Living Car Free - Why were Easter eggs so expensive and why should carfree folks be pissed about it?

^^^actually there's one viable alternative to the energy problem(s), use less--->conservation...........this however requires sacrifices, and most people treat that as an absolute last resort or even impossible

Usually a population crash follows any sort of ecological step beyond the carrying capacity of a given area... Considering our current practices arent even sustainable for ourselves (USA) I guess the only argument is when it will happen.

Somebody been listening to C2C lately:) George had Michael & Kathleen Gear on the show this week describing the fun times ahead as human population levels exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth.

No! This thread is directly relevant to carfree cycling. I doubt if you have read it very carefully if you don't think so. So I'll say it again, for the third time.

Carfree cyclists are directly subsidizing a scheme to make motoring cheaper as gas prices soar. Our fuel--food--is being diverted to fuel their cars. How much more relevant could we possibly be?

I doubt very seriously that ADM or Cargill care all that much about the concerns of a few carfree bicyclists, or anyone else for that matter. As long as these people send piles of money to Congress, you're going to pay more for eggs, and you're going to have thousands of square miles of monoculture, and you're going to have fewer farmers in the US, and you're going to drive dirt-poor farmers in the third world into unmanageable debt to pay for pesticides and seeds that don't do them any good at all. Unless, as Marx suggests, you take the CEOs of such conglomerates and simply shoot them. (The good doctor wasn't wrong; he was just way ahead of his time...)

Somebody been listening to C2C lately:) George had Michael & Kathleen Gear on the show this week describing the fun times ahead as human population levels exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth.
nah, dont even knwo what you're talking about. Just read about peak oil theory, overshoot, ''twilight in the desert'', have a biology degree, and like to read.


Population ecology is scary when applied to humans...so are principles of animal behavior.

Population ecology is scary when applied to humans...so are principles of animal behavior.

+1

I'll say I don't think these subsidies are a good idea, but the other alternative is oil subsidies, which do you prefer? Farmers in the Mid-west or War in the Mid-east? Seems like a pretty simple choice.

By the way, I average 1500-1800 miles car driving per year, at least 98% with more than one passenger.

This isn't an either-or question. We don't HAVE to be subsidizing anything.

Even if you WERE going to subsidize something, why would you want it to be the worst oil alternative anyone could come up with? Just because some politician sold out to the corn lobby years ago doesn't mean we have to keep making it worse.

It isn't taking food out of Americans' mouths. And it isn't any countries responsibility to feed other countries populations. If a country can't feed itself, it has way too many people. This is why the world has a massive over-population problem. Transporting food to artificially support inflated populations elsewhere.

Actually we trashed their food production when the IMF and World Bank supported ideas like Sisal (sp?) farming and other cash crops. Initially, these countries had reasonably sound agricultural and population balances, occaisionally inconvenienced by drought and other natural occurances. Then we came in "modernizing" everything giving them advanced medicines and other technologies that brought their mortality rates down out of the ceiling, leading to a population boom because we didn't bother to explain that once you don't need to have 8 kids to offset 6 of them dying by age 18, you should only have 2, thus the population increased, leading to some local food scarcity. this was compounded when we said they should grow cash crops to buy food from elsewhere...they did as the smart white men told them and then when droughts brought their exports down and they couldn't afford food, they didn't have their local horticultural practices to rely on for subsistence. sociology and anthropology have come a long way in showing the light and dark sides of cultural diffusion.

If you ask me we were probably better off leaving them to their own abilities or sending them the way of the native north american.

Why is everybody ignoring my original question? Do you not think that cyclists who are carfree should be pissed off because we are subsidizing, through higher food prices, a scheme that is designed to benefit motorists with a continuing supply of cheap fuel?

Forget about the theoretical and theological arguments. Forget about whether ETOH is practical or sensible. Forget even about people starving in Ethiopia. We all should be outraged by what ETOH production is doing to us personally.

Unless of course you'd rather just bend over and try to enjoy those deep down sensations.
This sort of thing is one of the reasons why small-government, free marketeers like myself are dubious about any attempts by government to intervene in economic matters. We don't have the sort of all-encompassing, comprehensive moral code to let us even define the "common good", much less the capability to calculate all of the effects of government policies on the economy well enough to achieve it. The only thing that kept the Soviet Union going as long as it did was its government's willingness to resort to outright terror tactics against its own people.

Our dependence of imported oil feeds our enemies abroad, and undermines the cause of democracy worldwide. Tyrants like Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez use oil revenue to oppress their peoples and cause trouble for their neighbors. And don't get me started on the Muslim Middle East. It's the biggest collection of kleptocracies, thugocracies, and moronarchies the world has ever seen. Cutting the price of crude oil to $15 a barrel (or better yet, $0.02 a barrel) would be one of the best pieces of political hygiene planet Earth could possibly experience. To that end, I would accept, even if I didn't like, almost any measure that reduced the amount of gasoline and petroleum-based diesel fuel consumed.

One complaint I sometimes hear about the War on Terrorism (stupid name, BTW) is that the American people (other than military families) aren't being asked to sacrifice for the war effort. I would say this counts.

Another thing we should do, if we're going to have the government tell us what kind of cars to buy (through CAFE standards), is reform those standards to close the "light truck" loophole which caused the current plague of SUVs. Treat any vehicle that can carry more than 3 adults as a car, and the SUVs and minivans get replaced by the station wagons that used to serve large families before the government inflicted their ill-advised CAFE standard on the country.

This sort of thing is one of the reasons why small-government, free marketeers like myself are dubious about any attempts by government to intervene in economic matters. We don't have the sort of all-encompassing, comprehensive moral code to let us even define the "common good", much less the capability to calculate all of the effects of government policies on the economy well enough to achieve it. The only thing that kept the Soviet Union going as long as it did was its government's willingness to resort to outright terror tactics against its own people.
I know you're aware that sometimes government regulation is the only solution to serious problems where the public good conflicts with the individual's God-given right to make a buck. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are good examples. These acts were passed democratically, and have been very effective, and do not seem to have slowed economic growth in the least. However, current attempts to weaken pollution regulations demonstrate that large corporations sometimes have the power to subvert the will of the people.

BTW, any resemblance between the current dominance of huge multinational monopolies and a free market system are purely coincidental.

I know you're aware that sometimes government regulation is the only solution to serious problems where the public good conflicts with the individual's God-given right to make a buck. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are good examples. These acts were passed democratically, and have been very effective, and do not seem to have slowed economic growth in the least. However, current attempts to weaken pollution regulations demonstrate that large corporations sometimes have the power to subvert the will of the people.

BTW, any resemblance between the current dominance of huge multinational monopolies and a free market system are purely coincidental.
I have no problems with the CAA and CWA. The "right to make a buck" does not confer the right to dump your crap on other peoples' property. And having a published set of standards for acceptable emissions is probably better than a barrage of lawsuits for damages. One of the problems of economic regulation is how to keep the corporations from buying off the regulators and legislators.

As for the multinational monopolies, they usually become monopolies because of govt intervention, such as tariffs, subsidies, union-busting, regulation of competitors and substitute products, etc. A classic example is that of the American railroad companies. Government gave them huge tracts of land for right of way and stations. Germany, from the 1870s thru the 1930s had a policy of encouraging cartels. The idea was to put everything under a few big companies and regulate those companies. By the 1930s their economy was so screwed up that even Hitler looked good.

I have no problems with the CAA and CWA. The "right to make a buck" does not confer the right to dump your crap on other peoples' property. And having a published set of standards for acceptable emissions is probably better than a barrage of lawsuits for damages. One of the problems of economic regulation is how to keep the corporations from buying off the regulators and legislators.

As for the multinational monopolies, they usually become monopolies because of govt intervention, such as tariffs, subsidies, union-busting, regulation of competitors and substitute products, etc. A classic example is that of the American railroad companies. Government gave them huge tracts of land for right of way and stations. Germany, from the 1870s thru the 1930s had a policy of encouraging cartels. The idea was to put everything under a few big companies and regulate those companies. By the 1930s their economy was so screwed up that even Hitler looked good.
Well that kinda gets us back to the subsidy issue that started with the discussion of corn squeezins. The govt. in the 19th century gave the railroads land to subsidize the development of infrastructure for the common good. It's doubtful that a transcontinental RR would have been developed without some subsidization from the government. And American history sure would have been different--that is worse, overall--without the RRs. Subsidizing RRs was good. Subsidizing interstate highways in the 1950s was more arguably good too. Subsidizing a foolhardy get-rich-quick scheme like corn ethanol--not so good. This has set back the adoption of legitimate alternative fuels, I'm willing to bet.

I think the current debate over big government is misguided on both sides. The issue shouldn't be the size of government, but it's aims and it's quality.

Smart government--good.
Stupid government--bad.

Ideologically driven policy with sloganeering goals--very bad.
Pragmatic policy with measurable goals--very good.

Interesting perspective notasfat... though I am inclined to disagree I want to hear more of your take. My only problem with libertarianism philosophy is this: what do you do about regulation? Seeing how corporations have and continue to act - how is less regulation (such as environmental) going to help anything?

Another question for you notsofat:


And don't get me started on the Muslim Middle East. It's the biggest collection of kleptocracies, thugocracies, and moronarchies the world has ever seen.

Have you ever wondered about the history of the middle east? About why it is as you say? About who might perhaps be responsible for leading up to and/or installing these -ocracies?

Have you ever wondered about the history of the middle east? About why it is as you say? About who might perhaps be responsible for leading up to and/or installing these -ocracies?
Britain, France and the United States, beginning just before World War I, as part of an effort to liberate the main oil provinces of the former Ottoman Empire. So what's your point?

Edit: Here's a link to some interesting Middle East history from the oil perspective
Link (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0425byzantine.htm)

Well that kinda gets us back to the subsidy issue that started with the discussion of corn squeezins. The govt. in the 19th century gave the railroads land to subsidize the development of infrastructure for the common good. It's doubtful that a transcontinental RR would have been developed without some subsidization from the government. And American history sure would have been different--that is worse, overall--without the RRs. Subsidizing RRs was good. Subsidizing interstate highways in the 1950s was more arguably good too. Subsidizing a foolhardy get-rich-quick scheme like corn ethanol--not so good. This has set back the adoption of legitimate alternative fuels, I'm willing to bet.

I think the current debate over big government is misguided on both sides. The issue shouldn't be the size of government, but it's aims and it's quality.

Smart government--good.
Stupid government--bad.

Ideologically driven policy with sloganeering goals--very bad.
Pragmatic policy with measurable goals--very good.
So what you're saying is that government subsidies for products/services you like are good, and subsidies that you don't like are bad. You've talked about the "common good", but you haven't given any hint as to what constitutes the common good. Is the common good like pornography - something we can't define, but we "know it when we see it"? Or is there some principle that we can use as a yardstick to measure it?

Every government policy benefits somebody, and most government policies screw somebody over. Everybody wants "good" government, nobody wants "bad" government. The problem is, that people don't agree on what constitutes good government, or even "pragmatic policy with measurable goals".

In order to have "measurable goals" concerning the public good, you have to be able to measure the public good. Otherwise you don't really know whether a policy is good for the public or just good for you.

My rule of thumb is that if the legislature can spell the rule out so ordinary people can understand it and make informed decisions about how to work with the law, it's probably ok. It may not be wise, it may have unintended consequences (CAFE standards and SUVs, for example), but I can probably live with it. If the legislature can't spell it out, and must rely on bureaucrats to judge individual cases "on the merits", it's almost certainly very bad. Giving bureaucrats mixed legislative/judicial/executive powers is a recipe for disaster, no matter how noble the aim might be.

Handing out subsidies to specific industries is usually unwise. You are trying to promote some sort of behavior that people, through their market choices, have indicated they won't pay for. Sometimes the subsidy pays off in the long run, but it's usually bad policy

NotAsFat, Defining the common good is what democracy is all about. When people have access to accurate information, open forums for discussing and arguing the issues, and a truly representative government, they have the best chance of forming a concensus of what constitutes the common good. When they then listen to their scientists and policy experts, they just might come up with adequate policies. It obviously isn't a foolproof system, but it seems to be the best one we can come up with so far.

As for subsidies, I pretty much agree with you. But sometimes a new technology is so expensive that private enterprise can't or won't start it up. This was probably the case with the railroads, and may be with alternative energy also. There is a time factor....

NotAsFat, Defining the common good is what democracy is all about. When people have access to accurate information, open forums for discussing and arguing the issues, and a truly representative government, they have the best chance of forming a concensus of what constitutes the common good. When they then listen to their scientists and policy experts, they just might come up with adequate policies. It obviously isn't a foolproof system, but it seems to be the best one we can come up with so far.

As for subsidies, I pretty much agree with you. But sometimes a new technology is so expensive that private enterprise can't or won't start it up. This was probably the case with the railroads, and may be with alternative energy also. There is a time factor....
While I agree that democracy is the best system man has found for promoting and protecting individual liberty and happiness, the notion that democracy can "define the common good" is absurd. All democracy can do is determine what the majority wants, which may or may not be good for the society. But even if it could define the common good, a free market is the most democratic means of allocating resources, because each person "votes" with his dollars every day. Subsidizing a good or service is inherently "undemocratic", because it subverts the free choice of individuals and skews their choices.

Getting accurate information to the people is practically impossible, because all media outlets have an agenda, even if it's only maintaining their access to the newsmakers. Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize winning reporting on the Soviet Union in the 1930s is probably the most notorious example of this despicable practice. Duranty helped cover up the artificial famine in the Ukraine in the winter of 1932-33 which killed between 7 and 10 million Ukrainians, and wrote stories denying reports of the famine by other journalists.

Interesting perspective notasfat... though I am inclined to disagree I want to hear more of your take. My only problem with libertarianism philosophy is this: what do you do about regulation? Seeing how corporations have and continue to act - how is less regulation (such as environmental) going to help anything?
The doctrinaire libertarian position is that regulation is unnecessary, because if some company damages you through pollution, you can sue them. Considering the proclivity of some juries to award absurdly high judgments, this is not necessarily good for businesses that pollute.

My own personal view is that clear, reasonable, regulations give businesses guidelines which help them avoid damaging the environment, and provide them with some protection against frivolous lawsuits. All regulations should at least be approved by elected officials and not merely the arbitrary judgment of unelected bureaucrats.

Regulations should never be used to protect a good or service from competing technologies or services. An example of this sort of thing would be protecting incandescent light bulb manufacturers by restricting the use of compact florescent light bulbs because they contain mercury.

Subsidies, tariffs, and other market distorting policies are almost always bad and should be avoided at almost any cost.

In times of war or other crises where national survival is at stake, governments must do whatever is necessary to protect the people. But in peacetime, governments do better if they limit economic interference to adjusting the money supply, and let markets direct the actual flow of money.

While I agree that democracy is the best system man has found for promoting and protecting individual liberty and happiness, the notion that democracy can "define the common good" is absurd. All democracy can do is determine what the majority wants, which may or may not be good for the society. But even if it could define the common good, a free market is the most democratic means of allocating resources, because each person "votes" with his dollars every day. Subsidizing a good or service is inherently "undemocratic", because it subverts the free choice of individuals and skews their choices... .

Questions:

How does a free market define the common good? What mechanisms or processes exist for this?
Is consensus on "the good" attainable in any form?
Is the current corn rush more the result of free market forces or government policy?
Will the free market ever be able to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases? What would be the motivation for this in a free market?
Will a government of the people ever be able to reduce greenhouse gases? What would the motivation be?
What role does the internet play in policy discussion and consensus building?

Getting accurate information to the people is practically impossible, because all media outlets have an agenda, even if it's only maintaining their access to the newsmakers. Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize winning reporting on the Soviet Union in the 1930s is probably the most notorious example of this despicable practice. Duranty helped cover up the artificial famine in the Ukraine in the winter of 1932-33 which killed between 7 and 10 million Ukrainians, and wrote stories denying reports of the famine by other journalists.

OTOH, the press uncovered Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Whitewater, in spite of determined efforts at cover-ups by the administrations involved in these scandals. Currently we have an administration that is blatantly lying about corn ethanol and greenhouse gas emissions, and the press has been (halfheartedly at times) involved in exposing these lies to the people. The principle is that ethical journalists will have as an "agenda" the delivery of accurate information to subscribers, and this has often been the case throughout American history. I will grant that the accuracy of the press is partly a response to market demands. Sometimes people are willing to pay for the truth, and sometimes they would rather be lied to.

Somewhat off-topic, but...

I'm embarassed to admit that I sat through part of an episode of Pimp My Ride the other day. They were dropping a biodiesel powered turbo diesel engine in an old muscle car.

Governor Schwarzenegger made a guest appearance to applaud "this type of thinking". He made a statement very much like "This is what we should be doing. We shouldn't worry about all the people driving SUV's. We should focus on technology". Of course, he then proceeded to complain about the hemp upholstery, saying (very seriously) that people would cut them up and smoke them.

These are the idiots we have running our country? :rolleyes:

Somewhat off-topic, but...

I'm embarassed to admit that I sat through part of an episode of Pimp My Ride the other day. They were dropping a biodiesel powered turbo diesel engine in an old muscle car.

Governor Schwarzenegger made a guest appearance to applaud "this type of thinking". He made a statement very much like "This is what we should be doing. We shouldn't worry about all the people driving SUV's. We should focus on technology". Of course, he then proceeded to complain about the hemp upholstery, saying (very seriously) that people would cut them up and smoke them.

These are the idiots we have running our country? :rolleyes:
Actually Arnold is smarter than the average idiot politician, especially for a Republican. My dad says he must be smart enough to listen to his wife!

But even if it could define the common good, a free market is the most democratic means of allocating resources, because each person "votes" with his dollars every day. Subsidizing a good or service is inherently "undemocratic", because it subverts the free choice of individuals and skews their choices.

There are two problems with the free market: One, like Santa Claus, a free market sounds good but (Spoiler alert!!!!) again like Santa, it doesn't actually exist. All markets are distorted or corrupted.

Secondly, a completely free, unregulated market can't deal with common resources. It's cheap for a company to suck all the ground water from an aquifer and dump pollution in the air, because no single person owns the air or the ground water. Thus, the company doesn't have to pay for the privilege of using them, as free market principles would dictate. It's only through government that common resources like air and groundwater can be protected from abuse. If one person owned the atmosphere, polluters could pay that person a fee for despoiling it, or the owner could simply refuse them permission. In fact, we all "own" the atmosphere so we can all just say no.

There are two problems with the free market: One, like Santa Claus, a free market sounds good but (Spoiler alert!!!!) again like Santa, it doesn't actually exist. All markets are distorted or corrupted.

Secondly, a completely free, unregulated market can't deal with common resources. It's cheap for a company to suck all the ground water from an aquifer and dump pollution in the air, because no single person owns the air or the ground water. Thus, the company doesn't have to pay for the privilege of using them, as free market principles would dictate. It's only through government that common resources like air and groundwater can be protected from abuse. If one person owned the atmosphere, polluters could pay that person a fee for despoiling it, or the owner could simply refuse them permission. In fact, we all "own" the atmosphere so we can all just say no.


indeed

farmers lose like $1.20 a bushel or they used to, dont know what it is now, thats subsidized

ethanol is 51 cents per gallon for the blending agent plus state perks

domestic oil and gas producers get a very good deal on the resources they tap into

weapons makers get very juicy deals to produce weapons the country may or may not even need, 100% tax payer dollars there, very little competition or "free" market

airlines get their fuel tax free, more subsidized business

you can go on and on and on, sorry, but about the only real free market is small business, and that's very much reliant upon other subsidized businesses

there are some things a democratic form of govt and capitalism are not very good at, nature of the beast im afraid

Unless, as Marx suggests, you take the CEOs of such conglomerates and simply shoot them. (The good doctor wasn't wrong; he was just way ahead of his time...)


that thought has crossed my mind alot lately

Questions:

How does a free market define the common good? What mechanisms or processes exist for this?

If we can accept that:

The "common good" bears some mathmatical relationship to the sum of the individuals' "goods".
That individuals are better able to identify and prioritize their needs better than some faceless bureaucrat a thousand miles away.

Then the answer to your question becomes obvious. The process of each individual making his choices in the marketplace reflects his concept of "the good". Think of it as a giant network of distributed processors, each working on a minute piece of the problem of the "common good". They report the results of their calculations to various collectors, known by names such as stores, landlords, employers, etc.

Centrally planned economies approach the problem like an old fashioned mainframe computer. The problem with this approach is that the central planners cannot collect adequate data to make accurate projections of what needs to be done, and even if they could collect the data, they can't possibly assimilate and integrate it into an effective plan. It's been tried before, in a place called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. You may have heard of it.



Is consensus on "the good" attainable in any form?

On some aspects of the good, certainly. But not in sufficient detail for government economic planners to use as a guide in allocating scarce resources. Indeed, creating that sort of comprehensive moral code would run counter to the current trend of simplifying moral codes into general principles instead of strict, detailed rules and taboos.



Is the current corn rush more the result of free market forces or government policy?

I would say government policy. I'm not wild about it, either. IMO, the only good thing about using ethanol as motor fuel is that if it did free us from dependence on imported oil, we could quit pulling our punches in the Muslim Middle East and give them the WWII-style ass-kicking they deserve.



Will the free market ever be able to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases? What would be the motivation for this in a free market?

I don't have a problem with treating greenhouse gases like any other air pollutant, but even without regulations, people who could demonstrate that they were damaged by greenhouse gases could hit the producers with the mother of all class action lawsuits.



Will a government of the people ever be able to reduce greenhouse gases? What would the motivation be?

I don't know if they can, or not. But, either way, I'll take government of the people. Better the possible catastrophe of global warming than the certain catastrophe of tyranny.


What role does the internet play in policy discussion and consensus building?

It provides an easily-accessible medium for people to express their opinions. "Let a hundred flowers bloom. Let a hundred schools of thought contend." It also provides a (fact) check on the power of the "mainstream" media.


OTOH, the press uncovered Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Whitewater, in spite of determined efforts at cover-ups by the administrations involved in these scandals. Currently we have an administration that is blatantly lying about corn ethanol and greenhouse gas emissions, and the press has been (halfheartedly at times) involved in exposing these lies to the people. The principle is that ethical journalists will have as an "agenda" the delivery of accurate information to subscribers, and this has often been the case throughout American history. I will grant that the accuracy of the press is partly a response to market demands. Sometimes people are willing to pay for the truth, and sometimes they would rather be lied to.
The common denominator of your examples of extensively reported scandals is that a Republican administration was being "exposed" by pro-Democratic Party media outlets. Newsweek's editorial board tried to spike the Monica Lewinsky story until Drudge outed them. CBS News tried to pass off a crudely forged memo, on the eve of the election, as evidence that President Bush shirked his National Guard obligations. Only the Internet punditocracy prevented CBS from stealing the election for Kerry. The media gave Hillary's commodities trading "prowess" and the irregularities in her Rose Law Firm billing records only the most perfunctory coverage. So much for the honesty and objectivity of the "mainstream" news media.

Well you certainly see the world through neocon colored glasses. This philosophy isn't working too well for most people on the planet, or for the planet itself. I thought your answers to my questions were good, although I agreed with only a little of what you said. I hope to have time to respond at some point. Offhand, I think you're stuck with old ways of thinking and acting, and the problems of today require new thinking, especially about the way consensus and community are formed in human society.

I thought your opinion of the press was less well thought out--really just the standard right-wing rhetoric, blaming the press for the moral failures of three Republican administrations. "we're not sorry we did it, but we're mad that we got caught."

I don't have a problem with treating greenhouse gases like any other air pollutant, but even without regulations, people who could demonstrate that they were damaged by greenhouse gases could hit the producers with the mother of all class action lawsuits.

One quick thought. I believe suits can be filed only after the damage has been done. A little too late in the case of global warming!

This is kind of like saying the government shouldn't regulate against murder, but the victim can file a lawsuit...after he's dead. ;)

If we can accept that:

The "common good" bears some mathmatical relationship to the sum of the individuals' "goods".
That individuals are better able to identify and prioritize their needs better than some faceless bureaucrat a thousand miles away.



So how would you define an individual good? Human beings are, as a whole, are almost incapable of making a responsible decision. Factor in the outside influence of corporations, media, SAG's and it's even worse.

Looking around, the majority wants nothing but big cars, fast food, war on anyone we disagree with (if it's not their kid fighting) and couldn't care less about things like the environment or true conservation - at least not if it means they have to sacrifice anything at all to accomplish it.

So.... what does that mean? I should give up, buy an H2 and pickup an extra value meal on my way back from WalMart?





I would say government policy. I'm not wild about it, either. IMO, the only good thing about using ethanol as motor fuel is that if it did free us from dependence on imported oil, we could quit pulling our punches in the Muslim Middle East and give them the WWII-style ass-kicking they deserve.

That kind of thinking is why there is a terrorist problem now. Anyone who thinks they control a region that has been at war for millenia is sadly mistaken. If we would quit interfering in the region this would eventually go away.

That kind of thinking is why there is a terrorist problem now. Anyone who thinks they control a region that has been at war for millenia is sadly mistaken. If we would quit interfering in the region this would eventually go away.

its also unconstitutional and violates UN charter among others, in this day and age some people still dont understand what sovereignty means

One quick thought. I believe suits can be filed only after the damage has been done. A little too late in the case of global warming!

This is kind of like saying the government shouldn't regulate against murder, but the victim can file a lawsuit...after he's dead. ;)
That's why I have no problem with regulation of pollutants. As long as the regulations are reasonable, are clear enough that they can be understood and complied with, and are not designed to give unfair advantage to an industry or specific product, it's usually preferable to prevent damages than to repair them.

That said, regulation is not without its problems. Problem one is how to keep the regulatees from buying off the regulators. Problem two is how to keep regulations from being used to shield established technologies from improved ones. For example, compact florescent bulbs contain mercury, which is quite toxic. Regulations prohibiting their use, or mandating expensive recycling procedures could be used to protect incandescant bulb manufacturers from this new competitor.

So how would you define an individual good? Human beings are, as a whole, are almost incapable of making a responsible decision. Factor in the outside influence of corporations, media, SAG's and it's even worse.

Looking around, the majority wants nothing but big cars, fast food, war on anyone we disagree with (if it's not their kid fighting) and couldn't care less about things like the environment or true conservation - at least not if it means they have to sacrifice anything at all to accomplish it.

So.... what does that mean? I should give up, buy an H2 and pickup an extra value meal on my way back from WalMart?





That kind of thinking is why there is a terrorist problem now. Anyone who thinks they control a region that has been at war for millenia is sadly mistaken. If we would quit interfering in the region this would eventually go away. The last time I looked, bureaucrats were people, too. If people cannot make good decisions for themselves, how can they be expected to make good decisions for others? Centralized planning simply doesn't work. It's been tried. It was an utterly unmitigated failure in the Soviet Union. Only the willingness of Stalin and his successors to terrorize their own people kept it going as long as it did.

The notion that people can't make "good" choices for themselves has been used to justify more kinds of repression than nearly any other force in history. "I know better than you, and therefore I have a right to require you to live as I say you should.", is the sort of arrogance that leads to abominations such as the Spanish Inquisition, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Holodomor, and a host of other indelible stains on the history of mankind.

As to whether you should buy an H2, I wouldn't dream of telling you what you should buy. Judging by your post, I doubt you'd extend me the same courtesy.

Regarding the Muslim Middle East, I have no interest in controlling it. I just want to make them stop trying to destroy my people and my way of life. We can't seem to make them love us. Judging by events in Iraq, we don't seem to be able to civilize them. Right now, I'll settle for teaching them to fear us more than they hate us.

I would say government policy. I'm not wild about it, either. IMO, the only good thing about using ethanol as motor fuel is that if it did free us from dependence on imported oil, we could quit pulling our punches in the Muslim Middle East and give them the WWII-style ass-kicking they deserve.

Not only does that make no political sense, it makes no free-market economic sense. You wouldn't be over there trading shots if it weren't for the oil in the first place. And if the western world stopped needing Arab oil, they would get all the ass-kicking they may or may not deserve from that fact alone.

its also unconstitutional and violates UN charter among others, in this day and age some people still dont understand what sovereignty means
One of the corollaries of sovereignty is that a government (such as the Taliban regime in Afghanistan) is responsible for preventing its citizens and other residents from committing acts of war against its neighbors. If it refuses to police those who commit terrorist acts, or worse, aids them, it is an act of war, and the attacked nation is free to retaliate.

When a government (such as Iraq) makes a peace agreement, and violates that agreement, the other signatories have a right to enforce the agreement, by force, if necessary.

Does a sovereign government have a right to commit genocide against its own people, or a minority group within its borders? Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia was so bad that the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia to force him to quit. Sovereignty is not a blank check which covers any and all atrocities by a government.

^^^given the history of the US both supporting those regimes and also having the distinction of overthrowing govts with the end results years later being piss poor maybe its time to try something new dont ya think? and the US has violated its share of agreements as well............someday we wont be the world bully anymore, payback can be a beotch, we can continue on the path of an empire destined to fall quite hard given the current circumstances or we can grow the heck up and act like adults. Weve told lies to get involved in war(s), been quite incompetent at the prosecution of several wars, purely from a pragmatic standpoint alone its been a losing proposition, not smart at all.

Now we have some incredibly serious issues to deal with, guess what, war(s) isnt going to fix them and the resource drain alone will interfere with dealing with these issues. We simply cannot afford to continue to continue on the same path, get used to it, energy scarcity will make it alot worse.

The notion that people can't make "good" choices for themselves has been used to justify more kinds of repression than nearly any other force in history. "I know better than you, and therefore I have a right to require you to live as I say you should.", is the sort of arrogance that leads to abominations such as the Spanish Inquisition, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Holodomor, and a host of other indelible stains on the history of mankind.

Including most US policy of the last 50 years.

Not only does that make no political sense, it makes no free-market economic sense. You wouldn't be over there trading shots if it weren't for the oil in the first place. And if the western world stopped needing Arab oil, they would get all the ass-kicking they may or may not deserve from that fact alone.
They'd really be pi$$ed at us then, they'd still have a lot of money stashed in banks, and suicide bomb vests aren't expensive. I don't think you'll get them to quit out of the goodness of their hearts (I'm not convinced they have any goodness in their hearts). And unless you're willing to literally starve them to death, I don't think you can render them physically incapable of committing terrorist attacks.

If you can't appeal to their better natures, and you can't bankrupt them into peace, the only alternative is to terrify them into peace. Mutual terror kept the Soviet Union and NATO from blowing up the world, and if the Muslim world learned that their civilians were not immune from reprisal, they might be a bit less eager to kill our civilians.

The last time I looked, bureaucrats were people, too. If people cannot make good decisions for themselves, how can they be expected to make good decisions for others? Centralized planning simply doesn't work. It's been tried. It was an utterly unmitigated failure in the Soviet Union. Only the willingness of Stalin and his successors to terrorize their own people kept it going as long as it did.

The notion that people can't make "good" choices for themselves has been used to justify more kinds of repression than nearly any other force in history. "I know better than you, and therefore I have a right to require you to live as I say you should.", is the sort of arrogance that leads to abominations such as the Spanish Inquisition, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Holodomor, and a host of other indelible stains on the history of mankind.

As to whether you should buy an H2, I wouldn't dream of telling you what you should buy. Judging by your post, I doubt you'd extend me the same courtesy.

Regarding the Muslim Middle East, I have no interest in controlling it. I just want to make them stop trying to destroy my people and my way of life. We can't seem to make them love us. Judging by events in Iraq, we don't seem to be able to civilize them. Right now, I'll settle for teaching them to fear us more than they hate us.


Why the fixation on the Soviet Union? Throughout the history of mankind, there has ALWAYS been someone in charge. No amount of anti-government whining is going to change that.

I find your arguments quite hypocritical. You don't want the government dictating to YOU, but it's fine if they dictate to the part of the world you don't like? Even your own wording:

"can't make them love us"
"don't seem to be able to civilize them"

...supports my point that US interference in the region, most significantly the meddling of Truman in the 40's. The United States has killed middle-easterners (amongst others) repeatedly and at-will for decades now. The trade center deaths are but a drop in the bucket compared to the number of non-combatents we have killed in the last ten or twenty years. Our behavior embarasses me, and I don't blame them for hating us. Imagine how you would feel if someone like China were doing these type of things to us... they came over to fight Mexico because they jacked up the price of jalapenos. Every now and then China would shoot a stray missle across the Texas border and kill a couple hundred people. They would eventually force us to let them setup a base in Florida by threatening to withhold, basically all of our manufacturered products from us.

Unless you're willing to kill everyone in the entire region, any military action will only solidify their hate for another generation.

Including most US policy of the last 50 years.
If you're waiting for me to agree that the Cold War wasn't worth winning, I hope you brought your lunch, and dinner ... and have the phone numbers of some good delivery restaurants, 'cause you're gonna be waiting a loooong time.

The notion that armed conflict must be avoided at all costs not only led to WWII, but made it much worse when it finally came. If France and Britain had forcibly removed German troops from the Rhineland in 1936, there might not have been a WWII. It would certainly have been short, for Hitler had ordered his generals to withdraw from the Rhineland if the French opposed them.

The Soviets and Chinese weren't shy about passing out weapons to any third world "revolutionary" that would take them. The Kalashnikov is the most common rifle in the world. There are countries that have Kalashnikov rifles on their flags.

Why, exactly, was it okay for the Soviets, Chinese, Cubans, et al, to pass out guns to their pals and not okay for us to oppose them? Did the regimes which perpetrated the Holodomor and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution possess such a stupendous moral standing that opposing them was evil? I don't think so, and if you do, then I feel sorry for you.

If you're waiting for me to agree that the Cold War wasn't worth winning, I hope you brought your lunch, and dinner ... and have the phone numbers of some good delivery restaurants, 'cause you're gonna be waiting a loooong time.

The notion that armed conflict must be avoided at all costs not only led to WWII, but made it much worse when it finally came. If France and Britain had forcibly removed German troops from the Rhineland in 1936, there might not have been a WWII. It would certainly have been short, for Hitler had ordered his generals to withdraw from the Rhineland if the French opposed them.

The Soviets and Chinese weren't shy about passing out weapons to any third world "revolutionary" that would take them. The Kalashnikov is the most common rifle in the world. There are countries that have Kalashnikov rifles on their flags.

Why, exactly, was it okay for the Soviets, Chinese, Cubans, et al, to pass out guns to their pals and not okay for us to oppose them? Did the regimes which perpetrated the Holodomor and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution possess such a stupendous moral standing that opposing them was evil? I don't think so, and if you do, then I feel sorry for you.
Jeff is right--you're fixated on the cold war and the soviets. I didn't even have that in mind at all when I made my off-topic gripe about US policy. As far as I know, the cold war had squat to do with the current price of Easter eggs, which is where this whole converstaion started.

BTW, what countries have assault rifles on their flags? (And made-up countries don't count!)

Jeff is right--you're fixated on the cold war and the soviets. I didn't even have that in mind at all when I made my off-topic gripe about US policy. As far as I know, the cold war had squat to do with the current price of Easter eggs, which is where this whole converstaion started.

BTW, what countries have assault rifles on their flags? (And made-up countries don't count!)
From your earlier complaints about Iran-Contra, I assumed you were referring to the anti-Communist policies and activities that most U.S. administrations of that period engaged in. We certainly did a number of things in that period to oppose Soviet efforts to stir up revolutions.

Mozambique has a Kalashnikov rifle on its flag.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://unimaps.com/flags-africa/mozambique-flag.gif&imgrefurl=http://unimaps.com/flags-africa/mozambique-print2.html&h=599&w=900&sz=19&tbnid=BXdJ_kUB52nt4M:&tbnh=97&tbnw=146&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmozambique%2Bflag&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1

From your earlier complaints about Iran-Contra, I assumed you were referring to the anti-Communist policies and activities that most U.S. administrations of that period engaged in. We certainly did a number of things in that period to oppose Soviet efforts to stir up revolutions.

Mozambique has a Kalashnikov rifle on its flag.

Thanks for the flag info. I want to respond to your other comment, but we have to get this thread back to bikes and carfree or Donna's gonna kick our butts to P&R!

So, like Reagan was some crazy JAM who was wagging his SUV all over the road and honking his horn at the cyclists, and he got real mad and tried to blame it all on the cyclists when the cops pulled him over. So then the cops made the commie cyclists ride on the sidewalk and they named an airport after Reagan. ;)

Why the fixation on the Soviet Union? Throughout the history of mankind, there has ALWAYS been someone in charge. No amount of anti-government whining is going to change that.

Because I'm not aware of any governments which have murdered more of their own people in peacetime than the Soviet and Chinese Communist governments did. Google "holodomor" and come back and tell me what a fine, upstanding fellow Josef Stalin was. Let me try to explain this in really simple terms. If the government controls the entire economy, and you pi$$ off the commissar, you can end up literally starving to death. That's what happened to somewhere between 7 and 10 million Ukrainians in the winter of 1932-33.


I find your arguments quite hypocritical. You don't want the government dictating to YOU, but it's fine if they dictate to the part of the world you don't like? Even your own wording:

"can't make them love us"
"don't seem to be able to civilize them"

I don't expect the American government to "dictate" to the Muslim Middle East on any issue other than their support of various jihadist and Islamist groups. I do expect my government to use any means necessary to stop any foreign group from attacking Americans. National security is ultimately the national government's raison d'etre, and any political party or faction that won't accept that responsibility is unfit to govern.


Unless you're willing to kill everyone in the entire region, any military action will only solidify their hate for another generation.
We didn't have to kill all the Germans or Japanese in WWII to convince them to stop fighting us. The Japanese, in particular, did everything they could to convince us that we would have to kill them all. They eventually surrendered because we demonstrated that we could kill them all, without suffering serious losses, and that if they kept it up, we might actually do it. In short, we taught them to fear us more than they hated us. Helping them rebuild helped, but kicking the $hit out of them in such a manner that they knew we could do it again, if necessary, is what ended the war for good.