|
GM declares bankruptcy (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| domesticated, isn't the beauty of the free market system the ability to buy whatever you want as long as it does not violate anyone's rights? Owning an F-150 is completely within anyone's right to own. The government should not be telling people what they can and cannot buy, unless that product/service violates someone else's rights, or is fraudulent. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
domesticated, isn't the beauty of the free market system the ability to buy whatever you want as long as it does not violate anyone's rights? |
i would contend that utilising un-needed resources in stupidly greedy petrol guzzlers violates the rights of, say, pacific islanders whose houses and land are disappearing beneath the waves of the ocean, due to climate change. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
domesticated, isn't the beauty of the free market system the ability to buy whatever you want as long as it does not violate anyone's rights? Owning an F-150 is completely within anyone's right to own. The government should not be telling people what they can and cannot buy, unless that product/service violates someone else's rights, or is fraudulent. |
AMEN.
PKC- my truck isn't making any pacific islander lose their home. :thepirate |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Link to the CNBC article works fine. If it's too much trouble to google "Harvard Brookings Institute CAFE standards kill", then let me provide a link for you with references and quotes from SEVERAL safety industry sources.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA546CAFEStandards.html
My CAFE argument is not debunked and you can't admit it.
Edit: And that article is from 2006! |
That Harvard Brookings study you've quoted is from 1989! All the statistics I quoted were from 1992 onwards, when car safety took a sudden upturn.
Also, you obviously haven't read the study I posted, because it debunks that perfectly anyway.
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
domesticated, isn't the beauty of the free market system the ability to buy whatever you want as long as it does not violate anyone's rights? Owning an F-150 is completely within anyone's right to own. The government should not be telling people what they can and cannot buy, unless that product/service violates someone else's rights, or is fraudulent. |
I don't think that's what he's trying to say. The government can't do about it if you want to buy a gas guzzling truck, his point is that you shouldn't need one to begin with. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
PKC- my truck isn't making any pacific islander lose their home. :thepirate |
of course it is. so is my vehicle. i just think its ridiculous selfishness to engage in the consumption of resources when there are acceptable, lesser consumption options available. im not talking about you specifically, im talking about the entire US automobile industry, with their massive engines due to historically low gas prices. hence obama's platform of enforcing greater efficiency on US vehicles. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
I don't think that's what he's trying to say. The government can't do about it if you want to buy a gas guzzling truck, his point is that you shouldn't need one to begin with. |
Yes.
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
domesticated, isn't the beauty of the free market system the ability to buy whatever you want as long as it does not violate anyone's rights? Owning an F-150 is completely within anyone's right to own. The government should not be telling people what they can and cannot buy, unless that product/service violates someone else's rights, or is fraudulent. |
Yes, but you also have a responsibility to do the right thing by other citizens, consumers and peoples of the world, as well as the environment.
I'm sure you'd be up in arms if 17sss bought a pair of shoes that he knew were manufactured by slaves and said "I feel like it", but for some reason a car seems to be different.
Also, 'lol' at: 'the government should not be telling people what they can and cannot buy'. Isn't that exactly what all governments have been doing since the dawn of time. Why are drugs illegal? Why is it illegal to sell children's toys with lead in them? Why are cigarettes becoming more and more rare? None of those three scenarios directly 'violate' someone's rights (not sure what you even mean by that term) and yet they're in force for a reason. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
That Harvard Brookings study you've quoted is from 1989! All the statistics I quoted were from 1992 onwards, when car safety took a sudden upturn.
Also, you obviously haven't read the study I posted, because it debunks that perfectly anyway.
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html |
lol... dude, did you read the link I posed in my previous response to you? Cited material from safety experts around the country all the way up to 2006. Besides, does something published in 1989 mean it's wrong today? LOL! |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
lol... dude, did you read the link I posed in my previous response to you? Cited material from safety experts around the country all the way up to 2006. Besides, does something published in 1989 mean it's wrong today? LOL! |
You were hanging your hat on the Harvard Brookings study, and two posts ago you lambasted me for posting something from 2006 and now you're saying 1989 is relevant?
"A 1989 Harvard-Brookings study estimated CAFE "to be responsible for 2,200-3,900 excess occupant fatalities over ten years of a given [car] model years' use." Moreover, the researchers estimated between 11,000 and 19,500 occupants would suffer serious but nonfatal crash injuries as a result of CAFE.16"
Does something published in 1989 make it wrong? Are you an idiot?
That was TWENTY ING YEARS AGO. Car technology has changed just slightly since then. ABS, airbags, ESP, pre-tensioners, electro-mechanical steering etcetera. In the case of something like criminology, I would say yes, a 20 year-old study is still relevant, but in relation to cars that's just ludicrous. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| Also, you still haven't made any comment on the 8 original points I posted in bold, nor the other four studies which analysed the safety of LTVs. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Also, you still haven't made any comment on the 8 original points I posted in bold, nor the other four studies which analysed the safety of LTVs. |
and you havent even touched on the subject of what effect these huge monster cars have on third parties in the event of an accident. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i would contend that utilising un-needed resources in stupidly greedy petrol guzzlers violates the rights of, say, pacific islanders whose houses and land are disappearing beneath the waves of the ocean, due to climate change. |
If you could provide a direct causal link that pacific islanders are losing their homes because 17sss drives a Ford F-150, I might believe you. |
|
|
|
|
