Wyoming attemps to ban EVs [CLOSED DUE TO POLITICS]

Status
Not open for further replies.

DennisD

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Threads
7
Messages
867
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Omaha Nebraska
Vehicles
2022 Mustang Mach E
Occupation
Driving School Instructor
Country flag
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.
Let us recap.

You purposely enter and respond to posts in this thread titled, "Wyoming tempts to bans EV's"

Wyoming, in this example is the legislative branch of the State. That in itself, screams politics. Right (Wyoming) vs. Left (California) in this specific example.

If you look at almost every post of mine (and others on this thread btw) we are asserting our view on when banning is acceptable or not. I get it that you coincide with a more libertarian view and really don't think any role in a Gov't. function should be able to dictate for us but rather allow the market to dictate instead. I not only get that point but I to some extent agree with it to a certain level.

You go on to say that banning should not occur but rather letting the "people" dictate the direction of any said item should be allowed. You even went as far to suggest that the Govt. should not have banned lead from paint. That is still a head scratcher but I digress. :oops:

You now want an entity, if you will to step in and ban this thread because it has digressed into something that you were a full participant in and seemed fine with it to a certain point.

This is where I actually (somewhat) agree with your original assertation of control.

As long as we are civil (and I think we generally are), let us have this debate and let the individuals on this forum decide if they truly want to be participants in this thread rather than an a administrator. If not, they are free to choose to watch or be participants in countless other threads on this forum. Now if we slid into a totally different subject or we were disrespectful with each other, please by all means allow the "hammer ban" take over by the admin. (that is kind of the point of my original assertion of when bans should take place by an authoritative figure.)

After all, we are taking about banning (which once again is the title of this thread) and we are in line with speaking about what role a Govt. entity should have in said control. That is really been my main focus of this entire discussion.

I respectfully disagree with your points but I do see some (and that is a stretch) with a few points of yours. At the end of the day though, I just think that if the actions that a Gov't. does is for the well being of the innocent (through no fault of their own), I am fine with said actions if there is no harm/no foul. If I am in disagreement, I would use my power of the vote to change the direction.
Sponsored

 

mkhuffman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Nov 19, 2020
Threads
24
Messages
6,072
Reaction score
8,020
Location
Virginia
Vehicles
2021 MME GT, Jeep GC-L, VW Jetta
Country flag
Let us recap.

You purposely enter and respond to posts in this thread titled, "Wyoming tempts to bans EV's"

Wyoming, in this example is the legislative branch of the State. That in itself, screams politics. Right (Wyoming) vs. Left (California) in this specific example.

If you look at almost every post of mine (and others on this thread btw) we are asserting our view on when banning is acceptable or not. I get it that you coincide with a more libertarian view and really don't think any role in a Gov't. function should be able to dictate for us but rather allow the market to dictate instead. I not only get that point but I to some extent agree with it to a certain level.

You go on to say that banning should not occur but rather letting the "people" dictate the direction of any said item should be allowed. You even went as far to suggest that the Govt. should not have banned lead from paint. That is still a head scratcher but I digress. :oops:

You now want an entity, if you will to step in and ban this thread because it has digressed into something that you were a full participant in and seemed fine with it to a certain point.

This is where I actually (somewhat) agree with your original assertation of control.

As long as we are civil (and I think we generally are), let us have this debate and let the individuals on this forum decide if they truly want to be participants in this thread rather than an a administrator. If not, they are free to choose to watch or be participants in countless other threads on this forum. Now if we slid into a totally different subject or we were disrespectful with each other, please by all means allow the "hammer ban" take over by the admin. (that is kind of the point of my original assertion of when bans should take place by an authoritative figure.)

After all, we are taking about banning (which once again is the title of this thread) and we are in line with speaking about what role a Govt. entity should have in said control. That is really been my main focus of this entire discussion.

I respectfully disagree with your points but I do see some (and that is a stretch) with a few points of yours. At the end of the day though, I just think that if the actions that a Gov't. does is for the well being of the innocent (through no fault of their own), I am fine with said actions if there is no harm/no foul. If I am in disagreement, I would use my power of the vote to change the direction.
Thanks for remaining civil, and that is probably why we are still able to have the conversation - we have remained civil. And you make a good point about keeping this thread active for those who are interested. Obviously I am interested or I would have abandoned it days ago.

"At the end of the day though, I just think that if the actions that a Gov't. does is for the well being of the innocent (through no fault of their own), I am fine with said actions if there is no harm/no foul. If I am in disagreement, I would use my power of the vote to change the direction."

There is almost no ban that does not have unintended and negative consequences. Banning ICE vehicles could have massively negative consequences. I understand the intent, but the benefit vs. cost is not as clear as banning lead for example. So while I am probably one of few that would want the free market to resolve the lead issue, that one is a more clear, black and white decision. Banning the sale of ICE vehicles could hurt a lot of people and for a benefit that is not proven.

I think BEVs are superior to ICE vehicles in just about every way. The only way they are not superior is purchase cost and refueling on long trips. The cost of producing a BEV will drop to below that of a ICE. And I can see a day when a BEV will go 600+ miles before needing a charge, and L2 destination chargers at every hotel so that we never (or very rarely) need a DCFC stop. As we get closer to that situation, the free market will naturally prefer BEVs and ICE vehicles will no longer be made. VOLUNTARILY. And that is key: it will happen naturally without the need for government to mandate or ban anything. And it will happen in the most efficient way because government is not in the way.

When the government mandates or bans something, it is the same as price controls. Price controls either create shortages, or create waste (surpluses). There is no way for a mastermind politician (most of which are way less intelligent than you) can predict the right price for a product, or the right time a product should be changed (banned, or controlled, or restricted, etc.). If they try, they will cause dislocations and hurt people.

And usually the people who are hurt the most are the people who cannot afford a MME, and can barely afford public transportation. You and I will shrug off a ban because we are wealthy. The waitress who works two jobs in order to buy food for her kids will be the one hurt. And whenever the government tries to mandate or ban something, it will hurt her the most. I care about her, and all the others that are hurt when the government interferes in the free market.
 

mkhuffman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Nov 19, 2020
Threads
24
Messages
6,072
Reaction score
8,020
Location
Virginia
Vehicles
2021 MME GT, Jeep GC-L, VW Jetta
Country flag
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.
We could ban the Federal Government if taxes were voluntary. Imagine that: we actually voluntarily pay for the value we receive. I would pay for national defense and some oversight of interstate commerce. And possibly a law enforcement organization that actually enforces laws that are clear and easy to understand, like child trafficking and serial killers. But I would not pay for most of the rest, and I bet most people would do the same. We could ban them. That would be awesome.

It will never happen.
 

DennisD

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Threads
7
Messages
867
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Omaha Nebraska
Vehicles
2022 Mustang Mach E
Occupation
Driving School Instructor
Country flag
There is almost no ban that does not have unintended and negative consequences. Banning ICE vehicles could have massively negative consequences. I understand the intent, but the benefit vs. cost is not as clear as banning lead for example. So while I am probably one of few that would want the free market to resolve the lead issue, that one is a more clear, black and white decision. Banning the sale of ICE vehicles could hurt a lot of people and for a benefit that is not proven.
I agree with you. There is usually a consequence of banning things but most have the "spirit", if you will, to protect the innocent.

When the Gov't. banned slavery, there were real economic impacts of the Plantation owners in the South. I am sure the food prices were raised along with the services they provided went up in financial terms. Those costs were surely distributed amongst the entire nation.

But................and this is a big but, the results far outweighed the consequences from a human perspective.

This may come to a surprise to you but I am not totally on board with the banning of new car sales of ICE vehicles in the future. I live in Nebraska though. The "spirit" of the law was to make the innocent (in this case the very young) to be able to live in a cleaner and better environment for their future.

It all comes down to what are the costs at the end of the day. Do we collectively decide what is best for the nation down the road via Govt.? I think the only answer is yes. (see slavery)

Just like I don't agree with Wyoming (and I realize that it was a poke in the eye to California), I do however think that Wyoming should (if they wanted to) be able to ban EV's if they did indeed have a valid point of the detriment of said device. They don't. That is why IMO, they look foolish.

California on the other hand is much much more populated and they clearly see it from a different lens. While I don't know if I would have gone that far, I do see their points and I would not want to take that ability away from them. Californians will surely have the last say on this. If they don't agree with it, they will have a legislative body that mimics more of Wyoming and it will go back to what we have now. No ban on either one. And it has been pointed out earlier that California is not banning per se ICE vehicles but rather the sale of new ICE down the road. There is a big difference. That IMO, would go way too far.
 
Last edited:

Thunderanger

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bruce
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Threads
20
Messages
302
Reaction score
171
Location
Lake Thunderhead
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach-E Select, 2019 Ram 1500
Occupation
retired
Country flag
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.
We've seen the way the tobacco companies continued to try to attract kids with their ads, and also lied to everyone saying their products were healthy. Corporations cannot be trusted to do what's in the best interest of the public. How many more people would have died from lead poisoning paint or gas in the meantime while the gov't let the corporations sort it out? The government saved lots of lives that the corporations only wanted to make money from regardless of how it affected their health.

Also, Dark Money, money that is untraceable, in elections MUST be banned.
 


Thunderanger

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bruce
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Threads
20
Messages
302
Reaction score
171
Location
Lake Thunderhead
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach-E Select, 2019 Ram 1500
Occupation
retired
Country flag
We could ban the Federal Government if taxes were voluntary. Imagine that: we actually voluntarily pay for the value we receive. I would pay for national defense and some oversight of interstate commerce. And possibly a law enforcement organization that actually enforces laws that are clear and easy to understand, like child trafficking and serial killers. But I would not pay for most of the rest, and I bet most people would do the same. We could ban them. That would be awesome.

It will never happen.
Right. Who needs the fire dept, sewer dept, water dept. Let's let a sea of competing fire companies show up at your fire and then commence to bargain with you regarding whether they should put out the fire in your house. That's the way it was BEFORE civil fire departments.
 

macchiaz-o

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jonathan
Joined
Nov 25, 2019
Threads
168
Messages
8,157
Reaction score
15,299
Location
🔑 ]not/A/gr8'Place.2.store-mEyePassword[ 👀
Vehicles
MY21 J1 Premium RWD SR
Country flag
negation of negation confuses my mind.. :p
I watched the whole discussion. The article did a great job of recapping. This guy Winney was a real hoot.

With gas-powered cars, the heat for the cab and defroster is waste heat, he said, whereas with an EV, it comes out of the battery, further reducing its range.​
Winney suggested it would be practical for the Legislature to explore the options of closing roads to EVs during winter months, just as they close roads to high-profile vehicles during high winds.​
“You need to think in terms of a family that may be moving from Florida to California in February, going around Elk Mountain, and they just don’t understand how to manage loads on their battery,” he said.​

Quite a few logical problems here... But my favorite is that a family moving from Florida to California is somehow going to find themselves in Wyoming. In the winter. WHAT?!! I mean driving across Texas via I-10 **is soooo boring** but it's not as bad as what Winney has planned.
 

Auto Motive

Banned
Banned
First Name
Doug
Joined
May 5, 2021
Threads
4
Messages
665
Reaction score
326
Location
Valencia Pa
Vehicles
2021 mustang mach e GT performance
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
They're doing this as an inverse virtue signaling to the states claiming they're going to ban ICE sales.

Here's lithium pricing... yes, the bottom line is zero
1673973437466.png


Forecast
1673973736041.png


and that was with a little bump in EV production vs ICE production numbers. In just 2 years it 10x'd. What about other minerals, let's see...

1673974527869.png


Wow, where are those going to come from? Who has the magic mine generation wand?

The fact of the matter is that the market is going to drive transition, not govt, let alone state govts. The market has always driven technological changes. You bought a computer, you bought a smart phone, you bought an EV. Not because you were forced to, but because you wanted to. You did it, not the govt.
Agree. Remember the cabbage patch doll? Marketing genius. Produce many, release few.
As the consumer demands more release few make more. It was genius marketing.
As ev prices drop, range increases, inventories rise, rebates continue the market will thrive.
The Ram ev looks very promising especially the range extender when towing.
 

mkhuffman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Nov 19, 2020
Threads
24
Messages
6,072
Reaction score
8,020
Location
Virginia
Vehicles
2021 MME GT, Jeep GC-L, VW Jetta
Country flag
We've seen the way the tobacco companies continued to try to attract kids with their ads, and also lied to everyone saying their products were healthy. Corporations cannot be trusted to do what's in the best interest of the public. How many more people would have died from lead poisoning paint or gas in the meantime while the gov't let the corporations sort it out? The government saved lots of lives that the corporations only wanted to make money from regardless of how it affected their health.

Also, Dark Money, money that is untraceable, in elections MUST be banned.
Governments lie to us every single day, and we are forced to continue to pay for them no matter how badly they do their jobs.

I can refuse to give my money to a business that has practices I don't agree with, but I cannot refuse to give my money to the government when they have practices I don't agree with. If you don't like or trust businesses, then you should have even more disdain for government.

People who work in government are not any more honest or trustworthy than those who work in businesses. And they are much less accountable than those who work in a business. A business can cease to exist, while a government just takes more of our money, year after year.
 

mkhuffman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Nov 19, 2020
Threads
24
Messages
6,072
Reaction score
8,020
Location
Virginia
Vehicles
2021 MME GT, Jeep GC-L, VW Jetta
Country flag
Right. Who needs the fire dept, sewer dept, water dept. Let's let a sea of competing fire companies show up at your fire and then commence to bargain with you regarding whether they should put out the fire in your house. That's the way it was BEFORE civil fire departments.
I would voluntarily pay for water, sewage and the fire department. I think if it were voluntary, most people would pay for the things we really need, and not pay for the things we don't really need. It would be great.
 

AllenXS

Well-Known Member
First Name
Allen
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Threads
13
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
1,571
Location
Richmond, BC, Canada
Vehicles
Premium Blue ER AWD
Country flag
And to get BEV’s to this point, has it not required a lot of government push and support so that people can have “free choice” later?
 

mkhuffman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Nov 19, 2020
Threads
24
Messages
6,072
Reaction score
8,020
Location
Virginia
Vehicles
2021 MME GT, Jeep GC-L, VW Jetta
Country flag
And to get BEV’s to this point, has it not required a lot of government push and support so that people can have “free choice” later?
That doesn't make it right. Taking freedom away at any point is wrong I think.
 

AllenXS

Well-Known Member
First Name
Allen
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Threads
13
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
1,571
Location
Richmond, BC, Canada
Vehicles
Premium Blue ER AWD
Country flag
That doesn't make it right. Taking freedom away at any point is wrong I think.
Define freedom. At what point do you allow limits? Can I drive on the other side of the road as that is more natural for me?
 

mkhuffman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Nov 19, 2020
Threads
24
Messages
6,072
Reaction score
8,020
Location
Virginia
Vehicles
2021 MME GT, Jeep GC-L, VW Jetta
Country flag
Define freedom. At what point do you allow limits? Can I drive on the other side of the road as that is more natural for me?
" The external restraint implicit in liberty is a recognition of freedom of action as an equal right of all purposive beings in society.¹º The necessary implication is that liberty is not the total absence of restraint. The quest is for the permissible limits of restraint. In the words of Bastiat, liberty is "the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so… [and] the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense….”¹¹ Thus, the workable ideal of liberty is a range of individual choice unhampered by deliberate human interference except insofar as intervention is necessary to assure equal liberty to all individuals. "

https://fee.org/articles/individual-liberty-and-the-rule-of-law/
 

Thunderanger

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bruce
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Threads
20
Messages
302
Reaction score
171
Location
Lake Thunderhead
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach-E Select, 2019 Ram 1500
Occupation
retired
Country flag
How about freedom to exist or breathe fresh air? Not be inundated by floods on the coast lines. Not have your way of life lost forever due to crops or fisheries moving. Not to have your rivers and streams polluted by burst oil pipelines and more. Go ahead and pay freely when 6 fire companies show up at your house. Nevermind the guy down the street who can't afford it or the time to negotiate. Governments work for ALL of us, not just those who can afford things. If it wasn't for the government, we'd have mud roads over 90% of the country.
Sponsored

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
 




Top