible vehicles while we do not. If we switched over to more
sensible vehicles, we would need less wars for oil, therefore bringing
less harm to others and our planet.

And so on, for most of your arguments. Very little that individuals do
has no impact on others once you think about it.

I do admire your position on drug use by other folks. I can't
understand why we care if adults want to do drugs, as long as they
meet their obligations as citizens such as working and paying their
bills. I choose not to, but that was not always the case. I say, tax
it.

And you can't drive safely without a seat belt and I'm glad we have
that law. If you get killed in an accident, I have to pay to keep your
kids eating. Besides, I would of had to do work instead of writing
this. And I'd best get back to work.

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On 12 Apr 2007 19:36:53 -0700, "Robert" <kraft.fhs@gmail.com> wrote:

>No, I do not support anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of government --
>if we had no government, how would we be able to defend our country?
>How would we be able to communicate with other nations? We would need
>a leader, who would then transform into a dictator (i.e. Hitler's rise
>to power), and then we'd be much worse off than we are now with our
>democracy.

This is the Libertarian/Objectivist myth: We should all be
independent agents and only look to the government for defense. Why
even have a government then? Let's just have everyone defend
themselves. If you want a small private army to defend your turf and
can afford it, go ahead. Others who don't want or can't afford that
can spend less and take their chances. If Hitler can afford to build
a big army and take over, that's free enterprise.

However, if you are only a pseudo-libertarian who thinks that you need
a nanny state to protect you, then you must consider that the nanny
state might also be able to serve other purposes for the common good.
By acknowledging the need for tribal defense behavior writ large, you
open the discussion of whether other tribal behaviors could allow us
to do more as a community then we ever could as individuals.
Chimpanzees figured this out long ago. It should be fairly obvious to
21st century humans.

> What I do support is a limited government -- a government
>that concentrates on REAL issues like national defense and homeland
>security -- not nanny issues like CAFE regulations and seat belt laws

Incidentally, If you really want to commute in a 4mpg monster SUV
there is absolutely nothing in CAFE which will interfere with your
doing so. Vehicles that exceed 6500 pounds GVWR are considered Medium
Duty trucks and are exempt from CAFE. That is why the H2 doesn't even
have an EPA mileage estimate. My question is why we allow these
vehicles be licensed as cars.

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On Apr 13, 5:04 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2007 19:36:53 -0700, "Robert" <kraft....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A more efficient vehicle burns less gas, therefore causing less damage
> to other people. But it is tough for me to buy a more efficient
> vehicle, because in collisions with less efficient vehicles (read
> heavier), more damage is done to me even if I did not cause the
> collision. So yes, I want to force you out of SUVs so that I can buy a
> more efficient car and not risk my life.
>
I do not understand why high fuel consumption
is mated in people's mind exclusively to suvs and
trucks. EVO (which is high on my shopping list)
sips the fuel like a Durango.
Is EVO efficient? Hell yes!
It could be made lighter by 500 pounds or so but
then it won't be a 30k car and it won't consume
that much less even if the engine gets
detuned to be inline with the reduced weight.

What I'm trying to say is that people who
are about to revise CAFE at the expense of
the automotive enthusiasts deserve to be slaughtered.

I don't blame the supreme court granting
the EPA additional rights. But EPA officials
have to realize that by accepting the
extra authority over other people fun
there is potentially a price to pay.

Back to the truck issue: why in the world do
the trucks get 21 mpg allowance while
the rest of us are suckered to buy 27 mpg
pigmobiles???

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

<isquat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176697806.443278.209880@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Back to the truck issue: why in the world do
> the trucks get 21 mpg allowance while
> the rest of us are suckered to buy 27 mpg
> pigmobiles???
>
>

Different purposes. Trucks are cargo haulers, cars are people haulers. Buses
and trains are allowed even more fuel consumption, I'm sure.

Mike

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On 15 Apr 2007 21:30:06 -0700, isquat@gmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 13, 5:04 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>> On 12 Apr 2007 19:36:53 -0700, "Robert" <kraft....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A more efficient vehicle burns less gas, therefore causing less damage
>> to other people. But it is tough for me to buy a more efficient
>> vehicle, because in collisions with less efficient vehicles (read
>> heavier), more damage is done to me even if I did not cause the
>> collision. So yes, I want to force you out of SUVs so that I can buy a
>> more efficient car and not risk my life.
>>
>I do not understand why high fuel consumption
>is mated in people's mind exclusively to suvs and
>trucks. EVO (which is high on my shopping list)
>sips the fuel like a Durango.
>Is EVO efficient? Hell yes!
>It could be made lighter by 500 pounds or so but
>then it won't be a 30k car and it won't consume
>that much less even if the engine gets
>detuned to be inline with the reduced weight.

I don't have any experience with either vehicle, but I bet that if you
drive the Durango like the EVO (to the extent possible) it will get
worse mileage.

>What I'm trying to say is that people who
>are about to revise CAFE at the expense of
>the automotive enthusiasts deserve to be slaughtered.

Sorry, you can't have a performance vehicle because CAFE has to be
rigged to allow the Pig 3 to sell more Urban Assault Vehicles. If you
don't like that, call your Congressman.

>I don't blame the supreme court granting
>the EPA additional rights. But EPA officials
>have to realize that by accepting the
>extra authority over other people fun
>there is potentially a price to pay.

You have it backwards. The Supreme Court decision went AGAINST the
EPA. The EPA wanted the court to tell them they could NOT regulate
CO2. It's the Bush administration, remember?

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/2.../NEWS/70415005

Now they have to have to crack down on cars so they can pretend they
are trying to reduce CO2 and still allow their corporate masters to
sell Suburbans and Expeditions.

>Back to the truck issue: why in the world do
>the trucks get 21 mpg allowance while
>the rest of us are suckered to buy 27 mpg
>pigmobiles???

You can buy anything that someone is willing to make. And the
manufacturers can make anything they want. The lie that the car
makers have to sell 30 mpg cars to offset the 20 mpg cars is bullshit.
(Where are the 30 mpg Lambos?) You just have to pay a penalty, about
$55 for every mpg by which you miss the standard. Hell, the extra gas
you will burn will cost you a lot more. The gas guzzler tax is what
kills you, especially as you drop below 18.