If I were in charge ...

[PvK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by [K126]Mephisto:

You might reconsider that. I have seen to many accidents were the "belted" person exited the vehicle nearly unharmed whereas the "unbelted" person bleed to death despite your best efforts. DOA in hospital and a mess in the ambulance even the "best" splatter films do not imagine.

---

Oh, I wear a seatbelt, and recommend others do too. I just believe that here in the "land of liberty", I should have the right to take my life in my own hands. If the police are so concerned for my safety that they want to pull me over and suggest I wear a belt, well ok. However, if it's really local governments looking for more excuses to fine its people for cash, and insurance companies looking to increase their profit margins, and even well-meaning folks trying to reduce the amount of death on the highways, then I think those are incorrect reasons to legislate away public freedom. If I want to risk my own life, that's my own business, it seems to me.

PvK

[dmm]

dumbluck:
First of all, thanks for your comments.
Re energy policy:
I agree with you about average fuel economy laws. What a crock! But that isn't at all what I would do. I would simply put a big penalty tax on gas guzzling vehicles. If the consumer wants to pay that, so be it. Probably I would also grant rebates to businesses that legitimately need things like pickups, and maybe also to large families. (But maybe not; maybe that should just be the cost of doing business or having a large family.)
Or maybe I would just have a huge fuel tax. This would encourage conservation in all forms, such as living in smaller houses, keeping your house energy-efficient, buying fuel-efficient vehicles, living close to work, carpooling, etc. Refusing to build new roads is for the same reason -- to make it inconvenient and expensive for people to waste energy and pollute the environment by living far from work and taking unnecessary trips.

This is not a matter of personal preference, like I hate rich suburbanites or something. It is a matter of making people pay the true cost of the lifestyle they are choosing. The true cost includes pollution, increased infrastructure, ecosystem destruction, wars over resources, etc. It simply is unfair to force urbanites to pay equally for such things.

Re foreign policy:
It seems to me that some countries already fall into the Category of "fool me twice, shame on you." The only remaining questions are "how much would it cost us to punish them for what they've done" and "are we willing to pay that price." (Totally irrelevant aside: how does one properly punctuate a sentence like that???)

As far as allowing people to choose their own government, I agree with you. I don't care if the Swedes want to be socialist; that's their business. But I disagree that the Chinese people are free to choose. They are living in continual fear. People routinely are sent away to slave camps without even a show trial for "crimes against the people" like worshiping God, earning too much profit, accessing the net without permission, or suggesting that the official way of doing things might not be the best way. I thought we learned during the civil rights struggles that "everyone is free, or no one is free." How can the world be free when 1/3 of its people are in bondage to the handful of people running the Chinese Communist Party? But even so, perhaps you would be right, that we should keep our noses out of it, if it were not for this other troubling fact: the govt of China is expansionist. Not content with despotically ruling their own people, they are intent on asserting their "rights" as the "natural and historical leader and protector" of all Asians. Lastly, they are bigots. They cause their people to be indoctrinated with the idea that Orientals are the superior race. Since the Chinese are mostly cut off from the rest of the world and have never met other races, and human nature being what it is, this idea has rooted itself pretty firmly in their national psyche. Can anyone say "Nazi Germany" or "Imperial Japan?" Except that China has manpower and resources far beyond those tyrant regimes. It lacks only widespread industrialization and modernization.

People talk of "engaging" China and of making them part of the world economy. They said the same things about the fascists prior to WWII. I am amazed that the Last decade has given such ample proof of the success of a cold war strategy, yet now people say it won't work with China.

[Krsqk]

quote:

---

Probably I would also grant rebates to businesses that legitimately need things like pickups, and maybe also to large families. (But maybe not; maybe that should just be the cost of doing business or having a large family.)

---

I disagree that businesses and large families should pay an extra tax for owning vehicles (which cost more anyway) which are necessary for their operation. For that matter, I disagree with the whole proposition of a fossil fuel tax. It would be far better to grant tax incentives to those who develop/utilize alternate fuel sources. This won't happen, though, since it would mean politicos giving back some of their daily diet of pork.

Face it--fossil fuels are here to stay unless someone can develop a cheaper, more efficient energy source (as nuclear is for electricity) as an alternative. Taxing the snot out of everybody just leaves them with less money with which to develop those sources and Congress with more of our money to play with. Both of which most people would agree are bad things.

[dmm]

Krsqk: I partly agree with you about not giving govt more tax dollars. So I'd use the fuel tax exclusively to fund the research, development, and early adoption of conservation measures and alternative energy systems. Or else I'd use it to offset lowering of other taxes.

At present, federal gasoline taxes are put into a "transportation trust fund" which is supposed to keep the highways and bridges in pristine shape, but instead is used to build new highways (often unnecessary ones in the districts of powerful legislators), and to hide the size of the budget deficit. Those things wouldn't happen, if I were in charge.

[Mephisto]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:
If I want to risk my own life, that's my own business, it seems to me.PvK

---

Yea, it is. But at least in Germany the Government is bound by our Constitution to protect the live of its citizen (to a certain degree that is). Not all people have the insights to why they should use a safety belt so there is a very small fee if you are caught not wearing one while driving. IMHO it is a good think as it protects the live of thousands of people each year. Many of us have taken much more serious reductions of our freedom for a whole lot less of a gain...

[PvK]

Well, that's one part of why I'm glad there are different countries with different laws (and in the USA, different states with different laws). Some people might like getting observed, stopped, and fined for forgetting their seat belts. Some people might not mind having to report where they live to the government, and state their official religion, etc (I hear these are also required in Germany). Personally, I don't want my police doing these things to me. This is also why I said I'd call for a public referrendum - that means asking for a vote to make sure that the people really want to be policed in these ways, and that it's not just something being imposed upon them.

PvK

[dmm]

Keep in mind that there are costs to society when a person is seriously injured in a car accident. Nobody pays those kind of medical bills on his own; we all collectively pay. And if a person is permanently disabled, again, we all collectively pay. Unless you are the kind of libertarian who advocates leaving injured poor people to die in the street like roadkill, you can't complain about stuff like seatbelt laws while maintaining logical consistency.

Same with stuff like "no smoking for minors," "no drinking for minors," "no cocaine for anyone," "babies must be in carseats," etc. Either we're all in this together, or we're not.

Having said all that, I must admit that I don't like the seatbelt law. I was once struck from behind by someone doing 50 mph who didn't see the red light. A hard-shell suitcase in the rear seat was shoved into my back. I think that if I HAD been wearing my seatbelt, my spine would have been crushed and I would be dead or crippled.