Oh but Karl this time Leviathon is really just looking out for our Best Interests. They really just want to do what is best for the "Greater Good."
 
So they have proposed to take away your guns, take away your tax credit for interest on homes over 3000 sq. ft., place a $10.00 tax on every single cigar, and tax the SUV to oblivian. And behind closed doors they are planing on how to give illegal immigrants drivers licenses and the power to vote. They talk of protecting our borders as they lay open the invitation for more.
 
What part of us has any expectation that an intelligent discussion of the value of freedom is even within their capabilities? Because this time the greater good is more important; didn't you get the memo on the consensus?

My email must have been on the fritz that day...though I have no doubt the memo (or at least the intention) exists.

"not something a moral human or patriotic American can purchase. We face too great of a challenge in declining oil production."
 
This has almost convinced me to buy that '06 Pontiac GTO.

I hope the point isn't that vehicles should be totally deregulated, because I'm happy not to live in a The Road Warrior world. We've drawn the line between what you can drive with a regular old class C license, we've forced cars to have a level of safety (and not just to their own drivers), and you know what... if that's a choice we've made as a republic, then we're not fascist in enforcing those regulations.
 
Fascist is putting the well being of the state above that of the individual. Anything patriotic, basically. Anything done "for the national interest." The state has decided that it's a good idea to save gasoline for strategic purposes... they could just as easily decide we should reduce our usage to buy another 10 years of the stuff. Or the state could decide that global warming is 50 years from costing billions in coastal reclamation and agricultural changes, and it's a prudent decision to wack our freedoms now so that the state doesn't collapse in the next generation or two. If the public agreed with the reasoning, they'd approve it and it'd no longer be a fascist idea, but a democratic decision.
 
You'd better find a better argument for supporting Hummers (not that the H3 is a big deal), because once public opinion is largely against them, you won't be able to accuse them of fascism.

"I hope the point isn't that vehicles should be totally deregulated, because I'm happy not to live in a The Road Warrior world."
 
YOU! YOU CAN RUN! BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE! (great line)

It was a democratic decision to elect Hitler.
Democratic decisions can be fascist.

True, but fascist decisions (like having a few people decide what everyone else can drive) are the antithesis of democratic.

What if it's not a few people, but a majority?
 
And since the law already describes what we can drive and what we can't, I have to ask... are you happy with where the line is currently drawn? How do you think that line should be determined, if at all? We all think it'd be great if it were drawn exactly where our own personal opinions would put it...

Ron Paul 2008!

how far can you take that argument?
 
if we have a 'majority' lf of people that belive that islam is a dangerous religon. and then we go on a campaign of lies like al gore stating that islam is bad, and convenice a large majority of people the same thing.
 
should we go and just ban islam, because its for the greater good?
 
if you dont feel right about islam, just pick any other religon, or anything you do. the same arguments can be used.

"In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority." James Madison
 
Madison also said that anyone with power is to be distrusted to a degree. The point here is that no matter how much the majority may think they are in the 'right' to denounce Hummers and the use of oil and that I don't floss my teeth every night, opening the door to let the government tell you how to do these things only sets a dangerous precedent. A free society implies a capitalist economy, and a capitalist economy works best when left to its own devices (read about laissez faire, Adam Smith, and the invisible hand, and try and convince me government control makes anything better).
 
Oh, and bbechtel16- You're not kidding!

Well sure, the people have supported laws in the past that we now think of as immoral (or in the present that we will think of as immoral in the future). That's the risk you take in a republic. But the alternative is an autocracy or oligarchy, and those aren't any less risky.
 
My point in this case is that lines have already been drawn on what's banned and what's not. So to call a small shift in where that line's drawn "the end of freedom" is a bit disingenuous.
 
A separate argument is that if your freedom to a CO2 factory interferes with my freedom to a functional society 50 years down the line, I'm going to get in your face about it. "Your freedom ends where mine begins" is the basis of a free society.
 
(Since I don't think that's quite the case, I'm not asking for SUV bans. Let's not argue global warming in this thread.)

And after preaching he goes and buys private jet for himself. All this talk about stricter laws and government regulations is to fool ordinary people and middle class. Ruling elite will always have choice by ignoring rules and laws because they can. And why they want illegal immigrants to vote? To override middle class and Americas aspiration for freedom. To turn America into another Europe or Mexico. That’s why they want to take gun from you. Not a new idea:
 
I'll Tell You A Little Something That My Daddy Told To Me.
My Basic Fundamentals If You Want To Be Free
’Cause Son There's Something Wrong Internally
So If You Want Your Freedom Son
Don't Want Your Country To Be Overrun
You Got To Keep America Number One
 
 My Daddy Told Me Son Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun
 That's What They Are Trying To Do
 Son Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun
 They're Taking Your Bill Of Rights Away From You!
 
(From Goog Singin’ Good Playin’, Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun, Grand Funk Railroad, 1976, http://gfr.kirdonia.com)

"It was a democratic decision to elect Hitler."
 
That's a gross over simplification. The underhanded tactics he used to get his party elected had a lot to do with Hitler coming to power. His goon squads, called Brown Shirts, were known to stand outside polling stations and offer people the opportunity to vote for the Nazi party or enjoy a wicked beating.
 
Furthermore he didn't begin dismantling the democratic process in Germany until after his party attained a majority in the Reichstag. I believe that was in 1932. In 1934 the Reichstag was suddenly burned to the ground. Hitler said it was a terrorist act carried out by communist/zionist extremist groups (though its widely believed that he had his operatives set the fire). He then claimed that he would need to assume emergency dictatorial powers in order to protect the country from communism and terrorism. He was voted those powers and then essentially took Germany down the Fascist path.
 
Those are just the major high points and I'd have to check my dates, but the point is that there was a lot more involved than just voting in a fascist. He didn't actually portray himself as one. Read the campaign platform for his party from the late 20s or early 30s and you'd start thinking you were a fascist. Most of the stuff on it sounded great and appealed widely to the German public.

The funny thing is that the H3's mileage is decent for it's class. People just focus in the HUMMER name.
 
Also, show me the "majority" that hates HUMMERs, and I'll show you a very loud, arrogant minority.
 
This thinking is just like the idiocy creating the new CAFE standards - stop trying to force people to buy stuff they don't want. If you want people to buy more fuel efficient cars, then increase the price of gas. Simple. Trust me, if gas costs $5-7/gallon, people will buy compacts and subcompacts like they're going out of style. But to force auto companies to stop producing large cars/trucks and produce more compacts, and then don't give the consumer ANY incentive to buy the compacts, is sheer idiocy.
 
Scratch that - it's very clever. Environmentalists don't want to alienate the public, so even though a higher gas price is the honest and efficient way to reduce oil consumption, they will never propose it. Instead, they vilify the automakers and impose draconian regulations on them. This has the same affect on consumers - they end up paying more for cars rather than more for gas - but this time it's those evil automakers that are the problem. Not clueless regulations.

"Hitler said it was a terrorist act carried out by communist/zionist extremist groups (though its widely believed that he had his operatives set the fire). He then claimed that he would need to assume emergency dictatorial powers in order to protect the country from communism and terrorism."
Hmmm...Patriot Act? And they were even clever enough to name it in such a way that you sound anti-American for not supporting it, when in fact not supporting it is probably one of the most "American" things you could do!
 
"Scratch that - it's very clever. Environmentalists don't want to alienate the public, so even though a higher gas price is the honest and efficient way to reduce oil consumption, they will never propose it. Instead, they vilify the automakers and impose draconian regulations on them. This has the same affect on consumers - they end up paying more for cars rather than more for gas - but this time it's those evil automakers that are the problem. Not clueless regulations."
Although I half-heartedly support increased CAFE regulations, simply because I'm sick of cars getting less and LESS fuel efficient, you are right. I personally don't want to pay it but I have to admit $5+ per gallon gas could do some good things for us in the long run. It's also a fair way to get the funding increase that we supposedly need to fix our highway infrastructure.

I too would support a higher price for gasoline. As much as I hate to part with my money at the pump, no matter how fuel efficient my car may be, I see some good reasoning behind raising gas prices through a heftier tax.
 
Its necessary, but it just sucks...

It's not necessary. It is short sided foolishness. Raise prices to rid the market from its single best way of obtaining capital to generating better alternatives.
 
When did government invent something? When have tax money ever really solved a problem with inovation? NEVER. The money to generate real research and development comes from profit. Pure and Simple.
 
Gas prices will go up. They have for the last two years now. Higher Taxes are not going to solve the problem. Better technology will.

"If you want people to buy more fuel efficient cars, then increase the price of gas. Simple. Trust me, if gas costs $5-7/gallon, people will buy compacts and subcompacts like they're going out of style."
 
I agree, but whether you're talking cars or fuel price -- DON'T LET THE GOVERMENT DECIDE. Regulating the price of gas is as foolish as regulating the product mix offered by carmakers.
 
Gas is $3-a-gallon for a reason. Should it cost more? Should it cost less? NO TO BOTH! It should cost what everything in a capitalist free-market economy costs -- WHATEVER THE MARKET SAYS IT SHOULD COST.
 
Is this really so difficult to understand?
 
BTW, as soon as you start down the "yes Karl, but we should alter that price for blah-blah-blah reasons" path we're back to the Hitler/fascist discussion.

Alright alright...you guys are right, free market is the way to be. However, the difference with gas is the government takes care of the roads. And the fairest practical way to bring in the money to do that job is to get all of your road funding monies from fuel taxes. Bigger vehicles use more fuel, vehicles driven more miles use more fuel, paying a greater price due to their greater strain on the infrastructure, and vice versa. The only issue being some vehicles "cheat", like hybrids, and alternative fuel vehicles if they every catch on.
 
Brett I'm not suggesting any money for government research and the like; I know that's a waste of time/money. I just think that fuel taxes should take care of roads, and only roads, and non fuel taxes shouldn't.
 
If someone has a practical way to do it while preventing monopolies, I'm all about privatizing roads and taking it out of the government's hands.

Well, there is some problem that the gas market isn't really a free market one, but still.
 
Also, without direct or indirect government funding, such little things as the internet, computers, and the interstate highway system wouldn't exist. And a whole lot of pure R&D is/was government funded. It often comes to market by capitalist forces, but without the initial R&D investments (many of which weren't really considered R&D at all) the infrastructure or the theoretic principles or whatever wouldn't have happened and the products wouldn't even be in a position to be subject to capitalist forces.

I am all for Vehicle Choice. CAFE standards is a politically expedient, but ultimately not very effective way of dealing with gas consumption and climate change. It is much better to tax gas. This perserves choice, but more accurate reflects the actual costs you impose on society by consuming gas.
 
We are talking adding about $2 or more to the price of a gallon. Europe has this gas tax and they already achieve what the car industry described as *impossible* CAFE standards in the US.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I was FOR higher gas taxes. I just meant if your goal was to reduce oil imports it would be the more logical way.

I understand your position, but I prefer to rely on the market. Look at the last two years. Truck sales have plummetted, large SUV's are no longer the rage. Honda has imported their Fit and will redesign next year. Toyota has committed to have all Hybrids by 2019.
 
Chevy is producing the Volt and Tahoe hybrids with real fuel savings. All of this in response to gas prices going up to $3 per gallon. Higher CAFE and/or gas taxes will not create better solutions, it will cause the same thing that happened in the 1970's. Half baked solutions that did nothing more than drain power and increase real inefficientcies.

"Gas prices will go up. They have for the last two years now. Higher Taxes are not going to solve the problem. Better technology will."
 
Better technology could be developed faster with funding generated from higher gas taxes. Gas prices are not fully determined by the market. Speculators determine the cost of a barrel of oil, not pure market demand. There is no shortage of supply or refining capacity and yet prices keep going up. The media tells us its China's fault. Yeah right. we the people have very little control over oil prices when you really think about it.
 
"Truck sales have plummetted, large SUV's are no longer the rage. "
 
If you count heavy crossovers as trucks sales have not plummeted. Trucks and SUVs are still about half the market just like they were a few years ago. The Tahoe outsells the Prius most months.
 
I'm not in favor of paying more for gas but you cannot reduce consumption drastically by relying on the market. If you dont care about reducing consumption that you can rely on shell games like CAFE or let the market handle it. Either way we wont be using less oil anytime soon. European prices are high but they buy smaller cars, have more diesels, have better mass transit, etc. all due to those high prices. I would be willing to bet they use less oil per person they we do.
 
"When did government invent something? When have tax money ever really solved a problem with inovation?"
 
ever heard of the Manhattan Project? I think that was paid for with tax money. The idea that nothing positive has EVER come out of spending tax dollars is a joke. Lets pay no taxes and then get rid our roads, schools, police departments, parks, military, etc. Now that would be a great society.

"Higher CAFE and/or gas taxes will not create better solutions, it will cause the same thing that happened in the 1970's. Half baked solutions that did nothing more than drain power and increase real inefficientcies."
 
CAFE standards and high gas taxes are NOT the same thing. CAFE's purpose is to make politicians look good and put the blame for our oil consumption on the automakers. Its the perfect way for politicians to do something without actually doing anything. They set the laws and put the responsibility on the automakers to work miracles and turn out pickups that get 35mpg. Higher gas taxes is about discouraging consumption and forcing America into a more efficient way of living all around. One puts all the sacrifice and responsibility on automotive engineers while the other spreads the pain around. Yeah I know, its a bad idea because everything the government does is bad and all but you cant argue that people would use less gas if it costs $6 a gallon.

The Manhatten Project? Is that what you come back with?
 
Capital generation by way of taxes is pathetic. It is always subject to the politicians whims. They don't allocate it correctly or efficiently and we pay the price.
 
The government created the Manhatten project on the backs some of the highest government spending ever. It was not an efficient process. It was high level of wasted money and incredible amounts of investments in a technology that was questionable at the time. I certainly hope we are not suggesting that we can do that here.
 
The Market is already responding to the higher prices. BMW and Mercedes have expanded their future exports to the US to include diesels. Honda is sending diesels over here in the near future.
 
Your gas tax wouldn't create any greater inovation any faster. It would just cost more and fill up the government's pockets.

"Yeah I know, its a bad idea because everything the government does is bad and all but you cant argue that people would use less gas if it costs $6 a gallon."
 
Sure, you are correct, but at what price. Are we willing to permanently disable our economy in the name of saving gas. Gas prices increase the cost of everything. Are you willing to take a pay cut or loose your job for the idea of paying a higher gas tax?
 
Wake up.

Brett,
 
simply put you are arguing about the efficiency of government spending. I am talking about ways to reduce oil consumption. The fact that you think the government does nothing well doesnt negate the fact that higher prices at the pump will affect consumption. YOu admire GErmans and Japanese so much that I am surprised you have such a problem with this concept. If they do it over there how stupid of an idea can it be? The same people who give us all the great over engineered, reliable cars we all know and love believe that high gas taxes and taxes on displacement will affect the driving habits of their citizens and it seems to be working.
 
"Your gas tax wouldn't create any greater inovation any faster. It would just cost more and fill up the government's pockets."
 
Try reading all of what I wrote. I said that gas taxes will lead to less oil usage in the long run. I didnt say the primary purpose of gas taxes was to foster innovation. BTW, high taxes in Japan and GErmany have led to numerous technology advances by their manufacturers. Without displacement taxes in Japan you probably wouldnt have VTEC today. They had to innovate to get a lot of power out of small engines.
 
"Sure, you are correct, but at what price. Are we willing to permanently disable our economy in the name of saving gas. Gas prices increase the cost of everything. Are you willing to take a pay cut or loose your job for the idea of paying a higher gas tax?
  
Wake up."
 
actually you need to wake up. Gas prices are higher in most of the rest of the world and yet they are surviving and thriving. Since Europe is the closest to the US in terms of standard of living I want to know what evidence you have that high gas prices over there have forced people into poverty and suffering. As far as I know they still can afford food, clothing and shelter in spite of their gas prices. They surely can afford better roads and mass transit than we have here so they must be doing something right. I dont know the unemployment rate in all of the EU but I'm pretty sure its only a little higher than ours.
 
No gas tax increase could be hatched overnight, it would have to be phased in over years. When talking about domestic automakers bashers like you are quick to say things like "innovate or get out of way". You dont care about job losses, factory closings, etc. The same applies here. IN the long run the American economy would have to find ways to move people and goods more efficiently or suffer the consequences. The idea that nothing should be done because there could be some short term pain is ludicrous. Either people want to reduce dependency on foreign oil or they dont. If you dont then that's fine and I agree with you that nothing should be done.

Does anyone like my plan? :-) I say tax the fuel appropriately to pay for the infrastructure used by the vehicles burning the fuel, no more, no less. In turn eliminate and give tax relief for other sources of capital for the infrastructure.

Displacement taxes are far different than a gas tax. That is a voluntary tax that is avoidable with smaller displacement engines. You can either chose to pay the tax or inovate around it.
 
A gas tax does not spur independent inovation because everyone pays the same percentage for their use. If I can afford more gas I am not punished any more for driving my car more than the guy down the street driving a Prius. Hence a negative incentive.
 
We already have a sort of displacement tax here in the US with the Gas Guzzler tax. Maybe it is too low to be effective, but the same idea. However, the concept that an across the board tax is the BEST solution to the problem is ridiculous. Of course people will use less gas, but it will cost potentially billions in growth, and not spur inovation any greater.
 
Has their ever been an environment in this country more receptive to fuel savings? And that was accomplished by the Market not by Government taxation. Will a gas tax spur any greater advancement. NO. How could GM and the rest of the manufacturers be any more spurred into action than they are right now? And if so, is that action comensorate with the cost of the tax? I think not.

"Displacement taxes are far different than a gas tax. That is a voluntary tax that is avoidable with smaller displacement engines. You can either chose to pay the tax or inovate around it. "
 
Bullcrap, its a tax on people's freedom to chose whatever engine they want. And it generates revenue for the government so its BAD. Period. If the government shouldnt be allowed to tax gas why should they be allowed to tax larger engines? Do tell.
 
"Of course people will use less gas, but it will cost potentially billions in growth, and not spur inovation any greater. "
 
what is this based on? If money is used to develop more efficient semis and more freight is delivered by rail we can reduce the impact of gas prices on the delivery of goods. There are things that can be done. My guess is that in Europe trucks are smaller and more efficient than the ones here and thus the impact of sky high prices on goods isnt as high as you would think. Higher prices will lead to some innovation, but it will primarily lead to more responsible consumption across the board.
 
"Has their ever been an environment in this country more receptive to fuel savings? And that was accomplished by the Market not by Government taxation."
 
gas is not really higher than it was in the early 80s adjusted for inflation. Did you see an explosion in hybrids in the mid 80s? I didnt. gas has been expensive before and it did spur some changes in technology and habits, but none were significant enough to really reduce our consumption.
 
Once again, I am not about forcing automakers to innovate. That is YOUR thing, not mine. I am merely talking about ways to reduce oil use in this country and thus reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Letting the market innovate is likely to give us slightly more efficient cars they will encourage us to drive slightly more and consume about the same amount of fuel per capita as we do now. I've seen no proof that the hybrids, compacts and crossovers we have today have led to the US using or importing less oil.

"Did you see an explosion in hybrids in the mid 80s? "
 
Well there was an explosion of cars advertising and getting better gas mileage. Cameros with V8's back then (detuned) were getting over 20 mpg on the road. The K car was developed. The popularity of FWD and the GM X - Cars were a response to getting better MPG. Yes, the market takes care of better inovation.
 
Your little point on displacement taxes is misplaced. I was merely pointing that out. Taxes in general are "taxing" on the economy. A necessary evil, but we should not expect them to moderate the economy. My point was not that displacement taxes are good, but that they are less insiduous than a gas tax. At least a displacement tax has the capacity of allowing choice, with the off shoot of encouraging inovation. A gas tax has a wider impact on the economy and the rule of unintended consequences are much more of a factor.
 
In Europe those that want to pay for an engine over 3.0 liters can. Same in Japan. But your tax impact the entire ecomony not just those individual products that are marketing to the wealthy individuals.