60 mpg by 2025

[davelj]

[quote=sdduuuude]Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity. Those actions are violations of rights. I believe at any time, everyone has the right to be peaceful and honest.
[/quote]

If your actions result in pollution that affects other folks against their will (that is, you’re forcing other folks to accept the negative externalities related to your pollution), aren’t you violating their right to clean air, water, etc.?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an environmentalist… but I understand the argument and don’t think it’s without merit. This issue is not at all clear-cut as you would have us believe.

Once someone pulls out libertarian/objectivist viewpoints – which you have here, in so many words (“rigorous, objective”… “series of actions,” etc.) – I immediately see a problem with negative externalities.

[sdduuuude]

(This was in the early 70’s, methinks.)

I think a common peak value was 4 or 5 billion but it varies alot, depending on the inputs, which affect how different variables relate to each other. The peak-to-steady-state value also fluctuated.

The remarkable thing about the model was not the peak value, but the fact that the shape was always the same. It rose to a peak, and a drop always came before the steady state.

[sdduuuude]

(This was in the early 70’s, methinks.)

I think a common peak value was 4 or 5 billion but it varies alot, depending on the inputs, which affect how different variables relate to each other. The peak-to-steady-state value also fluctuated.

The remarkable thing about the model was not the peak value, but the fact that the shape was always the same. It rose to a peak, and a drop always came before the steady state.

[sdduuuude]

(This was in the early 70’s, methinks.)

I think a common peak value was 4 or 5 billion but it varies alot, depending on the inputs, which affect how different variables relate to each other. The peak-to-steady-state value also fluctuated.

The remarkable thing about the model was not the peak value, but the fact that the shape was always the same. It rose to a peak, and a drop always came before the steady state.

[sdduuuude]

(This was in the early 70’s, methinks.)

I think a common peak value was 4 or 5 billion but it varies alot, depending on the inputs, which affect how different variables relate to each other. The peak-to-steady-state value also fluctuated.

The remarkable thing about the model was not the peak value, but the fact that the shape was always the same. It rose to a peak, and a drop always came before the steady state.

[sdduuuude]

(This was in the early 70’s, methinks.)

I think a common peak value was 4 or 5 billion but it varies alot, depending on the inputs, which affect how different variables relate to each other. The peak-to-steady-state value also fluctuated.

The remarkable thing about the model was not the peak value, but the fact that the shape was always the same. It rose to a peak, and a drop always came before the steady state.

[sdduuuude]

I agree – I am violating their right to clean air, water, etc.

Note the words “low-smog” in my post. Lets make that “no smog” then.

This is why I made a distinction between low-MPG regulations and low-pollution regulations earlier.

I don’t consider anything an externality. Everything matters. Double-standards are not allowed. Usually, practicality makes real-life different from the theory, but the theory acts as a prett good guide.

When you argue with me, don’t argue with the Libertatian viewpoint. Argue with my viewpoint. The more I hear what people think Libertarians are, the less I think I am one.

[sdduuuude]

I agree – I am violating their right to clean air, water, etc.

Note the words “low-smog” in my post. Lets make that “no smog” then.

This is why I made a distinction between low-MPG regulations and low-pollution regulations earlier.

I don’t consider anything an externality. Everything matters. Double-standards are not allowed. Usually, practicality makes real-life different from the theory, but the theory acts as a prett good guide.

When you argue with me, don’t argue with the Libertatian viewpoint. Argue with my viewpoint. The more I hear what people think Libertarians are, the less I think I am one.

[sdduuuude]

I agree – I am violating their right to clean air, water, etc.

Note the words “low-smog” in my post. Lets make that “no smog” then.

This is why I made a distinction between low-MPG regulations and low-pollution regulations earlier.

I don’t consider anything an externality. Everything matters. Double-standards are not allowed. Usually, practicality makes real-life different from the theory, but the theory acts as a prett good guide.

When you argue with me, don’t argue with the Libertatian viewpoint. Argue with my viewpoint. The more I hear what people think Libertarians are, the less I think I am one.

[sdduuuude]

I agree – I am violating their right to clean air, water, etc.

Note the words “low-smog” in my post. Lets make that “no smog” then.

This is why I made a distinction between low-MPG regulations and low-pollution regulations earlier.

I don’t consider anything an externality. Everything matters. Double-standards are not allowed. Usually, practicality makes real-life different from the theory, but the theory acts as a prett good guide.

When you argue with me, don’t argue with the Libertatian viewpoint. Argue with my viewpoint. The more I hear what people think Libertarians are, the less I think I am one.

[sdduuuude]

I agree – I am violating their right to clean air, water, etc.

Note the words “low-smog” in my post. Lets make that “no smog” then.

This is why I made a distinction between low-MPG regulations and low-pollution regulations earlier.

I don’t consider anything an externality. Everything matters. Double-standards are not allowed. Usually, practicality makes real-life different from the theory, but the theory acts as a prett good guide.

When you argue with me, don’t argue with the Libertatian viewpoint. Argue with my viewpoint. The more I hear what people think Libertarians are, the less I think I am one.

[justme]

>> == sdduuuude

>>Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.

Using your own type of argument, I could and will argue that wasting oil now imposes an energy debt on the public in the future. So how come that is ok while monetary debt is not? I want that we all stay out of energy debt, through democratic political means. Using your own words, are you gong to force me away from it because of your “inalienable right”?

>>So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest.

That depends completely on some arbitrary choice that you make as to what constitutes “peaceful and honest”.

And by the way, is it “peaceful an honest to waste oil when the US military wastes hundreds of thousands of lives and, by the way, also incurs trillions in public debt dollars to support it?

>>Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity.

I’m not so sure that your definitions are very rigorous nor objective. And therein lies the problem of your stated method.
If you ask me, your whole argument that creating public monetary debt is somehow fundamentally different than wasting oil (creating public energy debt) does not hold up.

I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.

>>Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil.

I am pleased to hear that, and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended by me in saying so. Thank you.

[justme]

>> == sdduuuude

>>Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.

Using your own type of argument, I could and will argue that wasting oil now imposes an energy debt on the public in the future. So how come that is ok while monetary debt is not? I want that we all stay out of energy debt, through democratic political means. Using your own words, are you gong to force me away from it because of your “inalienable right”?

>>So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest.

That depends completely on some arbitrary choice that you make as to what constitutes “peaceful and honest”.

And by the way, is it “peaceful an honest to waste oil when the US military wastes hundreds of thousands of lives and, by the way, also incurs trillions in public debt dollars to support it?

>>Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity.

I’m not so sure that your definitions are very rigorous nor objective. And therein lies the problem of your stated method.
If you ask me, your whole argument that creating public monetary debt is somehow fundamentally different than wasting oil (creating public energy debt) does not hold up.

I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.

>>Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil.

I am pleased to hear that, and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended by me in saying so. Thank you.

[justme]

>> == sdduuuude

>>Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.

Using your own type of argument, I could and will argue that wasting oil now imposes an energy debt on the public in the future. So how come that is ok while monetary debt is not? I want that we all stay out of energy debt, through democratic political means. Using your own words, are you gong to force me away from it because of your “inalienable right”?

>>So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest.

That depends completely on some arbitrary choice that you make as to what constitutes “peaceful and honest”.

And by the way, is it “peaceful an honest to waste oil when the US military wastes hundreds of thousands of lives and, by the way, also incurs trillions in public debt dollars to support it?

>>Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity.

I’m not so sure that your definitions are very rigorous nor objective. And therein lies the problem of your stated method.
If you ask me, your whole argument that creating public monetary debt is somehow fundamentally different than wasting oil (creating public energy debt) does not hold up.

I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.

>>Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil.

I am pleased to hear that, and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended by me in saying so. Thank you.

[justme]

>> == sdduuuude

>>Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.

Using your own type of argument, I could and will argue that wasting oil now imposes an energy debt on the public in the future. So how come that is ok while monetary debt is not? I want that we all stay out of energy debt, through democratic political means. Using your own words, are you gong to force me away from it because of your “inalienable right”?

>>So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest.

That depends completely on some arbitrary choice that you make as to what constitutes “peaceful and honest”.

And by the way, is it “peaceful an honest to waste oil when the US military wastes hundreds of thousands of lives and, by the way, also incurs trillions in public debt dollars to support it?

>>Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity.

I’m not so sure that your definitions are very rigorous nor objective. And therein lies the problem of your stated method.
If you ask me, your whole argument that creating public monetary debt is somehow fundamentally different than wasting oil (creating public energy debt) does not hold up.

I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.

>>Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil.

I am pleased to hear that, and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended by me in saying so. Thank you.

[Author]

Posts