How has the Atlas changed your political views?

[dead0man]

It's reinforced a few stereotypes I have against the hard left, but other than that, no.

[dead0man]

I'm glad.   Yeah, my moral compass has shifted drastically to the point of me thinking it's immoral to decide ones morals for them.  No one has the right to tell you who you are is wrong or the life you live is wrong.

Wow, that's a very nihilistic view -something I find dangerously prevelant among this generation. 

What the hell are you talking about?  Not wanting to force ones morals on other people is a bad thing?  To many people of "this generation" feel that way?  What planet are you on?

[dead0man]

So you want to legislate morality?  Aggressively?  Who gets to define that morality?

[dead0man]

I'm sure that's exactly what he is talking about.

[dead0man]

But murder does harm to another citizen, as does stealing, assault, dumping toxic waste in their backyard and burning leaves in the street.  Watching South Park doesn't hurt anybody (and don't try to bring up the "but wont somebody think of the children" excuse, change the f-ing channel).  Smoking a joint doesn't hurt anybody (else).  Eating a Twinkie, using an incandescent light bulb and teaching your kids at home aren't hurting anybody else and shouldn't be legislated even if some people think they are "wrong".

There is a HUGE difference between legislation against an act that harms other people and legislation against an act the majority of voters finds "wrong".

[dead0man]

I don't think an individuals healthcare is the responsibility of society. 

And we're never going to "run out of fossil fuels", it will eventually become to expensive to get out of the ground what it's worth on the open market, but we'll never "run out".  The market will take care of the rest (unless the govt farks it up with ethanol subsidies and other "hand of govt" manipulations of the market).

[dead0man]

I don't think an individuals healthcare is the responsibility of society. 

And we're never going to "run out of fossil fuels", it will eventually become to expensive to get out of the ground what it's worth on the open market, but we'll never "run out".  The market will take care of the rest (unless the govt farks it up with ethanol subsidies and other "hand of govt" manipulations of the market).

Uh, for that to be true somehow, oil has to be created as fast as we pump it out of the ground; and bear in mind that the oil we're currently using to near exhaustion was created over the past tens of millions of years or more. ie, we've used almost all the oil created over the past 50 million years in the past 200 years.

If we continue to remain fixated on oil as the main resource that drives our economy, we better be prepared for many more wars in the Middle East, Venezuela, the South China Sea, and elsewhere over what oil is left, because the simple fact is demand is outstripping production and sometime soon (10-50 years) demand will outstrip availible resources. That will be extremely bad. Unless resource wars and $500 barrels of oil are good things.

Of course.  In the mean time it will become to expensive to use in many of the ways it's used today.  Things will change, they always have.  You can laugh and/or be pescimistic when people the say "the market will take care of it" if you want to, but the market will take care of it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well then it's a damn good thing smokers have been paying all them taxes on their smokes then isn't it?

I agree the medical industry in this country is broken, I just don't think more government is the fix.

[dead0man]

I don't know how to cut the obese and unhealthy off from receive emergency care, I thought that was against the rules.  I know raising taxes enough to solve that problem can't be done by just taxing the rich.  I don't know how to fix it, and nobody else seems to either.  Sorry if that's to dumb for you.

(and where has the all the tax dollars smokers have been paying gone?  I always assumed that was to pay for the medical problem future smokers will incur...even if by dying at 65 they save us millions by not living to 90.  Has the money gone the same place the Social Security (another thing the govt took over and farked up) money has gone?)

As for oil.  It will continue to get more and more expensive.  Nothing you can legislate in the US will stop the Chinese and everybody else from using more and more.  People will HAVE to use less. Industries will HAVE to change what they use for energy.  It might very well hurt for a bit, change often does.  I just don't think govt should be farking with the free market by favoring some new industries (ethanol, hydrogen, etc) with subsidies.  Letting the market find out what is the cheapest new energy makes much more sense than the govt using trickery to make some of them seem cheap in the hopes that in the future they will be cheap.

What do you think governments should be doing to save us from the future oil crunch?

[dead0man]

Ok, so what is your answer?

[dead0man]

Your ideas would probably work (although I don't think it's the most efficient way to go about it), but it would never ever be implemented.  The idea of giant prizes paid for the govt (or rich people/companies) is a good idea (like the X-prize).  I'd like to see more of it and I think we'll see more in the future.  CAFE standards will probably be raised again.  It's a hamfisted approach and I don't normally like the govt putting it's hand in the market, but if it gets selfish pricks out of giant SUVs, it can't be all bad.  I think it would be easier (and make more sense Constitutionally) to just require vehicles over a certain weight to require a separate, more expensive and much harder to get license.

There is a reason all small cars don't get 50mpg, Americans don't want them.  GM/Chevy/Geo/Suzuki sold a 50mpg car from 1985-2001 (the Sprint/Metro) and few bought them.  One of the main reasons hybrids have sold so well is that a lot of people just want to say they own a hybrid (well that and the car manufacturers losing 10s of thousands of dollars on every one they sell).  Making gas cost more is going to be a huge push in the right direction, which is why I think the market will take care of it.  We certainly have the ability to make a car that gets 50 (or 80) mpg, they just don't accelerate very quickly, don't handle very well and they ride hard.  (although they accelerate quicker and handle better than regular cars did just 30 years ago)  American's atittudes on small cars are going to have to change.  Me personally, I LOVE small cars and always have.  The Mazda3 I currently drive is the biggest car I've ever purchased (and I've purchased a lot of cars).

As for Mass Transit: I think we will see a rise of it in the next quarter of a century.  It's going to be hard to convince people in new cities that they'll get a BART (San Fran's Mass Transit, it's well liked, but WAY under budget) and not a MARTA (Atlanta's, it's hated and WAY under budget).

[dead0man]

Not to burst your bubble...

That's not my bubble your bursting.  I agree with you.

[dead0man]

Hmmm... I just hope with new technology, mid-sized cars will have better millage. I think the goal of the auto industry should be to have a 45mpg 200 horsepower midsized car for under 30000 by 2020.

And what if they can't?  Don't you think if they could, they would anyway?  They will make anything if they know it will sell.  A car that could do that would sell like ice cubes in hell.