Wyoming attemps to ban EVs [CLOSED DUE TO POLITICS]

[DennisD]

That's a well thought out argument.
However, to balance that thesis Government is instituted to "govern". If we were left to a TOTALLY FREE society, as an extreme example, chaos will likely become the governance paradigm. It could become something like unsupervised children, hoping for a good outcome. In the end, generalized behavior will likely need to be moderated to achieve some kind of end or progress that benefits society as a whole. Without that wealth becomes polarized, unbalanced and the economic model will probably wobble incessantly. I know that sounds pretty abstract, but worth weaving into the mix. It's not always pain free and achieveing the balance is an ongoing effort with many twists and turns, IMHO, like driving a car down a perfectly straight road. It is always a series of adjustments, regardless.

Kudos!!

Very well stated.

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

The "power" to ban things in Govt. should not be taken away IMHO.

Imagine if you will, a Corporation decided to dump toxic waste next to your property. The only "entity" that could remedy this would be some function of a Govt. whether that be local, State or Federal. Collectively (via voters) one could ban the dumping of toxic waste next to a housing development. I highly doubt that you would welcome a situation where you and the people around you lost control of that unique situation.

I can see your point but without limits or without the "power" to ban, Corporations tend to take the path of least resistance and the most profit. History has shown that to happen repeatedly. I realize that there are govt. entities that go too far but that can simply be remedied by voting the people that make the decisions out of office. I know that sounds simple but it actually is attainable. California and Wyoming are clearly different. Why, because the makeup of the voters dictate that. Why would you want to lose that? Wyoming is just acting like children to prove a point that banning is bad. I think instead they should do what they feel is best for their situation and go on. Banning EV's was a gimmick and they are shown to be fools at the end of the day.

The "real power" is and always will be to control through elections the people with the handles of power.

Be careful what you wish for my friend. If you limit the ability to ban certain things, it may just become your worst enemy in the end.

Also, the Corporations will find ways to gain back control through lobbying and loopholes but in the end if the people i.e. voters never lose the power to control their abuses, all things should go back to balance so to speak.

The last thing that I would advocate is relinquishing power to a function that I have a say in (voting) for the sake of a few that are directing with their pocketbooks i.e. Corporations.

That's a well thought out argument.
However, to balance that thesis Government is instituted to "govern". If we were left to a TOTALLY FREE society, as an extreme example, chaos will likely become the governance paradigm. It could become something like unsupervised children, hoping for a good outcome. In the end, generalized behavior will likely need to be moderated to achieve some kind of end or progress that benefits society as a whole. Without that wealth becomes polarized, unbalanced and the economic model will probably wobble incessantly. I know that sounds pretty abstract, but worth weaving into the mix. It's not always pain free and achieveing the balance is an ongoing effort with many twists and turns, IMHO, like driving a car down a perfectly straight road. It is always a series of adjustments, regardless.

When I say "government", I am referring to the monopolies that currently rule our lives. And they are monopolies. If you reduce the power of the monopolies to ban things, the result is not a society without any governance of bad behavior. In fact, there are governments in just about every organization we participate in. It is a fantasy to think reducing the power of the monopolies will result in anything but a more free, more innovative, more dynamic and more prosperous society.

A government that can ban ICE cars has no limits. A government that can ban gas stoves has no limits. This is the problem. And while you claim we can effect change with our vote, I disagree. My vote means nothing. It is one of millions. However, if I don't like the behavior of a business, I can refuse to give it my money. Can I refuse to give the Federal Government my money?

"Corporations" are not bad. They are collections of people who are working together to achieve shared goals. And those people are directly impacted by the decisions the monopoly government makes. They should have the ability to influence those decisions, just like every other organization of people can. Again, if you ban corporations from politics, you have to ban all the other organizations that are involved in politics. In order to be fair, of course.

And "corporations" are governments themselves. But they are joined voluntarily, unlike the government monopolies we have no choice but to obey. At least if we don't like the way a particular corporation is governed we can find another job. If a corporation bans ICE cars for all their employees, I can leave. It is much harder to escape when a monopoly like the California does it.

 

[devmach-e]

If a corporation bans ICE cars for all their employees, I can leave. It is much harder to escape when a monopoly like the California does it.

Stop with the hyperbole. California has not banned ICE cars. Not even close. Phasing out new sales of certain ICE vehicles is not the same as banning them. The 2035 target for phasing out sales is hardly set in stone, too.

Don't like the fact that Callifornia gets to set their own emissions standards? Take it up with Richard Nixon who signed into law the very thing that allows California to do so.

 

[mkhuffman]

Stop with the hyperbole. California has not banned ICE cars. Not even close. Phasing out new sales of certain ICE vehicles is not the same as banning them. The 2035 target for phasing out sales is hardly set in stone, too.

Don't like the fact that Callifornia gets to set their own emissions standards? Take it up with Richard Nixon who signed into law the very thing that allows California to do so.

I am less worried about what CA does since I don't live there, but they often are an indicator of what politicians in that party will be attempting in other states, and nationally. That is the biggest concern I have. And yes, I hate the fact that Nixon gave them that power, and I think well over 50% of what the Federal Government does is unconstitutional.

BTW - how is "phasing out" not considered banning? What the monopoly government says is "phased out", is banned. Right?

 

[devmach-e]

I am less worried about what CA does since I don't live there, but they often are an indicator of what politicians in that party will be attempting in other states, and nationally. That is the biggest concern I have. And yes, I hate the fact that Nixon gave them that power, and I think well over 50% of what the Federal Government does is unconstitutional.

BTW - how is "phasing out" not considered banning? What the monopoly government says is "phased out", is banned. Right?

Phasing out new sales is not the same as banning the existing cars from being on the roads. People will still be allowed to drive their existing ICE powered cars for the foreseeable future. They will still be able to buy & sell used cars within the state. It isn't like on January 1st, 2035 massive numbers of electric tow trucks are going to start hauling ICE powered vehicles to the junk yards. And not all new ICE vehicles are being banned. New Plug-in Hybrids can still be bought, at least according to the initial draft plan. And again, that plan is subject to change based on how well the industry is progressing towards the goal of electrification. Personally I think it gets pushed out to 2040. But the next 12 years is enough time for a manufacturer to develop and release at least two completely different iterations of an EV model before the deadline hits. That's an eternity of time to develop something viable. Or multiple somethings. People need to stop clutching their pearls over something that is more than a decade away from happening, if it happens in that time frame.

 

[mkhuffman]

Phasing out new sales is not the same as banning the existing cars from being on the roads. People will still be allowed to drive their existing ICE powered cars for the foreseeable future. They will still be able to buy & sell used cars within the state. It isn't like on January 1st, 2035 massive numbers of electric tow trucks are going to start hauling ICE powered vehicles to the junk yards. And not all new ICE vehicles are being banned. New Plug-in Hybrids can still be bought, at least according to the initial draft plan. And again, that plan is subject to change based on how well the industry is progressing towards the goal of electrification. Personally I think it gets pushed out to 2040. But the next 12 years is enough time for a manufacturer to develop and release at least two completely different iterations of an EV model before the deadline hits. That's an eternity of time to develop something viable. Or multiple somethings. People need to stop clutching their pearls over something that is more than a decade away from happening, if it happens in that time frame.

They are banning the sale of new ICE vehicles. You admit that yet say they are not banning them. They are. And it does not matter if the market will react with alternatives, the monopoly government has still decreed nobody can legally purchase a new ICE vehicle in the state. And that is very bad. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig IMO.

You can personally think it gets pushed out, but that is irrelevant. It should be pushed out to never, and cancelled. There is no date that makes it right or fair or anything other than tyrannical.

 

[DennisD]

When I say "government", I am referring to the monopolies that currently rule our lives. And they are monopolies. If you reduce the power of the monopolies to ban things, the result is not a society without any governance of bad behavior. In fact, there are governments in just about every organization we participate in. It is a fantasy to think reducing the power of the monopolies will result in anything but a more free, more innovative, more dynamic and more prosperous society.

A government that can ban ICE cars has no limits. A government that can ban gas stoves has no limits. This is the problem. And while you claim we can effect change with our vote, I disagree. My vote means nothing. It is one of millions. However, if I don't like the behavior of a business, I can refuse to give it my money. Can I refuse to give the Federal Government my money?

"Corporations" are not bad. They are collections of people who are working together to achieve shared goals. And those people are directly impacted by the decisions the monopoly government makes. They should have the ability to influence those decisions, just like every other organization of people can. Again, if you ban corporations from politics, you have to ban all the other organizations that are involved in politics. In order to be fair, of course.

And "corporations" are governments themselves. But they are joined voluntarily, unlike the government monopolies we have no choice but to obey. At least if we don't like the way a particular corporation is governed we can find another job. If a corporation bans ICE cars for all their employees, I can leave. It is much harder to escape when a monopoly like the California does it.

I own two Corporations (one is a Driving School and the other is in rental homes) and I would not feel personally banned from anything if they chose to ban the Corporations from influencing politics. I still have my vote along with everyone that works for me. The Corporation is mainly a taxing tool used to make more profit in many instances. Now if they were to suggest that everyone in my Corporation was banned from influencing politics, that would be a totally different debate. So the bottom line is that no one is and never was, banned from anything in the past. They just decided to add a layer for the upper class to have more of a voice than non owners of Corporations. Corporations are not people. They simply are OWNED by people. Just like cars are not people but are instead owned by people. The tools if you will, are set in motion to assist in the efficiency of making a profit. I formed a Corporation and added no more people to my payroll than what I had before setting it up. The Corporation in itself is just a tax advantage at the end of the day with a few more perks than a non corporation. That is it.

One does not need to look back that far in our History to show the abuses of a Corporation.

Take Child Labor Laws. The Govt. stepped in to restrict (ban) the overuse of children working for factories etc.

The Govt. i.e. you and I, can dictate what is fair and right from past abuses and in many instances, have no skin in the game for profits therefore they usually tend to change practices of abuse for the right reason.

Govt. have banned lead in paint. I could go on with 1000's of things that Gov't. has banned and when you peel the layers back, more times than not it has cost the Corporations more money for the needed change and it has also shown to save lives in many cases. It is no coincidence that Corporations pump money into propaganda to influence the minds of many of how "bad" the Govt. is. They see the Govt. as a threat to their bottom dollar and they are trying to stop them at all costs. Just like kids that get in trouble at School always think the Principal is bad.

The ICE cars are an example of this same change that is needed. The Gov't., through fuel standards along with clean air and the like are making it better IMO.

And guess what, if you don't like it then vote them out. The Supreme Court has been changed through some past elections and they are changing things drastically. If the people don't like this, they will need to vote the representation they want and all will go back to square one eventually. It takes time but that is what a democracy is all about.

I have one question for you. Do you think it was wrong for the Gov't. to ban lead in paint?

I am just curious how far you would go.

 

[mkhuffman]

I have one question for you. Do you think it was wrong for the Gov't. to ban lead in paint?

I am just curious how far you would go.

I go pretty far. Ask my wife. I think local laws that ban smoking in restaurants are bad. I think the privately owned business should decide for themselves. If they see their business suffer, because for sure I won't go to a smoking establishment, they will change voluntarily. But instead they are forced to change by the monopoly government.

The government could have influenced the market without banning lead. I think once the health effects were known, it was not necessary for the government to ban it. Businesses would have banned it. People would have refused to buy it. It would have been effectively banned by free people instead of by fiat.

Of course we will never know if that is true or not, because the government did ban it. That is the problem with bans - you never will know what would have happened without the ban. And there is no point debating it because I cannot prove it would have happened, and you cannot prove it wouldn't have happened.

To me it is better to be free than to have a monopoly issuing bans and mandating actions. No human society is perfect, and none ever will be. But the power our politicians have is too much. If we could just move the needle toward freedom a little we would all be better off. Yet monopolies are banning cars now. And banning light bulbs. It is out of control.

 

[devmach-e]

They are banning the sale of new ICE vehicles. You admit that yet say they are not banning them. They are. And it does not matter if the market will react with alternatives, the monopoly government has still decreed nobody can legally purchase a new ICE vehicle in the state. And that is very bad. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig IMO.

You can personally think it gets pushed out, but that is irrelevant. It should be pushed out to never, and cancelled. There is no date that makes it right or fair or anything other than tyrannical.

Your original assertion was that California is banning ICE vehicles. The implication being that all ICE vehicles have to go. That's not the case. Some types of ICE vehicles can't be sold as new. And again, new ICE vehicles will still be available, if they are plug-in hybrids, which still have an ICE in them.

I'm not putting lipstick on a pig. I'm pointing out nuances in what exactly is happening and is slated to happen. Nuances which you seem to want to ignore to push a specific doomsday scenario that doesn't actually exist.

 

[mkhuffman]

Your original assertion was that California is banning ICE vehicles. The implication being that all ICE vehicles have to go. That's not the case. Some types of ICE vehicles can't be sold as new. And again, new ICE vehicles will still be available, if they are plug-in hybrids, which still have an ICE in them.

I'm not putting lipstick on a pig. I'm pointing out nuances in what exactly is happening and is slated to happen. Nuances which you seem to want to ignore to push a specific doomsday scenario that doesn't actually exist.

You are parsing my words. They are banning ICE vehicles. They are banning the sale of new ICE vehicles. Those are two ways of saying the same thing. And you know what I meant. I think it was obvious. But regardless, they ARE banning ICE vehicles. That is a fact. And it is a bad direction for our monopoly governments to take.

You cannot nuance a ban. A ban is a ban.

 

[mkhuffman]

I just want to point out that this thread has strayed way far away from the intent of the forum, and it appears the administrator has suppressed the thread. That means it is likely to be locked soon. I don't enjoy debating politics in a car forum, so I hope it does get locked.

 

[DennisD]

I go pretty far. Ask my wife. I think local laws that ban smoking in restaurants are bad. I think the privately owned business should decide for themselves. If they see their business suffer, because for sure I won't go to a smoking establishment, they will change voluntarily. But instead they are forced to change by the monopoly government.

The government could have influenced the market without banning lead. I think once the health effects were known, it was not necessary for the government to ban it. Businesses would have banned it. People would have refused to buy it. It would have been effectively banned by free people instead of by fiat.

Of course we will never know if that is true or not, because the government did ban it. That is the problem with bans - you never will know what would have happened without the ban. And there is no point debating it because I cannot prove it would have happened, and you cannot prove it wouldn't have happened.

To me it is better to be free than to have a monopoly issuing bans and mandating actions. No human society is perfect, and none ever will be. But the power our politicians have is too much. If we could just move the needle toward freedom a little we would all be better off. Yet monopolies are banning cars now. And banning light bulbs. It is out of control.

I think it is quite ironic when you say you would go as far as not banning lead in paint (that has been proven to kill people) but you want to "ban" this thread.

Just when you thought you have heard it all.

In any event, I do enjoy the banter back and forth.

Have a good evening.

 

[mkhuffman]

I think it is quite ironic when you say you would go as far as not banning lead in paint (that has been proven to kill people) but you want to "ban" this thread.

Just when you thought you have heard it all.

In any event, I do enjoy the banter back and forth.

Have a good evening.

I just want politics banned from a car forum. But the forum administrator isn't running a monopoly and we are all voluntarily participating in the forum. So while on the surface it may seem ironic, it isn't really remotely the same thing.

I hope you have a good evening as well.

 

[AllenXS]

Actually enjoying the banter. Given the niceness of the debate why lock it?
Or was that Wyoming lock it?

 

[Hammered]

I just want politics banned from a car forum. But the forum administrator isn't running a monopoly and we are all voluntarily participating in the forum. So while on the surface it may seem ironic, it isn't really remotely the same thing.

Unfortunately the govt's reach has pushed politics into most parts of everyday life.

Let's just ban govts and everything would be alright. Better yet, particularly that federal one, reinstall its chains the document that created it established, and it desperately tries to undo at every turn. Politician shouldn't even be a 'profession'; it should be a duty one is called upon to do, a civic duty like that of a jury.

The biggest issue is however that for the most part its general incompetence has kept it mostly in-check. We're rapidly approaching Ai that's going to be able to encroach on everyone, everywhere. The information age has overwhelmed them because there's just TMI. That's getting sorted very quickly and one company in particular is really damn good at not only sorting the clutter, but integrating its software with the latest Ai systems to enhance it further. The Ai controlling Ai is very close at hand. What this same system is doing in ukraine really has russia quite mad. It's currently getting a massive upgrade thanks in part to that war.
Before this decade is up, we'll have season 3 of westworld solidly at play, without the cool robots and theme parks. Just the giant ball, socially influencing you through every part of life it can .... a path for everyone.

Sponsored