06 Jun 2008, 2:46 pm
06 Jun 2008, 2:52 pm
Christ's sake, this sounds like a conspiracy convention. 
06 Jun 2008, 3:04 pm
twoshots wrote:
Christ's sake, this sounds like a conspiracy convention.
Its hardly a conspiracy, did you see the what the price hit today $139 per barrel, that was on speculation of unrest in the middle east.
06 Jun 2008, 3:08 pm
06 Jun 2008, 4:56 pm
06 Jun 2008, 5:00 pm
Orwell wrote:
spudnik wrote:
oscuria wrote:
I feel gas should be taxed individually based on the vehicle.
Progressive taxation, yall.
,Progressive taxation, yall.
There should be especially for the larger luxury cars and trucks, there is no reason for people driving a massive 4x4 like a Hummer, its a total waste of fuel let them pay more for their consumption
Have fun trying to implement that. Really, what is with this bitterness toward people driving less efficient cars? You can say it might be a foolish choice, but if they're willing to pay for the gas why shouldn't they be allowed to use it however they see fit? Your collectivist mentality is the type of thing that led to the Zoot Suit riots.
Are you calling me a Communist
?
06 Jun 2008, 5:04 pm
spudnik wrote:
Are you calling me a Communist ?
?No, I called you collectivist. That's a much broader term than communism. You're basically assuming that people somehow have a societal obligation to allocate their resources in a specific manner, or else are imagining that certain free-market goods like petroleum are actually held in common and no one should be permitted to use them in a way that you personally deem wasteful. I can't understand that type of mentality, and I disagree with your premises.
06 Jun 2008, 5:05 pm
06 Jun 2008, 5:08 pm
06 Jun 2008, 5:10 pm
06 Jun 2008, 5:17 pm
Orwell wrote:
spudnik wrote:
Are you calling me a Communist ?
?No, I called you collectivist. That's a much broader term than communism. You're basically assuming that people somehow have a societal obligation to allocate their resources in a specific manner, or else are imagining that certain free-market goods like petroleum are actually held in common and no one should be permitted to use them in a way that you personally deem wasteful. I can't understand that type of mentality, and I disagree with your premises.
The reason is that others should not be subjected for the foolishness of a few.
I for one welcome the high prices. If it keeps Wonder Mom in her 8 seater, but only drives herself and little Timmy around, from doing errands due to being too costly, so be it.
Hell I drive a car that gets around 260 on a full tank that must be filled with premium. Why should a person who makes a living driving be hit with the overspending?
06 Jun 2008, 5:30 pm
oscuria wrote:
Orwell wrote:
spudnik wrote:
Are you calling me a Communist ?
?No, I called you collectivist. That's a much broader term than communism. You're basically assuming that people somehow have a societal obligation to allocate their resources in a specific manner, or else are imagining that certain free-market goods like petroleum are actually held in common and no one should be permitted to use them in a way that you personally deem wasteful. I can't understand that type of mentality, and I disagree with your premises.
The reason is that others should not be subjected for the foolishness of a few.
I for one welcome the high prices. If it keeps Wonder Mom in her 8 seater, but only drives herself and little Timmy around, from doing errands due to being too costly, so be it.
Hell I drive a car that gets around 260 on a full tank that must be filled with premium. Why should a person who makes a living driving be hit with the overspending?
The issue is now getting into to what extent you can regulate an individual's behavior for the "good of society." I would argue that you can't do so to a very great extent, because I'm a libertarian and not a fascist. Prices serve a rationing function to help allocate resources to their most highly-valued use. If someone is willing to pay the money to buy gasoline, they can use the gasoline. Saying that people should be forced to consume less gasoline in order to reduce demand for oil is akin to mandating that I start skipping meals to help ease pressure on the global food market. Such proposals are inherently fascist/collectivist in nature and are needlessly oppressive. Let prices go up, and maybe some of these people who you think are being wasteful will start to use less gas.
06 Jun 2008, 5:32 pm
Ah, libertarians with their silly beliefs.
06 Jun 2008, 5:37 pm
oscuria wrote:
Ah, libertarians with their silly beliefs.
You may mock my beliefs as much as you like. However, I see you are unable to come up with a convincing refutation of them.
06 Jun 2008, 5:40 pm
Orwell wrote:
oscuria wrote:
Ah, libertarians with their silly beliefs.
You may mock my beliefs as much as you like. However, I see you are unable to come up with a convincing refutation of them. I tend to argue for libertarianism deontologically though, so if you are interested in utilitarian arguments for it those would probably be better addressed to Awesomelyglorious.
I can see emoticons are of no use in helping you realize sarcasm. I think it's pointless trying to teach you how to understand (such a thing as sarcasm).
I find nothing in libertarianism that allows for true liberty (in the sense of it being applicable). I compare it to eloquent poetry that is without any impact or meaning.
We all speculate on what is best for society, yet none of us are in a position to change anything.
06 Jun 2008, 5:47 pm
