"Do as we say, not as we do!"
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
But they ignore the obvious: that Americans drive too much in too-big cars.
Damn those Americans, with their freedoms! We should enact measures to punish those who exercise their freedoms, and reduce mobility and freedom of choice, which have been proven to be bad for diversity. By returning to the days of geographic isolation, we can recapture cultural diversity, which is slipping away due to globalization. Diversity is good, because.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
Damn those Americans, with their freedoms! We should enact measures to punish those who exercise their freedoms, and reduce mobility and freedom of choice, which have been proven to be bad for diversity. By returning to the days of geographic isolation, we can recapture cultural diversity, which is slipping away due to globalization. Diversity is good, because.
The idea would've better been expressed as: too many Americans choose to drive fuel-inefficient cars. The size of the country necessitates that we drive long distances, but we choose to buy the SUV that gets shitty mileage for mostly selfish reasons, and because, historically, gas has been cheap enough that most Americans can afford it.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Quoth Karnaj:
The idea would've better been expressed as: too many Americans choose to drive fuel-inefficient cars. The size of the country necessitates that we drive long distances, but we choose to buy the SUV that gets shitty mileage for mostly selfish reasons, and because, historically, gas has been cheap enough that most Americans can afford it.
I take issue with that characterization, also. Individuals buying things for themselves are not being selfish when they choose what they want. I have no particular responsibility to please anyone except me when I decide how I'm going to spend my money. If I want an SUV, and can afford the gas, no one ha the least right to say it's a selfish decision to buy one.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Blindy. fucked around with this message on 04-28-2006 at 02:35 PM.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Duck Tales:
Damn those Americans, with their freedoms! We should enact measures to punish those who exercise their freedoms, and reduce mobility and freedom of choice, which have been proven to be bad for diversity. By returning to the days of geographic isolation, we can recapture cultural diversity, which is slipping away due to globalization. Diversity is good, because.
If you want to drive an automobile that's far too large and fuel inefficient for your needs for the sake of vanity and gnash your teeth whenever someone questions your choice of transportation, you have every right to do so. Just like I have the right to call you a wasteful prick.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Karnaj who doth quote:
Hahahahaha. Congress sucks."Do as we say, not as we do!"
Hahaha government sucks, let's put them in charge of more stuff.
quote:
"Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!" charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. "They are too cozy with the oil industry."
Senator Barbara "The Brain" Boxer once again failing to realize even the most basic economic concepts.
But then, can you really blame her? She's a socialist and idealogically incapable of understanding economics.
quote:
Bloodsage screamed this from the crapper:
I take issue with that characterization, also. Individuals buying things for themselves are not being selfish when they choose what they want. I have no particular responsibility to please anyone except me when I decide how I'm going to spend my money. If I want an SUV, and can afford the gas, no one ha the least right to say it's a selfish decision to buy one.
The consequences of buying the SUV affect other people, as Blindy said. By choosing a vehicle which places a larger demand than necessary on a finite, shared, vital resource, the SUV buyer willfully wastes that resource to the detriment of others. One person engaging in such behavior has no practical effect. Extrapolated over the population of North America, and the effect is large.
Oil's going tits up in 40 years if our demand grows as predicted; sooner if China and India get really oil-hungry. The transition away from oil can be made easier with willful conservation of it by individuals, provided the numbers are large enough. If we're lucky, people will get sick of sinking thousands of dollars of fuel into their SUvs annually and decide to get more fuel-efficient vehicles. What will probably happen is that market forces will necessitate that people give up their SUVs and other gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient cars. If we're unlucky, the government will have to step in to conserve fuel.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Choosing to drive an SUV doesn't, in fact, affect anyone else in the way you suggest. First, there isn't a supply problem, so one can't honestly say that the gas one person uses is taken away from someone else. Second, much of the price of oil has nothing at all to do with either current supply or current demand; it's predicated on market fears of instability in the Middle East, and on projections of future demand--mostly future Chinese demand. Third, you make the huge mistake of basing these sweeping accusations on but a single issue. There's both increased safety and increased utility in driving an SUV that can easily outweigh the mostly imaginary downsides of fuel inefficiency.
The basis of freedom, gentlemen, is that people are free to spend their money how they choose, without militant idealists trying to force their values on others. Feel free to live the lifestyle you think is virtuous, but don't dare suggest others should be pressured or forced to do the same.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
So you guys are saying the government should ration all finite resources, to make sure everyone gets their "fair share"? That's just silly.
Now now, let's not get into a strawman contest. Oil is a vital, finite resource. It is integral to the harmonious functioning of modern society. Everything in modern life stems from it. No other finite resource is as vital to modern life as oil, except possibly fresh water. Luckily, we don't appear to be heading Peak Water any time soon.
Moreover, it's not about receiving a "fair share" as it is preparing to migrate from oil-driven economy to something else. But, like I said, what will probably happen is Adam Smith's invisble hand will force people to make economical decisions.
quote:
Choosing to drive an SUV doesn't, in fact, affect anyone else in the way you suggest. First, there isn't a supply problem, so one can't honestly say that the gas one person uses is taken away from someone else.
Conceded. However, I made this point to illustrate the fact that if someone conserves supply now, it will be there to meet later demand.
quote:
Second, much of the price of oil has nothing at all to do with either current supply or current demand; it's predicated on market fears of instability in the Middle East, and on projections of future demand--mostly future Chinese demand.
Great. The sooner we stop requiring so much oil, the better it'll be for everyone else. Like I said, all this is based upon the fact that we've all got about 40 years to get off oil forever at present. If we change our behavior, be it by choice or by Adam Smith's invisible hand, then we'll have much longer, which seems like the better choice.
quote:
Third, you make the huge mistake of basing these sweeping accusations on but a single issue. There's both increased safety and increased utility in driving an SUV that can easily outweigh the mostly imaginary downsides of fuel inefficiency.
I would concede this point, too, but the safety is only one-way--for the SUV occupants. I would argue that it is impossible to ethically balance the consequences of being inside an SUV during an accident vs. being in a smaller car, only because it's not possible to objectively assign differing values to two arbitrary human lives. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
quote:
The basis of freedom, gentlemen, is that people are free to spend their money how they choose, without militant idealists trying to force their values on others. Feel free to live the lifestyle you think is virtuous, but don't dare suggest others should be pressured or forced to do the same.
Why? We all have to conform to society's demands to some extent. It seems like every other book ever written deals with that theme. If society deems behavior undesirable or unacceptable, then what can, realistically, be done about it? Having said that, I doubt that society is going to look down on driving gas guzzlers, but the economics of it, again, will probably demand that people with incomes that previously allowed them to drive SUVs abandon them for more fuel efficient vehicles. I doubt the government need be involved, because forcing people to abandon their SUVs before they're ready is an exercise in not being re-elected, I think.
And I reiterate; this is only to the benefit of our society and the globe as a whole: the sooner the wheels of change are put into motion, the better off we'll all be.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
JooJooFlop got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
If you want to drive an automobile that's far too large and fuel inefficient for your needs for the sake of vanity and gnash your teeth whenever someone questions your choice of transportation, you have every right to do so. Just like I have the right to call you a wasteful prick.
I know for a fact that we had this EXACT same arguement last year when gas prices got high. Please, please, please, let's not have it again, or I shall be forced to run amok alphabetically.
CBTao fucked around with this message on 04-29-2006 at 01:00 AM.
Now now, let's not get into a strawman contest. I think it's more of a reductio ad absurdem to show the logical consequence of your thought process, but admit there's rarely much difference in the two techniques. Oil is a vital, finite resource. It is integral to the harmonious functioning of modern society. Everything in modern life stems from it. No other finite resource is as vital to modern life as oil, except possibly fresh water. Luckily, we don't appear to be heading Peak Water any time soon.
Moreover, it's not about receiving a "fair share" as it is preparing to migrate from oil-driven economy to something else. But, like I said, what will probably happen is Adam Smith's invisble hand will force people to make economical decisions. Individual consumers have no particular duty to start preparing now for a future without oil, or, indeed, to inhibit their preferred lifestyles in order to give industry more time to enjoy the status quo before thinking seriously about alternatives. Technologically, we went from zero to the moon in two decades, and in less than a decade from the declared intention; this problem will be no more difficult to solve once industry is serious.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Choosing to drive an SUV doesn't, in fact, affect anyone else in the way you suggest. First, there isn't a supply problem, so one can't honestly say that the gas one person uses is taken away from someone else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conceded. However, I made this point to illustrate the fact that if someone conserves supply now, it will be there to meet later demand.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, much of the price of oil has nothing at all to do with either current supply or current demand; it's predicated on market fears of instability in the Middle East, and on projections of future demand--mostly future Chinese demand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great. The sooner we stop requiring so much oil, the better it'll be for everyone else. Like I said, all this is based upon the fact that we've all got about 40 years to get off oil forever at present. If we change our behavior, be it by choice or by Adam Smith's invisible hand, then we'll have much longer, which seems like the better choice. But that's a value judgement, and it's dangerous any time someone advocates curbing others' freedoms in order to conform to his own personal values. Reasonable people can come down on all sides of this issue.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, you make the huge mistake of basing these sweeping accusations on but a single issue. There's both increased safety and increased utility in driving an SUV that can easily outweigh the mostly imaginary downsides of fuel inefficiency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would concede this point, too, but the safety is only one-way--for the SUV occupants. And that's the only person the SUV driver is obligated to take care of, because everyone else has the choice to do the same. It's not the SUV at fault in injuring another in an accident with another car, but the person who weighed his own and his family's safety and decided that savin a few $$ on gas was more important. People may have an ethical obligation to be reasonably prudent, but not to put themselves in danger in order to handicap others' choices. I would argue that it is impossible to ethically balance the consequences of being inside an SUV during an accident vs. being in a smaller car, only because it's not possible to objectively assign differing values to two arbitrary human lives. But that's a whole 'nother discussion. I'd argue that it's entirely possible, because the discussion isn't about assigning value to human life, but about being responsible for the forseeable consequences of one's own choices.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis of freedom, gentlemen, is that people are free to spend their money how they choose, without militant idealists trying to force their values on others. Feel free to live the lifestyle you think is virtuous, but don't dare suggest others should be pressured or forced to do the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? We all have to conform to society's demands to some extent. It seems like every other book ever written deals with that theme. If society deems behavior undesirable or unacceptable, then what can, realistically, be done about it? Having said that, I doubt that society is going to look down on driving gas guzzlers, but the economics of it, again, will probably demand that people with incomes that previously allowed them to drive SUVs abandon them for more fuel efficient vehicles. I doubt the government need be involved, because forcing people to abandon their SUVs before they're ready is an exercise in not being re-elected, I think. The distinction is one of degree rather than type. One should always be conscious of the potential--the very real, very dangerous potential--for a tyrannical majority to take our society backwards several hundred years in terms of personal freedoms.
And I reiterate; this is only to the benefit of our society and the globe as a whole: the sooner the wheels of change are put into motion, the better off we'll all be. In your personal opinion. Forcing collectivism onto people is inherently incompatible not only with our form of government, but with the ideals that make America what it is.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Pirotess:
Senator Barbara "The Brain" Boxer once again failing to realize even the most basic economic concepts.But then, can you really blame her? She's a socialist and idealogically incapable of understanding economics.
Oh no, socialists, well you don't say! 
Lay off on that stupidity or do you want me to point out a truckload of conservatives ignorant of negative externalities in relation to environmental regulation or the crowd who thinks that drilling the miniscule oil reserves in ANWR will make any kind of noticable dent in oil prices, those who feel that producing and consuming everything in-country with as small a population as possible is a good idea or perhaps the sledgehammer of "The dollar sucks and is actually worthless guys, we need new money, backed by shiny, shiny gold!"?
Also the whole freedom of choice argument would be perfectly valid if government wasn't throwing billions in subsidies at the gas price in an attempt to lower it while at the same time encouraging wasteful suburban one-family-homes through zoning laws and things like the mortgage interest deductions, thus forcing people into longer commutes. The public hand is already wrist-deep in the gas business and claiming that you're just making a free market transaction that isn't anyone's business is somewhat dishonest when so much tax money is involved.
China, on the other hand, actually does regulate and subsidize the price of gas, leading to artificially low prices in the country.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about if you're intimating that the only reason American gasoline is so cheap has anything to do with oil subsidies. Our gas is cheaper than yours for one reason: we don't tax the fuck out of it. Even so, taxes on gasoline are higher in the US than for just about any other commodity. You'll also notice, if you do a little research, that the profit per unit sold for gasoline is either in line with or slightly lower than in other market sectors (namely food) in the US.
I never made a comparison with European prices. Profit per unit sold under current conditions may be in line with food but that does not prove that the current price is the result of market adjustment and not government policy. Consumer gasoline and gasoline-powered vehicles would be much harder to sell at the current price price if government would not in various ways encourage their use. My point however was not anything specific in relation to the market but that, to whatever effect, U.S. government policy is a huge influence on domestic supply and demand for gasoline and that thus you cannot honestly claim that regulations or taxes on gasoline use are an infringement on an otherwise free market transaction because the state of the market is in large parts a result of government interventions anyway.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Karnaj wrote:
Hahahahaha. Congress sucks."Do as we say, not as we do!"
This article gave me another reason to like Sen. Richard Burr: on top of the fact that his name is Dick Burr, he drives a VW Thing.
