General Discussion

rogerashton

(3,960 posts)

64. In economic terms, opportunity cost=zero.

Reply to woo me with science (Reply #61)

Sun Oct 19, 2014, 08:38 PM

Oct 2014

We have nothing to lose. Is there something you don't understand about that?

Let me expand on the point. In the world of the present and future, privacy simply does not exist; therefore, in the real world, issues of privacy are irrelevant. If you could choose, perhaps you would choose to live in the past -- and perhaps that would be the right choice. But that choice is not available.

Further: bear in mind that the NAZIS did not need modern information technology to carry out their villainy. The advanced information system they used comprised: filing cabinets. Soviets, likewise. Khmer rouge, not even that, I think.

The objective must be to get a government that is not murderous. (Notice I don't say: a government we can trust. Just one that stops short of short of crimes against humanity.) If we cannot get a government of that kind, limiting their access to "private" information (even if possible) would not save us. If we can get a government that is not murderous, limiting that government's access to "private" information will do no good, and probably will do harm.

A "sarcasm" gif may divert attention from a fallacy, but doesn't conceal it. Oh -- in case I am not clear, the fallacy is yours, as the sarcasm gif is.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So we do the right thing by getting hybrids, then... [View all] GummyBearz Oct 2014 OP

Won't people start car pooling, using public transportation, and driving less, thereby djean111 Oct 2014 #1

We already do GummyBearz Oct 2014 #2

Metro Tweedy Oct 2014 #4

I tried GummyBearz Oct 2014 #8

Yuck Tweedy Oct 2014 #16

public transit is nice if done well, but can be a nightmare. My buddy was forced to use it when he dionysus Oct 2014 #55

CalTrain on the SF Peninsula is at capacity Retrograde Oct 2014 #59

A mileage tax is a reasonable thing to replace the gas tax with. ManiacJoe Oct 2014 #3

It's not a "right to privacy" compatible proposal. NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #20

It is neither compatible nor noncompatible. ManiacJoe Oct 2014 #24

How do we know that only distance traveled will be all that's downloaded? NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #28

How do we know that distance will not be the only data stored for later download? ManiacJoe Oct 2014 #35

The people writing the specs will be the manufacturers and Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #38

You think you have privacy now? rogerashton Oct 2014 #26

I don't carry my cellphone with me every place I go. nt NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #27

When you do carry it rogerashton Oct 2014 #37

Check the link rogerashton Oct 2014 #50

I know. I just don't justify further abuses of our civil rights based on these criminal uses. NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #51

How is that an argument? woo me with science Oct 2014 #61

In economic terms, opportunity cost=zero. rogerashton Oct 2014 #64

The government already knows your mileage driven. meaculpa2011 Oct 2014 #40

What yearly inspection? NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #41

What is this yearly inspection you talk about? GGJohn Oct 2014 #42

New York requires yearly inspections for... meaculpa2011 Oct 2014 #45

I guess I live in one of those states that don't require a yearly insp. GGJohn Oct 2014 #46

That still is only giving a pure odometer reading. NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #52

Do you have another plan to maintain the roads? People will still drive on them, there will still be Luminous Animal Oct 2014 #5

Yes GummyBearz Oct 2014 #7

The money was borrowed and state regulation requires that it be repaid within 3 years. Luminous Animal Oct 2014 #10

Do you live in the LA area? GummyBearz Oct 2014 #11

Yes, I think a gradual increase to 20x is acceptable. U.S. PR touts the gas tax as a "pay-as-you-go" Luminous Animal Oct 2014 #14

... GummyBearz Oct 2014 #15

Um, they pay for that excellent public transit through gas taxes and other revenue. You don't get Luminous Animal Oct 2014 #18

fail GummyBearz Oct 2014 #23

Why not just fund them with general fund taxes? NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #22

It really is a pisser. truedelphi Oct 2014 #6

The 50th Anniversary party was a public celebration not a private one. 300,000 people walked the Luminous Animal Oct 2014 #12

Yeah, and five to six years later it was taken out of the hides of poor people truedelphi Oct 2014 #13

Indeed it is the governments job to throw parties for the public. Inaugurations, Fourth of July, Luminous Animal Oct 2014 #17

Anarchy by the rich IIstfeminyes Oct 2014 #9

This "right thing" by "getting hybrids"...how is that exactly? flvegan Oct 2014 #19

Its a personal choice GummyBearz Oct 2014 #21

It's a personal choice for those with the money to make such choices..... Bluenorthwest Oct 2014 #31

Welcome to the thread. GummyBearz Oct 2014 #32

Not an option for everyone. delta17 Oct 2014 #48

People take jobs where they can get them and it is not easy or even plausible to TheKentuckian Oct 2014 #62

yea GummyBearz Oct 2014 #66

when was the last time public transport paid for itself. Travis_0004 Oct 2014 #67

Is it clear that hybrids are good for the environment? rogerashton Oct 2014 #65

If you drive in traffic a lot hybrids are much more efficient than a non hybrid Fumesucker Oct 2014 #25

Inefficient, Costly, Deadly Martin Eden Oct 2014 #29

ok... GummyBearz Oct 2014 #30

I was thinking light rail ... Martin Eden Oct 2014 #33

No need, someone beat you to it NickB79 Oct 2014 #36

Maybe vehicles should be taxed by weight? alarimer Oct 2014 #34

Good point meow2u3 Oct 2014 #39

The sad thing GummyBearz Oct 2014 #43

That's an exploit of a law meant to apply to heavy box trucks and the like. NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #53

Use a stick and carrot approach. mmonk Oct 2014 #44

California can't levy manufacturing taxes on products made outside its state and if Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #49

Then I suppose some sort of tax credit for the purchasers mmonk Oct 2014 #56

If the issue is reduced tax receipts a negative cash flow would exacerbated the issue. nt Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #57

But wouldn't reducing polluting cars be a goal behind the idea in the first place? mmonk Oct 2014 #58

What, you just noticed richie rich stealing everything? lonestarnot Oct 2014 #47

Another reason... bobclark86 Oct 2014 #54

Excellent GummyBearz Oct 2014 #60

Another regressive taxation... Orsino Oct 2014 #63

I don't know how this would work for older cars? LeftyMom Oct 2014 #68