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

Alan Lichtenstein 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.

Why is it unacceptable? What is wrong with car pooling? What is wrong
with the bus? What is wrong with telecommuting? What is wrong with
the myriad of alternatives to driving yourself to work every day?

> You don't believe that is. You
> would rather see a host of people suffer just so long as YOU are not
> included.

What makes you think I wiouldn't be impacted by higher gasoline prices?
I already have modified my behavior - I drive less, bike more (yes,
even at my age), walk to the store, and drive a very fuel efficient
car.

You would rather see a host of perople suffer so you can keep using
your boat.

> >>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

A lifestyle enhanced by quick and easy personal transportation.

> 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?

I have no responsibility for their choices. Let's take this analogy -
I have a lifestyle I have been financing with credit card debt. A
lovely lifestyle it is too. Now I am bankrupt - will you please pay my
debt?

> >>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.

People will exercise restraint when it impacts on their pocketbook -
this is not Lichtensteinian common sense, it is economics.

> 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

Not waste, Alan - they choose to use fuel to pursue what they value.
You may perceive it as wasteful, and I perceive your tooling about in a
boat on the Sound equally wasteful.

>a non-renewable resource,
> that choice affects a host of other people eventually and is unacceptable.

Whether or not you accept the choice is not of any consequence. I
don't particluarly care for McDonalds and your consumption of 700
calorie fat laden burgers will impact on me - in rising health care
costs. So?

> There is no doubt that other conservation techniques will be beneficial.
> And rationing will lead to this as well.

Rationing by economics is the only equitable approach.

> >>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.

Once again you humor yourself.

> 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?

You are proposing dictating driving decisions. I simply put a differnt
context on the same attitude.

We will ration lumber by only building 2000 sq ft homes.

> >>>>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.

Fine - think I will.

> when you spend it to waste oil, that affects me and is unacceptable.

I don't spend it to waste it - that would be foolish of me. I spend
money on oil, my money, because I derive value from its use. Because
you do not believe I gain value is of no consequence.

> I am
> > not about to impose my value structure on you.
>
> LOL. What do you suppose you've been doing all along?

I have not imposed on constraints on you regarding how you spend your
money. The only constraint you face is your own economic resources
matched against your desires.

> That's about as
> > unselfish as it gets.
>
> LOL. You advocate denying individuals the resource necessary to retain
> the lifestyle they choose,

I don't deny anything to anyone. I propose that everyone pay for what
they use and everyone use what they feel they need and can afford.

> just so you can continue to waste the
> resource.

As I told you before, I don't drive an SUV - but you do run a boat
around the Sound, now don't you. Is that at all wasteful?

> You really are the selfish, uncaring individual, having no
> concept of what it means to be a member of a society.

Then stop driving your SUV and running your boat.

> 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.

Oh no? So you should get the same allocation as everyone else when in
fact some will go into wasteful uses? Yikes.

> >>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.

Not at all, Alan. I expect that the market will act as an incentive to
manage both the consumption and research end. So far the market has
been spot on every time.

> Unfortunately, that cannot continue.

And it won't. At $2,50 people changed behavior - at $3 or $4 per
gallon you will see even more behavioral change.

> >>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.

Stick it in your ear, Alan. You have no right to tell me what I can or
cannot do because you deem it so.

> If that limits your choice, that's tough.

No, that's tyranical.

> >>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 )?

How about we call you a Marxist, then?

> What's your CHOICE?

I think free market capitalist is probably the best descriptor.

> >>>>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.

Then again, I don't run a boat on the Sound or drive an SUV.

> > 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.

Just using gas to putter around for nothing motre than
self-gratification?

> So I cannot purchase
> another boat which provides better mileage and meets the same needs.

Needs? Oh please you selfish ingrate.

> With SUV's however, such is NOT the case. Other vehicles would serve
> the needs equally well with far superior mileage.

As has been pointed out, the only person who can fairly and honestly
determine whethwer or not a particular vehicle meets their needs is the
owner of that vehicle. You cannot make that determination. Your
premise requires omnipotence.

Oh, never mind - you believe you are all knowing and all knowledgeable.


> You don't really understand the distinction, do you.

Far better than you.

> And BTW, my boat gets better mileage than my SUV. So maybe people ought
> to give up theirs UV's for boats?

Better gas mileage? Spin another tale, why don't you.

> 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 am proposing that each individual should have the freedom to decide
how much and for what purpose they consume any available commercial
product.

> 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.

Obviously soccer moms disagree. They do not view these alternatives as
superior (or even equal for that matter) because if they did, then they
would buy them. And just because you seem to think that they should
recognize this obvious benefit and conform to your way of thinking is
inconsequential. If soccer mom perceives value in an SUV then she
should have the right to own one just as much as you have the right to
own one.

> Understand the difference?

Yes - you somehow think that only you can appreciate what is valuable.
Clearly your fuel efficient unwasteful puttering in your boat is
valuable whereas a soccer mom's perceived value riding high in a $50K
SUV is not. I get it. Thanks for pointing out this to all of us.
What was that about selfishness?

Driving an SUV is not wasteful, Alan. It is a choice. Does a large
SUV burn more fuel than a four door compact - you bet. So?

> And I note that you have no reply and snipped the explanation I gave to
> the soccer mom.

I don't believe I snipped anything, Alan.

> >>>>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?

See - the minute waste is discussed regarding your behavior you get all
huffy and defensive. You got up on your pedestal and said that high
gas prices makes your leisure pursuit more expensive and its all
because soccer moms drive SUVs. Gees.

> Or is just used when convenient, and discarded when not so?

I am all for a single standard - and that is my point. You,
apparently, have adopted this double standard because for some reason.
God only knows howe you manage this in the absence of a mental defect.

> 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.

And based on purchase behjaaviors of soccer moms, the SUV best meets
their (not your) needs. Great. Glad we established that.

> So your argument fails because it would require
> giving up an activity of choice.

No, it does not fail in that you are forcing choices. I simply pointed
out that if in fact you felt wasteful fuel use should be correcfted one
can easily make an argument that your use of fuel is wasteful - since
many people in Kansas don't value trolling in the sound.

> I make no assertion that individuals
> should stop driving.

Yes, you do. You assert that soccer moms should stop driving the
vehicle of their choice.

> big difference.

No 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.

And you know this how?

> In that way, each gets his fair share,

My fair share is measured by the amount I am willing to spend.

>prices remain stable,

price fixing as a solution? What are you, nuts? This cannot and never
has worked. It distorts the economy. It sets you up for all sorts of
problems. Leave the economy alone you imbecile.

> so all
> can afford it,

Oh please - how Marxist can you get.

> and each gets to choose how he will use their fair share.

My fair share is the amount I am willing to buy. If you want to
compete with me on how much, we will do this with economics, not
politics.

> 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.

And this stops waste how?

> That's fair. And it give freedom of choice. And it also insures no waste.

It is not fair at all, Alan. It is administered economics based on
political whim. It is stupid, ineffectual, and destined tio make the
problem worse, not better.

We will still run out of fossil fuel, Alan. Insteasd of 2080 it might
be 2110.

> >>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?

Alan - your definition of fair is screwed up.

What makes you think Marxism is the answer?

> 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.

There you go, Alan.

> But unlike your solution, my boat does not get any better
> or worse gas mileage than any other boat and engine of comparable size.

But the endeavor, other than personal pleasure, adds absolutely NO
VALUE to society. It is, be definition, societally wasteful.

> So I am not wasting the resource in comparison to other boaters,

You are wasting resources in comparison to NON-BOATERS idiot.

> unlike the SUV driver who could be better served with a standard car.

The soccer mon is wasting no more or less gas than any other SUV owner,
Alan. Just because YOU think that equivalent value is derivable from
alternative, more energy efficient, modes of personal transportation
does not change this. For the soccer mom, driving the SUV at $3 has
value - perhaps at $4 it will have less value and she'll drive less.
And at $4 prehaps you'll be using your boat less. We all conserve
together.

> You see, YOUR solution requires that I give up an activity.

Not at all, Alan. In fact, my solution allows you to do as much of
your activity as provides that incremental utility. Its the perfect
solution. You get to decide if a day at the beach is worth a night out
on the town. If you can't afford both, you can choose.

> My solution
> doesn't. It simply requires those to get a different car.

For your solution to have any semblence of fairness everyone should be
required to reduce consumption the same amount proportionately, or? Or
do you propose that the 100 mile a day commuter with the Prius get the
same allocation as the 10 mile a day soccer mom?

So, if you agree to a proportionate decrease, you will have to give up
some boat time, now won't you.

> That appears to be a distinction between my position and yours, that you
> have a greet deal of trouble understanding.

The trouble lies in your cognition, I'm afraid. For some reason you
fuigure the allocation to soccer moms will force them to give up their
SUVs but not force you to give up your boat. How is that?

> >>( 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.

And me of your own selfishness disguised in a wrapper of socialistic
bullshit.

> You think that you get to waste a resource just because you can,

It's only wasteful in your definition of waste, idiot.

> not
> giving a hoot of how it affects anyone else.

Let the market motivate behavior. My goodness Alan, when the price of
tofu goes up, people eat less tofu.

> 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.

I don't HAVE a bigass SUV - I drive a two door, fuel efficient, import.

> You think that everyone else should have to alter their lifestyle just
> so long as YOU don't have to.

I think you need to alter your lifestyle as much as you want others to
change theres - and that is best done by economics, not fiat.

> That's selfish, and that's the reactionary way.

It's hardly selfish or reactionary. It is common sense economics. You
want freedoms and choices - so dammit, allow it to happen.

> > 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.

Because they hit cose to home.

> I cannot discuss something
> with one so callous and disregarding of the common needs in favor his
> selfish interests.

Now you've taken it far into the personal level - and that is a good
indication you've run out of rational argument. Seems this thread is
grinding to the inevitable Alanesque sputter of ....you ar so selfsh,
inane, oh oh oh ....

> so go on, rant about market factors and free choice.

Because that is what this country is founded on. Not marxism, not
socialism, not communism. No administered prioces, no artificial
market manipulations, no political whimsy redefining reality because it
is "fair" and "right" and God help the poor who can't afford
it....boooohooo.

> 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.

The market is inherently stupid - it can't tell the difference. Don't
you get this basic concept?

> You're afraid of
> being treated just like everyone else, with no special treatment because
> you have a few bucks.

I don't expect or want special treatment. I do expect the market to
treat all consumers equally in the absence of any meddling on the part
of lefty do gooders.

> Tough. You're no better than anyone else, and you're not entitled to
> any more of the declining resource than anyone else.

That's absolutely right. There are 1 million gallons of gas available
at $3 a gallon and I will pay $3 a gallon just like 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

What do you think keeps people employed?

> and never did anything for the public good that it couldn't make
> a dollar from,

Isn't that perfect though? Like I said, the market is predictable in
its motivations. No whimsy, no back door, no subjectiity.

> and until you realize that capitalism left unchecked
> abused the workers, then you really have the scale on your eyes.

Marxism left unchecked is a better concept?

> > 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 has so far.

> It can't and it won't. That's what we need Government for.

We need as little as possible.

> > 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.

Learn what you learned? A good member of society is one who
unfailingly does what father tells him is right and just and to take
his word for it?

Yeh, sure.

Go read Feldstein

js

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
    ... >> Alan Lichtenstein wrote: ... >>>Your freedom of choice argument fails. ... > it is in the interests of the common good to maintain that lifestyle. ... When the price is high enough then self-imposed rationing ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Slrnface fixed! (Was Re: Blinky, add view X-Face to your slrn page)
    ... I have slrnpull kill all articles ... can always talk, Alan, I am honest with you and treat you in a civil ... will *always* buy this stuff and will buy entertainment. ... Hawaii has just written into law a price cap on gasoline ...
    (news.software.readers)
  • Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
    ... do you Alan. ... > generalized CHOSEN lifestyle of society. ... Because the vehicles are not wasteful. ... as long as they don't drive an SUV or, if they drive an SUV they only ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Fish Stories and Other Tales of the Sea
    ... Full Price *and* an extra ... fine boat or a pet snake who not only read and understood what Alan ... but took him "seriously" and laid down to die. ... "I'm being held to task for YOUR fiction. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Started to plan for NYC.
    ... hotel, your choice of location will be not very wide - it will be the ... sometimes within your price range. ... I booked using priceline and that time I ... thanks Alan: We use Priceline too. ...
    (rec.travel.usa-canada)