with a little luck, by the time the energy crisis gets that bad, electric cars will have been made affordable to the lower-income populace like myself. ive been following news of that industry for years now, and would love to drive an electric car, but the purchase price is still prohibitive for me. my current commuter car (a ford escort) gets good mileage and minimizes the impact of fuel price surges on my wallet. gas prices can go up quite a lot from their current state before it really starts to effect me. also, i rent so the market value of the house im in means little to me if nothing else i might be able to afford to buy this place in a few years when the value drops. the price, to me, is a small one to pay for what i get in return.
I wouldn't pin ones hopes on EV's tbh the price of lithium is only going one way. The knock on effect of high oil prices is that all energy prices rise including electricity for an electric car plus wait and see what happens to the availability of electricity once 300 million people start to switch from petrol.
I find it ironic that someone living in the mother-of-all-nanny states takes one look at one law in one tiny town, and makes a thread like this. Edit: to explain, I quoted Supermonkey to help make my point.
Point, although the UK isn't quite as nannyish as most people seem to think. It's bad, sure, but most people hear about CCTV everywhere and somehow automatically think this means we live in a nannyish authoritarian police state or something. Plus there are countries which are far far worse(/better) for being nannyish. Nordic countries and their people tend to consider taxation to be a legitimate form of social manipulation for any purpose in every day life. I mean, I can cross the road when I please. edit: The funny man is right. Government can not give rights, they can only remove them.
On the other hand, The UK ranks last out of all European countries, and on a par with the US in child wellbeing (the Netherlands ranks number one ). In terms of quality of life it also ranks as the one-but-worst (just ahead of Ireland) place to live in Europe --particularly on health care and education. Social manipulation has something going for it.
Those stats tend to be loaded against countries which don't practise extensive governmental social manipulation though. If higher alcohol consumption, higher fast food consumption, and higher death by stupidity rates are all counted against a country, then yes a country which practises less social manipulation is going to come out higher on "quality of life". Quality of life figures sometimes also take account of GDP per capita, life expectancy, etc. Some others take income discrepancy into account, which obviously favours countries which, ultimately, are more left wing for any reason as they redistribute income to a greater extent. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that people are probably happier with their lives in NL, and having spent a good amount of time in Finland where taxation is very explicitly used as a form of social control, I think it can lead to good things - I'm just not sure I'd want that for myself.
You don't because you're a bright, self-suffient guy. But most people frankly need a bit of guidance. The price of being the wise one is that you have to be the wise one --which may mean constricting your self-deterministic freedoms a bit for the good of others who can't handle such freedoms.
But obviously there's a balance to be struck which is inevitably chosen by the individual. I mean, Finland taxes alcohol, unhealthy food, and cigarettes very highly. Now ultimately they're going to ban cigarettes (2050), and I wouldn't be surprised if they move toward the same with really unheathy foods and alcohol. Do I want to live in a society in which there are no alcoholics because no-one is trusted to consume any alcohol? Where there are no fast food pizza joints because no-one is trusted not to become obese and get heart disease? Where no-one is trusted to judge for themselves whether they accept the risk of smoking or not? I don't think I do. Then again I think the one thing that makes us humans special is choice, and that we should hold the respect of that attribute up above all others. There is wisdom in the minority making a small voluntary sacrifice to help the majority in some way. However I don't think it is wise to give up too much choice simply because others aren't good at exercising it.
i agree, and if the majority isn't good at exercising that choice, then we must persist in attempting to model it ourselves, else adopt the "if you can't beat them, join them" sentiment.
so where does one draw the line. how much do you and I have to give up in order to protect the idiots from themselves? it doesnt seem fair to me to be honest. who gets to decide where the line is and why? obviously society needs laws in order to prevent total anarchy, but i think the government spends too much time protecting us from ourselves as it is. no matter how hard to try, people are going to find a way to hurt themselves, and tightening the noose around all of the populace isnt going to stop that. its just going to piss off all the people that enjoy their right to choose.
Balances have to be struck, of course, but keep in mind that restricting people's choices does not only limit your choices; it protects you as well. The stupid actions of some people can have a negative impact on your life. I trust myself with a gun, but I don't think I trust most other people with one... I'd rather give up my right to have one if that means they cannot have one either. We aren't just protecting idiots from themselves. We are also protecting us from them. So I guess where we draw the line is where people's stupidity starts to affect others. Drink driving? Prohibited. Gun ownership? Banned. Smoking? In your own home, please, and accept the health consequences. Drugs? See above. Vaccinations? Compulsory --we have herd immunity to think about. Education? Compulsory; parents' stupidity should not disadvantage their children and dumb kids affect us all. National Insurance? Compulsory, because you are bound to tap into council, social and health services whether you think you're going to or not. Stuff like that. Living in a society comes with a certain obligation to play nice. If people don't want to, they can go live alone in the forests of Washington somewhere. As long as they do not affect other people's lives.
Under the gauze of "safety" we give more and more freedoms away. Case in point, Virginia has a law in place now for boats. You have to take an online course and get a license to drive the boat at all, and if you do not have a license your boat is impounded. All for the fact that people drink and drive their boats and cant be responsible enough to be responsible citizens. I honestly think it comes down to the fact the stupid-idiot-faces are ruining it for the rest of us. And the law makers and scaredy cats of the world need to have some sort of peace of mind. Mainly because our media exploits and perpetuates the scary and moronic events with such ferocity that the populace thinks that if this event happens to them (odds being astronomical) that they will be injured or killed. I think its a dang stupid thing to do when you disarm the public of common sense and replace it with laws that ultimately don't really get paid attention to and the public perception is 'should we be doing this?'. Yea Joe Bob Dingdong, you really shouldnt be smoking near the gas station pump, but because the common sense is replaced with a law or 'rule' you dont think because you where told NOT to think. I honestly run into so many people at my retail job that lack so much sense of being able to make a decision about anything that they need hand-holding of the ultimate caliber of being litterally walked through life - by someone else. It disgusts me. Im getting to the point with people that I just want to bash their face in and say "So hows this feel? It feels great because I said it does and you'll like it" and expecting people to say "My face does feel great!". I rest my case, dont f*** with me retards of the world, Im sick of your stupidity!
If society focused more on enabling people than it did disabling them we wouldn't need all these laws rules & regulations. Let alone more of them. It would also serve as the best line of defence.
People are plenty enabled. They just don't use it. We have free libraries, free museums, free careers advice, free health care, free education. Yet many people don't read, don't try to better themselves, don't make sure their kids go to school. I'm not saying it is easy at all, but there are more possibilities for the bottom rungs of society to climb the ladder than there have ever been. Under the new government however, those opportunities are closing fast...
Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but I'm not sure why you object to a boating license. We require people to have an appropriate license to drive a car, motorcycle, or large vehicle ( e.g bus, 18-wheel truck and trailer). Why not have require a license to operate a boat, especially in an area in which other people are out boating, skiing, or swimming? Safe boating is every bit as important as safe driving, in my opinion.
