Yeah, this should help gas prices!

JuanCarlos said:
If caring about negative externalities makes me a socialist, then you can call me comrade.
Click to expand...

Wow, you get credit just for that phrase Comrade!

However, it is the use of political force to eliminate peoples freedom of choice, and compel them to drive only the approved class of vehicle that is socialist.

Redworm said:
for frak's sake, every time someone here can't make a reasoned argument they throw out the word socialist

I suggest you do a little research into what socialism actually means before you try connecting it to crash safety.
Click to expand...

Research? I lived it....I saw this first-hand in the DDR (East Germany). Everyone drove a Trabant:

110-trabant.jpg

Trabant - 1950 : The Trabant put communist-era Eastern Bloc residents on wheels, as big a revolution behind the Iron Curtain as the VW Beetle was for their western cousins. Several versions were made, but the famous P600 (plastic body, 600cc two-stroke) 'Trabbie' was made for 30 years unchanged.
Click to expand...

Strange, when the Wall came down, those good Comrades couldn't unload their Trabbies fast enough!
 
However it is the use of political force to eliminate peoples freedom of choice, and compel them to drive only the approved class of vehicle that is socialist.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever supported using political force to ban SUVs altogether. However I don't really see the issue with finding a way to force their owners to pay for the negative externalities they'd otherwise avoid the cost of. Everything from decreased safety of non-SUV drivers (we've seen this attempted in increased liability insurance rates), to the negative effects of increased fuel use (increased dependence on foreign oil, environmental impacts, both could be addressed though increased taxes on gasoline), to all the little things like decreased visibility for non-SUV drivers (could also be addressed through insurance, since it can raise accident rates as a whole, or through registration fees, or other ways that I don't care to come up with since you're not going to agree anyway).

Or you could just tax SUVs directly, but I think it's probably better to somehow tax their use than ownership, since it's entirely possible I might own an SUV as an extra vehicle that I only take out once a year for camping trips, at which point I'm not causing nearly the negative externalities of somebody who drives it alone to work every day.

Anyway, there's nothing "socialist" about in trying to get people to pay for the full cost of their activities.

EDIT: As an aside, I'd really only favor taxes to regulate such externalities if the funds collected were actually used to somehow address them...anything from alternative fuel research to environmental cleanup to mass transit solutions. Which, of course, would never actually happen but us commies can dream, can't we?

Those things would probably be a big hit in Berkley, CA......
Click to expand...

Been to the Bay Area, they seem to love their Mini Coopers there. Shinier than the Trabant, and I'd wager a lot more fun to drive (I've driven the former, but not the latter). Pricey, I suppose, but at that point I think a VW would be easier to find parts for than a Trabant.

EDIT: Former? Latter? I'm confused, and I wrote it, so I figure I'm not the only one. But yeah, I've driven the Cooper.
 
I don't really see the issue with finding a way to force their owners to pay for the negative externalities they'd otherwise avoid the cost of. Everything from decreased safety of non-SUV drivers (we've seen this attempted in increased liability insurance rates), to the negative effects of increased fuel use (increased dependence on foreign oil, environmental impacts, both could be addressed though increased taxes on gasoline), to all the little things like decreased visibility for non-SUV drivers (could also be addressed through insurance, since it can raise accident rates
Click to expand...

SUV owners already pay more in gas taxes (per mile) by virtue of their lower fuel economy than some econo-box.

Whichever vehicle is the unsafest pays the highest car insurance as well.
 
Those things would probably be a big hit in Berkley, CA......
Click to expand...
you guys are just as bad as the people who call gun owners a bunch of inbred, buck toothed hillbillies

good job taking the high road, buddy
 
JuanCarlos said:
I don't think I've ever supported using political force to ban SUVs altogether.
Click to expand...

Altogether? Do you mean "Not till we have the power?"

However I don't really see the issue with finding a way to force their owners to pay for the negative externalities....Everything from decreased safety of non-SUV drivers....to all the little things like decreased visibility for non-SUV drivers
Click to expand...

I think I see your point, those non-SUV drivers should be forced to pay for the higher fatality rate and reduced visibility issues their little cars create.

Or you could just tax SUVs directly, but I think it's probably better to somehow tax their use than ownership, since it's entirely possible I might own an SUV as an extra vehicle that I only take out once a year for camping trips
Click to expand...

Well of course it's different when it applies to you.

Been to the Bay Area, they seem to love their Mini Coopers there. Shinier than the Trabant, and I'd wager a lot more fun to drive (I've driven the latter, but not the former). Pricey, I suppose, but at that point I think a VW would be easier to find parts for than a Trabant.
Click to expand...

I drove a Trabant. No American auto writer's vocabulary (even regarding a Chevy Cavalier) would be sufficient to describe a Trabant. I tried to import a Trabant (really nice new one) but this worker's paradise ride was deemed unsafe for the American road.
 
For Pete's sake, it was a joke.

Are you always this uptight ??
Click to expand...
right, and if you were being called an inbred, buck-toothed hillbilly because you own guns you would just laugh it off as a joke? :rolleyes: how many times have you thrown the socialist label around here as a joke?
 
for frak's sake, every time someone here can't make a reasoned argument they throw out the word socialist

I suggest you do a little research into what socialism actually means before you try connecting it to crash safety.
Click to expand...
Every time someone blows one of your silly theories away you claim they haven't understood/researched/reasoned it through. Bigger and bigger government micromanaging our lives as if we were their property resembles socialism enough for me.
 
I don't think I've ever supported using political force to ban SUVs altogether.
Click to expand...
Altogether? Do you mean "Not till we have the power?"
Click to expand...

Man, wut?

I think you're trying to say something here, but I think it's either nonsensical or wrong...or both.

EDIT: And no, I meant altogether. I think people have every right to buy themselves an SUV if they feel like it, and besides that there are plenty of people who have a legitimate need for one.

I think I see your point, those non-SUV drivers should be forced to pay for the higher fatality rate and reduced visibility issues their little cars create.
Click to expand...

I guess if you see SUVs as the default (or optimal) vehicle that people should drive, that makes sense. From a pure physics standpoint, moving two tons of vehicle in order to transport a single 200lb (or less) person from A to B seems woefully inefficient. Hell, even one ton of steel seems a bit excessive. I'd say using as little energy as possible per person to get them to their destination is probably a reasonable goal, at least as long as we're using nonrenewable resources to do it.

Or you could just tax SUVs directly, but I think it's probably better to somehow tax their use than ownership, since it's entirely possible I might own an SUV as an extra vehicle that I only take out once a year for camping trips
Click to expand...
Well of course it's different when it applies to you.
Click to expand...

Um...no. My point is that the externalities are generally created by use not ownership, and thus any attempt to offset those externalities should be based on use, not ownership. Does some part of that not makes sense to you?

If it helps, replace the second two "I"s with "you" or "one." Same statement. I don't see how it's "different" when it applies to me.
 
I'd say probably about.......................NONE!!

Are you drinking?
Click to expand...
right, because saying that a car associated with east german communism would be popular in a liberal town like berkley was the first and only time you've made such a reference and it was just in sheer jest, in no way implying that the residents of said town are socialists/communists/etc

Every time someone blows one of your silly theories away you claim they haven't understood/researched/reasoned it through. Bigger and bigger government micromanaging our lives as if we were their property resembles socialism enough for me.
Click to expand...
That's the key. Just because it resembles it enough for you does not change the actual meaning of the word.

I'm sorry that I have to recommend that people actually inform themselves on a topic before arguing it. I shouldn't really have to.
 
right, because saying that a car associated with east german communism would be popular in a liberal town like berkley was the first and only time you've made such a reference and it was just in sheer jest, in no way implying that the residents of said town are socialists/communists/etc
Click to expand...

The joke was in reference to all of the tree-hugging, bugging-hugging, granola-eating hippies which abound there, no matter their political persuasion.

Get a grip.
 
JuanCarlos said:
I think you're trying to say something here, but I think it's either nonsensical or wrong...or both.
Click to expand...

Try saying....."I don't think I've ever supported using political force to ban firearms altogether". See how it sounds.

I guess if you see SUVs as the default (or optimal) vehicle that people should drive, that makes sense. From a pure physics standpoint, moving two tons of vehicle in order to transport a single 200lb (or less) person from A to B seems woefully inefficient. Hell, even one ton of steel seems a bit excessive. I'd say using as little energy as possible per person to get them to their destination is probably a reasonable goal, at least as long as we're using nonrenewable resources to do it.
Click to expand...

...and, I present you the Trabant!

Entirely unreasonable in terms of public safety. You are thinking only of energy efficiency; little solace when they're trying to Hurst-tool you out of the wreckage. Modern AWD cross-overs (ideally weighing about 4000 lbs) are the safest vehicles on the road, and have capabilities (as you acknowledge) that far exceed cars. No one shuttles essential health-care workers to the aged home in deep snow using a Prius.

Um...no. My point is that the externalities are generally created by use not ownership, and thus any attempt to offset those externalities should be based on use, not ownership. Does some part of that not makes sense to you?
Click to expand...

Yes, because I know who's going to measure my SUV, firearm, turbo-charged espresso maker use; the federal government.
 
Redworm said:
I suggest you do a little research into what socialism actually means...I'm sorry that I have to recommend that people actually inform themselves on a topic before arguing it
Click to expand...
.

I'd like to suggest that you try shopping the bare shelves at City Center, driving and maintaining a Trabant -- that you waited 7 years for -- and sitting on the barricades at Checkpoint Charlie, watching Westerners drive and walk out into a world that you are prohibited from going to, will never see, will be killed if you attempt to enter.

That was life in the showcase of Socialist achievement; East Berlin.

If your socialism was gleaned from an American university professor, I'd respectfully suggest that the education was incomplete.
 
And I'd like to suggest that maybe the world doesn't exist in two extremes. Keep on throwing the socialist platitude around, it's really helping your argument.
 
Try saying....."I don't think I've ever supported using political force to ban firearms altogether". See how it sounds.
Click to expand...

Sounds like somebody who doesn't favor an outright ban. I think a majority of people, even a majority of gunowners, are willing to accept some level of restriction on gun ownership and purchase as necessary (or beneficial) however...as with most issues that aren't black-or-white, it's a matter of where the line is drawn.

Which is why we have fun terms like "strict scrutiny" (in the case of Constitutional rights).

Yes, because I know who's going to measure my SUV, firearm, turbo-charged espresso maker use; the federal government.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd say the most appropriate level to impose measures to offset these externalities is probably the state level. Maybe lower, though I'd say the scope of the issue is large enough to put it beyond the city or county level. Kinda screws you over if you live in a state like California (or New York, or Illinois) I suppose, but I'll be the first to agree that in most instances the federal government is not the best entity to tackle a given issue.

If only because more local levels of government are much more capable of taking into consideration local factors: Tuscon, AZ isn't nearly as likely to have to deal with "deep snow" as Bozeman, MT...or even Flagstaff, AZ (which is why hopefully the Arizona state government would take such differences within their state into consideration, though a Senator from Florida is unlikely to).
 
Redworm said:
And I'd like to suggest that maybe the world doesn't exist in two extremes.
Click to expand...

Of course not. It's never been East and West. Seperated by a Wall, and a no-entry death-strip, with machine gun equipped guard towers.
 
Of course not. It's never been East and West. Seperated by a Wall, and a no-entry death-strip, with machine gun equipped guard towers.
Click to expand...
Germany != the world

That's ignoring the fact that even divided Germany didn't exist as two extremes.
 
I am a little late to the SUV argument but I did a lot of research on them awhile back before buying my truck. I found a couple studies (not the ones below, they are different, I will look for them again after I post this) that showed even though you are less likely to be injured in a collision (adult drivers but not children), you are more likely to be injured over-all while driving one when you factor in single vehicle accidents. SUV's are much more likely to be involved in such accidents. Also, SUV's are more likely to be involved in a collision than a passenger car due to poorer handling, larger blindspots, etc.

As for how much gas they use..you are the one paying for it. If you want or need an SUV get one. Just don't use the fallacy that you are somehow safer in one as a defense. Just say I wanted it, I can afford it, and it is my right to own it.

http://www.usinsurancezone.com/news/suv-safety-study.html

http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/automotive/SUVs-Are-Dangerous.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top