Wyoming attemps to ban EVs [CLOSED DUE TO POLITICS]

[mkhuffman]

My comment has Nothing to do with actual speech. It has to do with what allows corporations to make unlimited indirect political donations in the US.

The problem is you cannot limit corporations without also limiting individuals.

Corporations are a collection of individuals who are working together. And collectively they have shared interests that are just as important as any other organization of people who have shared interests. If you restrict donations from corporations, you have to do exactly the same thing for unions, industry groups and lobbyists in general.

The problem is a whack-a-mole problem. You cannot ban money from politics, because it will find a way to get to the politicians either legally or illegally. It is better for us if it is legal and transparent, rather than illegal and unseen. And if anyone thinks illegal contributions will be fairly prosecuted is dreaming of a world that does not exist.

There is only one solution that will really get money out of politics: reduce the power of the government (politicians and bureaucrats). The less power they have, fewer people will be interested in influencing them. The more power they have to ban things, mandate things, regulate things, the more people are motivated to convince them to do it in a way that benefits them.

So those of you who think that CAFE standards are OK, who think banning ICE vehicles is OK, are contributing to the money problem in politics. Vote against people who want to do those things instead of supporting it if you really want to reduce the influence of money over the decision process.

As has already been posted, banning BEVs in Wyoming is a non-event and was simply meant to start a conversation about how ridiculous banning things is. And yet some people still think it is OK for CA to ban ICEVs and not OK for Wyoming to ban BEVs.

The problem isn't what you are banning, the problem is the politicians have the power to ban things at all. And there lots of people who will pay a politician to try to convince them to ban, or not to ban, the latest thing.

THAT is why we have a money problem in politics. It isn't a court ruling that actually made the process more fair.

Sponsored

 

[Ride_the_lightning]

I’m surprised Florida isn’t in front of this. It really seems like something they’d be all over.

Nah. Retirees like their electric cars. Like fast golf carts, which they also own. Also no gas production in Florida.

 

[ChasingCoral]

The legislation said that adding new power charging stations would require “massive” amounts of new power to “sustain the misadventure of electric vehicles.”

Power stations that could be run on WY coal.

 

[KevinS]

The legislation said that adding new power charging stations would require “massive” amounts of new power to “sustain the misadventure of electric vehicles.”

Power stations that could be run on WY coal.

 

[Jimrpa]

The legislation said that adding new power charging stations would require “massive” amounts of new power to “sustain the misadventure of electric vehicles.”

Power stations that could be run on WY coal.

Isn’t that “WY ‘clean’ coal”?

 

[SyNRG]

Resolution.....Dead

 

[Thunderanger]

I don’t disagree, but they have the space, one if not both of the Walmarts are in easy walking distance to restaurants, CVS etc. I would also like them to be covered.

so ordinarily I would want more services I am just looking at the reality of where they could conveniently place the fast chargers. I have also stopped at other Walmarts with a number of venues that are within easy walking distance.

in addition when you’re desperate for electricity, don’t be picky.

I'm with you on the covering of the stations. Would be nice if they had waste receptacles as well.

 

[DennisD]

The problem is you cannot limit corporations without also limiting individuals.

Corporations are a collection of individuals who are working together. And collectively they have shared interests that are just as important as any other organization of people who have shared interests. If you restrict donations from corporations, you have to do exactly the same thing for unions, industry groups and lobbyists in general.

The problem is a whack-a-mole problem. You cannot ban money from politics, because it will find a way to get to the politicians either legally or illegally. It is better for us if it is legal and transparent, rather than illegal and unseen. And if anyone thinks illegal contributions will be fairly prosecuted is dreaming of a world that does not exist.

There is only one solution that will really get money out of politics: reduce the power of the government (politicians and bureaucrats). The less power they have, fewer people will be interested in influencing them. The more power they have to ban things, mandate things, regulate things, the more people are motivated to convince them to do it in a way that benefits them.

So those of you who think that CAFE standards are OK, who think banning ICE vehicles is OK, are contributing to the money problem in politics. Vote against people who want to do those things instead of supporting it if you really want to reduce the influence of money over the decision process.

As has already been posted, banning BEVs in Wyoming is a non-event and was simply meant to start a conversation about how ridiculous banning things is. And yet some people still think it is OK for CA to ban ICEVs and not OK for Wyoming to ban BEVs.

The problem isn't what you are banning, the problem is the politicians have the power to ban things at all. And there lots of people who will pay a politician to try to convince them to ban, or not to ban, the latest thing.

THAT is why we have a money problem in politics. It isn't a court ruling that actually made the process more fair.

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.

 

[Motomax]

The problem is you cannot limit corporations without also limiting individuals.

Corporations are a collection of individuals who are working together. And collectively they have shared interests that are just as important as any other organization of people who have shared interests. If you restrict donations from corporations, you have to do exactly the same thing for unions, industry groups and lobbyists in general.

The problem is a whack-a-mole problem. You cannot ban money from politics, because it will find a way to get to the politicians either legally or illegally. It is better for us if it is legal and transparent, rather than illegal and unseen. And if anyone thinks illegal contributions will be fairly prosecuted is dreaming of a world that does not exist.

There is only one solution that will really get money out of politics: reduce the power of the government (politicians and bureaucrats). The less power they have, fewer people will be interested in influencing them. The more power they have to ban things, mandate things, regulate things, the more people are motivated to convince them to do it in a way that benefits them.

So those of you who think that CAFE standards are OK, who think banning ICE vehicles is OK, are contributing to the money problem in politics. Vote against people who want to do those things instead of supporting it if you really want to reduce the influence of money over the decision process.

As has already been posted, banning BEVs in Wyoming is a non-event and was simply meant to start a conversation about how ridiculous banning things is. And yet some people still think it is OK for CA to ban ICEVs and not OK for Wyoming to ban BEVs.

The problem isn't what you are banning, the problem is the politicians have the power to ban things at all. And there lots of people who will pay a politician to try to convince them to ban, or not to ban, the latest thing.

THAT is why we have a money problem in politics. It isn't a court ruling that actually made the process more fair.

Limit it all, they already get their illegal money anyways.
Canada has some very interesting limits on political donations even n individuals. Corporations and unions can’t donate. The government basically funds elections and provides reimbursement to parties based several factor.
The whole corporations are people ruling needs to just go away. I have no issues with corporations or the money they make but who in their right mind would be okay with them controlling the government lol. The government is already self serving, we don’t need two self serving groups deciding everything.
If people stopped supporting the extremes (left/right) the need for major influence goes away completely. There’s a reason politicians are so afraid of the middle ground.

 

[DennisD]

Limit it all, they already get their illegal money anyways.
Canada has some very interesting limits on political donations even n individuals. Corporations and unions can’t donate. The government basically funds elections and provides reimbursement to parties based several factor.
The whole corporations are people ruling needs to just go away. I have no issues with corporations or the money they make but who in their right mind would be okay with them controlling the government lol. The government is already self serving, we don’t need two self serving groups deciding everything.
If people stopped supporting the extremes (left/right) the need for major influence goes away completely. There’s a reason politicians are so afraid of the middle ground.

The crazy thing about letting the Corporations get involved, is that many people are taking two bites of the Apple. The owners of said Corporations along with their individual contributions can tug at the pull strings.

Bottom line is the people and "entities" that have the money, have the power.

If we took the outside influence i.e. money, out of the equation, we would most likely have a much more broad representation than the representation by the few with the purse strings.

Campaign finance would essentially take the money and influence out of it and the politicians would be more focused on what to do rather than when and how much to raise for their next election. This goes both ways (right and left) and it is insane that we allow this to happen.

 

[Thunderanger]

Dark Money must go. There is no reason that anyone, individuals, corporation, unions, or anyone. should be able to donate anonymously to candidates, political parties, PACS or whatever. That's just unfettered corruption. If you can't account for where the money comes from, you can't account for that money's influence.

 

[Thunderanger]

 

[ChasingCoral]

“We didn’t want to make a bill that would say that the dealerships have to really quit selling vehicles,” said Sen. Jim Anderson, R-Casper, the resolution’s sponsor. “We just wanted to make a statement that there is a counter to stopping selling gas vehicles in other states.”

This reminds me of something that happened in MD a few years back. A state delegate from a county near Washington, DC (Prince Georges) proposed a ban on bear hunting (which only happens in the far west of MD). In response, a delegate from western MD proposed a bill that the bears be captured in western MD and released in Price Georges County. Both bills died in committee.

 

[Rory]

Resolution.....Dead

The article SyNRG links is worth a read. Well-written.

 

[EasyPass]

The problem is you cannot limit corporations without also limiting individuals.

Corporations are a collection of individuals who are working together. And collectively they have shared interests that are just as important as any other organization of people who have shared interests. If you restrict donations from corporations, you have to do exactly the same thing for unions, industry groups and lobbyists in general.

The problem is a whack-a-mole problem. You cannot ban money from politics, because it will find a way to get to the politicians either legally or illegally. It is better for us if it is legal and transparent, rather than illegal and unseen. And if anyone thinks illegal contributions will be fairly prosecuted is dreaming of a world that does not exist.

There is only one solution that will really get money out of politics: reduce the power of the government (politicians and bureaucrats). The less power they have, fewer people will be interested in influencing them. The more power they have to ban things, mandate things, regulate things, the more people are motivated to convince them to do it in a way that benefits them.

So those of you who think that CAFE standards are OK, who think banning ICE vehicles is OK, are contributing to the money problem in politics. Vote against people who want to do those things instead of supporting it if you really want to reduce the influence of money over the decision process.

As has already been posted, banning BEVs in Wyoming is a non-event and was simply meant to start a conversation about how ridiculous banning things is. And yet some people still think it is OK for CA to ban ICEVs and not OK for Wyoming to ban BEVs.

The problem isn't what you are banning, the problem is the politicians have the power to ban things at all. And there lots of people who will pay a politician to try to convince them to ban, or not to ban, the latest thing.

THAT is why we have a money problem in politics. It isn't a court ruling that actually made the process more fair.

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.

Sponsored