Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:34:00 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

>js wrote:
>
>> Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
>>
>>>js wrote:
>>>( previous post snipped-follow thread )
>>>
>>>>>>Our society is based on CHOICE! Choosing the automobile over other
>>>>>>forms of transportation is our choice.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please. The freedom of choice argument has been debunked in this
>>>>>thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hardly. Your proported needs assessment fails to consider other's
>>>>values. You posit that since you don't need it why should/can you have
>>>>it. That's not debunking - that's simply denying.
>>>
>>>Housing patterns and choices in this country area fact.
>>
>>
>> There are choices, that's for sure and each choice has associated
>> costs. Living in a suburban or rural area makes transportation less
>> convenient and more costly. That explains, for the most part, why you
>> can buy twice the house for half the price. Wonderful science this
>> economics, no?
>
>However, when a particular choice becomes widespread, it becomes a
>generalization to the whole. And the generalization is that our housing
>patterns have been built around the availability of personal
>transportation. Any factor which reduces that availability will alter
>chosen lifestyles and is unacceptable. You don't believe that is. You
>would rather see a host of people suffer just so long as YOU are not
>included.
>
>>>The requirement
>>>for personal transportation vehicles to support those CHOICES is also a
>>>fact.
>>
>>
>> To support the convenience of these choices.
>
>True. so now that we agree that by CHOICE, people have developed a
>lifestyle which requires personal transportation, and since you SUPPORT
>freedom of choice, kindly explain how you enable those people to retain
>the lifestyles they have CHOSEN if they cannot provide for personal
>transportation which is required?
>
>
>>>The FACT that at present, the only viable means of fuel for the
>>>internal combustion vehicle is oil and consequently, needed by the
>>>society at large to support their CHOSEN lifestyle is a fact.
>>
>>
>> Yes - you need gas in the car to commute to work if you drive a car to
>> work. Now, you can car pool and cut consumption in half. Why doesn't
>> this happen more? Because it is inconvenient and people make choices.
>
>People don't chose it because people don't want to exercise
>self-restraint. We see this with retirement savings, personal debt, and
>a host of other things. Well, people can choose to go into debt and
>have to declare bankruptcy. it effects no one except them. people can
>choose to not save for retirement. Again, it effects no one except
>themselves. But when people choose to waste a non-renewable resource,
>that choice affects a host of other people eventually and is unacceptable.
>

You are really being very silly.
Thumper
>There is no doubt that other conservation techniques will be beneficial.
> And rationing will lead to this as well.
>
>>>How much more do you need to be hit over the head before the scales fall
>>>from your eyes?
>>
>>
>> You still haven't said anything of consequence.
>
>LOL.
>
> You allow individuals
>> the right to choose housing lifestyle but not driing lifestyle? Is a
>> 4000 square foot house on an acre of land 40 miles from work really
>> necessary when, for the same price, you can buy a 2000 square foot
>> house on an eight of an acre 15 miles from work?
>
>Are you proposing dictating housing to people?
>
>>>>>Your freedom of choice
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, my freedom of choice - mine, and only mine.
>>>
>>>As I said, you support the selfish, hedonistic view which is uncaring of
>>>his fellow man.
>>
>>
>> I support the right of you to choose how to spend your nmoney.
>
>Spend your money as you wish, just so long as it doesn't affect me.
>when you spend it to waste oil, that affects me and is unacceptable.
>
> I am
>> not about to impose my value structure on you.
>
>LOL. What do you suppose you've been doing all along?
>
> That's about as
>> unselfish as it gets.
>
>LOL. You advocate denying individuals the resource necessary to retain
>the lifestyle they choose, just so you can continue to waste the
>resource. You really are the selfish, uncaring individual, having no
>concept of what it means to be a member of a society.
>
> You, on the other hand, want me to drive a car
>> that I don't want so you can afford to put gas in your boat?
>
>Not at all.
>
>>>You really don't give a damn if someone else has to
>>>completely change their lifestyle because YOU, in your condescending
>>>selfishness refuse to just modify yours.
>>
>>
>> I'm not asking anyone to change anything - you are.
>
>True. You're asking people to go on their merry way and continue to
>waste the resource. Unfortunately, that cannot continue.
>
>>>When everybody modifies a little, everybody gets to keep most of what
>>>you want. With you it's all or nothing.
>>
>>
>> And that is exactly what price will do. The difference is that I pick
>> what and how I want to "modify a little" not you.
>
>You have proven incapable of exercising the self restraint, so it must
>be done for you. If that limits your choice, that's tough.
>
>>>And that's what makes you reactionaries so vicious.
>>
>>
>> Labels are convenient.
>
>If the shoe fits, it must be worn. And it does fit you quite well. Or
>would you prefer being called a libertarian loon( which also fits )?
>
>What's your CHOICE?
>
>>>>>ends when it impinges on mine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How does my ownership of a perfectly legal consumer product, used
>>>>perfectly legally, impinge on you?
>>>
>>>(sigh). That was explained previously. Review the thread. I have no
>>>desire of repeating myself. Do a little work. And besides. somebody
>>>who CLAIMS to hold a doctorate ought to be able to make the inference.
>>
>>
>> No, it was not explained previously - at least not to anyone's
>> satisfaction. Here's your explanation:
>
>> "Yes, Olly, we are all free to do what we want just so long as our
>> pursuit of our freedom doesn't impinge on someone else's pursuit of
>> their freedom. When we have a finite resource, such as oil, we cannot
>> permit those who have money to waste the resource, because it impinges
>> on the remainder of the population. Consequently, your argument fails
>> that test, because if we allow people to purchase SUV's when they have
>> no real need for the vehicles simply because they can, then their
>> pursuit of freedom does impinge on everyone else's."
>
>I'm sorry that you aren't satisfied with it. That's tough. You don't
>get to waste a finite resource that everyone needs simply because you CAN.
>
>> Let's say for a moment I agree - now, let's put it into a non-Alan
>> focused context:
>>
>> Yes, Alan, we are all free to do what we want as lonmg as it doesn't
>> impinge on someone else. When you burn a gallonm of gas in your boat
>> for your pleasure, oil consumption, and hence the price of oil goes up.
>> Because of this price increase, a commuter now must change his
>> lifestyle to his detriment to afford the increased price.
>> Consequently, your argument fails the test because if we allow people
>> to hedonistically consume gasoline for no other purpose than their own
>> personal enjoyment, others pay the price - it impinges on them.
>>
>> How is your gas wasting boating any different than soccer moms gas
>> wasting SUV?
>
>It is not wasting it because the engine I use to power my boat gets no
>better or worse mileage than its competition. So I cannot purchase
>another boat which provides better mileage and meets the same needs.
>With SUV's however, such is NOT the case. Other vehicles would serve
>the needs equally well with far superior mileage.
>
>You don't really understand the distinction, do you.
>
>And BTW, my boat gets better mileage than my SUV. So maybe people ought
>to give up theirs UV's for boats?
>
>Now, if you're saying that we should restrict the use of fuel to non
>recreation applications, why that is another matter. is that what
>you're proposing?
>
>I have no problem with recreational uses of fuel. i have a problem with
>waste of fuel, which SUV's do, simply because 95% of the people who
>drive them would be equally well served by another vehicle which gets
>far superior mileage.
>
>Understand the difference?
>
>And I note that you have no reply and snipped the explanation I gave to
>the soccer mom.
>
>>>>>A little
>>>>>thing that you seem to ignore.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ignore? I will ignore your assertion that you have a need for an SUV
>>>>because you pull a boat and drive on the beach and someone else who may
>>>>not do those things somehow should not be entitled to own one. What
>>>>makes your leisure so damned valuable to me?
>>>
>>>We will ignore your ridiculous comments.
>>
>>
>> Convenient, eh? You won't acknowledge that pulling a boat and then
>> riding it around fror pleasure is a waste of energy. You selfish
>> little ingrate.
>
>Are you asserting that we should not use any energy to support
>recreational pursuits? What happened to your freedom of choice argument?
>
>Or is just used when convenient, and discarded when not so?
>
>Silly goose, you twist the argument to things which were never said. We
>were discussing not taking away someone's personal transportation
>vehicle and NOT discussing prohibiting them from using personal
>transportation, but simply stating that the vehicle they use should
>suit their needs. So your argument fails because it would require
>giving up an activity of choice. I make no assertion that individuals
>should stop driving.
>
>big difference.
>
>>>Individuals have no right to
>>>waste a finite resource.
>>
>>
>> OK - and the way we stop them from doing this is not police action but
>> economic action.
>
>Since they have not exercised self-restraint, it must be done for them.
> In that way, each gets his fair share, prices remain stable, so all
>can afford it, and each gets to choose how he will use their fair share.
> Thus, if you want to waste it in your SUV, fine; if I want to put it
>in my boat, fine. But neither of us gets more than our allocation.
>
>That's fair. And it give freedom of choice. And it also insures no waste.
>
>>>You think they do. We have no further basis
>>>for discussion if you hold to that selfish view.
>>
>>
>> You hold the view, Alan.
>
>That view was articulated by you quite well. You are a selfish
>individual. Why else would you object to getting only your fair share?
>
> You burned how many gallons of gas riding
>> around in your boat last week - for what? Fun. Your fun. Your own
>> personal selfish fun.
>
>Indeed I did. But unlike your solution, my boat does not get any better
>or worse gas mileage than any other boat and engine of comparable size.
> So I am not wasting the resource in comparison to other boaters,
>unlike the SUV driver who could be better served with a standard car.
>
>You see, YOUR solution requires that I give up an activity. My solution
>doesn't. It simply requires those to get a different car.
>
>That appears to be a distinction between my position and yours, that you
>have a greet deal of trouble understanding.
>
>>>( remainder of post snipped not worth replying to )
>>
>>
>> Because it hit's a bit too close to home.
>
>No. I'm getting sick and tired of your selfish antisocial attitude.
>You think that you get to waste a resource just because you can, not
>giving a hoot of how it affects anyone else. You think it's OK for the
>total burden of conservation to be borne by those in the middle and
>bottom of the earning scale, just so long as YOU can have your big SUV.
> You think that everyone else should have to alter their lifestyle just
>so long as YOU don't have to.
>
>That's selfish, and that's the reactionary way.
>
>> You did a nice job cutting and manipulating, dodging and weaving but
>> until you reconcile your need to fish and boat as societally necessary,
>> you are a hypocrite to argue that an SUV owner is wasteful because they
>> don't use their SUV to four wheel.
>
>I cut your inane and self-serving and selfish comments because they
>don't deserve or merit further discussion. I cannot discuss something
>with one so callous and disregarding of the common needs in favor his
>selfish interests. so go on, rant about market factors and free choice.
> But at the end of the day, market factors don't apply equally to all
>people, and that's the difference between you and me. You're afraid of
>being treated just like everyone else, with no special treatment because
>you have a few bucks.
>
>Tough. You're no better than anyone else, and you're not entitled to
>any more of the declining resource than anyone else.
>
>
>> Until you figure out that the only way to stimulate new technology
>> development is to provide financial incentives in the private sector to
>> do so, you will forever be mired in the muck of paternalistic
>> government as the savior.
>
>Until you figure out that capitalism never moved an inch beyond its
>profits and never did anything for the public good that it couldn't make
>a dollar from, and until you realize that capitalism left unchecked
>abused the workers, then you really have the scale on your eyes.
>
>> Until you recognize that you cannot legislate human behavior by
>> limiting choice but rather need to provide incentives, you will forever
>> be stuck in this idea that big brother can and should run your life.
>
>Until you realize that we can legislate behavior because people will not
>do it themselves, you will be stuck in the mistaken idea that praying to
>the almighty dollar will solve everything.
>
>It can't and it won't. That's what we need Government for.
>
>> Now go read Martin Feldstein's proposal.
>>
>> http://www.nber.org/feldstein/oil.html
>>
>> Vouchers with a market twist.
>
>When I get around to it. Now you go and learn what it means to be a
>member of a society.
>
> Alan

.

Relevant Pages
Loading