National speed limit pushed as gas saver

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Just wanted to point out that in 2008, with 2 undeclared wars going on, thousands of violations of rights, both human and otherwise, being committed by the federal government, over 9 TRILLION dollars in federal debt, a dollar bordering on worthless, bankrupt federal retirement and healthcare systems, half of income lost to taxes, elected representatives with less than 30% approval ratings from both parties, and a general overall feeling by most people that our nation is on the wrong path, there are still people who somehow think that "federalism" as currently practiced by our government is "correct"...

It just doesn't make sense, does it? Of course, some of those same people want America to conform itself to the image of the government-loving, freedom-hating European countries that take most of their people's income in taxes and presume to think they can care for the people from cradle to grave through social(ist) programs. Bringing this back on topic, these are the same people that want the federal government to again impose speed limits on the states.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 People that choose to be in the restaurant. People that voluntarily ingest second hand smoke aren't having their rights violated - they're waving their rights to their body - specifically the right not to ingest second hand smoke.

This is the standard libertarian fallacy of infinite choices. I've refuted it a few times here already.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Just wanted to point out that in 2008, with 2 undeclared wars going on, thousands of violations of rights, both human and otherwise, being committed by the federal government, over 9 TRILLION dollars in federal debt, a dollar bordering on worthless, bankrupt federal retirement and healthcare systems, half of income lost to taxes, elected representatives with less than 30% approval ratings from both parties, and a general overall feeling by most people that our nation is on the wrong path, there are still people who somehow think that "federalism" as currently practiced by our government is "correct"...

Even the right system is not invulnerable. The mistake we made was to allow conservatives/libertarians to illegally get into power, and this is the price we pay.

TC

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal This is the standard libertarian fallacy of infinite choices. I've refuted it a few times here already. TC

No, you haven't.

What I've explained, and you refuse to understand, is the fact that if enough people choose not to consent to the smoke with their patronage, then the restaurant would change its policy. If the restaurant doesn't change its policy, then the people that don't go to the restaurant anymore would create a demand that would create a greater supply of restaurants with no smoking policies.

Economics 101.

Of course I don't propose that there are 'infinite choices' - I acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to make everyone absolutely happy (something I don't have in common with 'socialist paradise' types like yourself), but people only have a right to be happy via the means provided to them by their rights. If you have to trample on someone else's rights to be happy, then you're not only obnoxious, you're going against the constitution - what you yourself claimed was the foundation of America.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, you haven't. What I've explained, and you refuse to understand, is the fact that if enough people choose not to consent to the smoke with their patronage, then the restaurant would change its policy. If the restaurant doesn't change its policy, then the people that don't go to the restaurant anymore would create a demand that would create a greater supply of restaurants with no smoking policies. Economics 101. Of course I don't propose that there are 'infinite choices' - I acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to make everyone absolutely happy (something I don't have in common with 'socialist paradise' types like yourself), but people only have a right to be happy via the means provided to them by their rights. If you have to trample on someone else's rights to be happy, then you're not only obnoxious, you're going against the constitution - what you yourself claimed was the foundation of America.

I'm not interested in making everyone happy. I fully acknowledge that tobacco addicts will be bothered by this ban, and I don't care one bit. I have to look at the full cost/benefit analysis, and the foreseeable consequence of their unhappiness pales in comparison to the harm caused by exposing people to a carcinogen. The reasoning is precisely the same as what would be behind shutting down a place that has benzene fumes; it is a hazard to the workers and customers.

TC

[Kamehameha34]

I have to look at the full cost/benefit analysis, and the foreseeable consequence of their unhappiness pales in comparison to the harm caused by exposing people to a carcinogen.

Then if all of those obtuse people that continue to consent to their exposure to this carcinogen die off, imagine the happiness that would cause for all the people that wouldn't need to deal with them on the subway, on tech help lines, and on debate forums?

No, sorry - they forfeit their right to complain when they STAY IN THE RESTAURANT. How is that hard to understand? If they just don't go in, then the smokers can smoke and they can enjoy their fresh air in another establishment that thrives on the business of non-smokers.

[shawmutt]

What's missing here is the bell curve displaying gas economy. For instance, I know that my motorcycle gets 55+ mpg when riding easy at 60mph, but dives down to 45+ mpg when riding hard at 70 mph. Does anyone know a source that displays what the best speed is for the majority of cars to get the best gas mileage? The speed limits just seem like arbitrary numbers to me, 55 in New York, 65 in PA and MD, 70 in WV...

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Then if all of those obtuse people that continue to consent to their exposure to this carcinogen die off, imagine the happiness that would cause for all the people that wouldn't need to deal with them on the subway, on tech help lines, and on debate forums? No, sorry - they forfeit their right to complain when they STAY IN THE RESTAURANT. How is that hard to understand? If they just don't go in, then the smokers can smoke and they can enjoy their fresh air in another establishment that thrives on the business of non-smokers.

Since I'm not a libertarian, I'm not callous about the deaths of innocent people, nor do I believe that I can succeed at the expense of the rest of society. As a result, your statements do not sway me.

I brought up the example of a workplace with benzene fumes. We don't simply let people decide to work there, we require that management provide protection against this toxin as a part of the job. The carcinogens in in tobacco smoke deserve no better treatment than industrial fumes, and the workers do not have the right to sign away their health as a condition of employment. Yes, I know this deeply offends your libertarian sensibilities, but those are nonsense anyhow, so it doesn't much matter. Cry all you like, OSHA lives on.

Anyhow, you once again invoke the myth of infinite choices to suggest that there'd be no cost to finding a restaurant that didn't have poison air, or that Adam Smith would rise from the grave and force restaurants to do the right thing. History has shown that business entities can harm themselves and those around them for a very long time, particularly if they don't have to pay the price for the benefit they receive.

TC

At this point, I already know you're not capable of holding up your end of the debate, so I consider this an academic exercise in shooting ducks in a barrel for the entertainment and education of observers.

[Kamehameha34]

Since I'm not a libertarian, I'm not callous about the deaths of innocent people, nor do I believe that I can succeed at the expense of the rest of society. As a result, your statements do not sway me.

I'd question your intelligence if you're 'swayed' by jesting.

I brought up the example of a workplace with benzene fumes. We don't simply let people decide to work there, we require that management provide protection against this toxin as a part of the job.

The fact that you do it does not mean it's right or constitutional to tell others what to do with their property.

The carcinogens in in tobacco smoke deserve no better treatment than industrial fumes, and the workers do not have the right to sign away their health as a condition of employment. Yes, I know this deeply offends your libertarian sensibilities, but those are nonsense anyhow, so it doesn't much matter. Cry all you like, OSHA lives on.

It's obvious you find nothing fundamentally wrong with disregarding the constitution to shelter dumb people from continuing to make the same mistakes, at the expense of civil rights.


One major problem I find with your position is a lesson I learned in preschool - people don't appreciate being told what to do with their own things. This lesson carries over into adulthood. If I invite someone to a party at my house, warning that there may be smoking, how much of a d**chebag would that person be if they came and complained about the smell all night?

One could make the argument that "there aren't an infinite number of parties to go to!", but there are several fundamental flaws with that. First of all, your want to go to a party does not supercede my right to manage my own property. It's idiotic to suggest otherwise. Secondly, if enough people cared about the smoke enough to not come, they could go have their own party and restrict whatever they like. What if not enough people care? Tough sh*t. That doesn't mean it's constitutional to comandeer another person's house and manage it however you like.

These principles should carry over into other aspects of private property ownership, but for some reason, they don't - and I'll tell you why. It's because enough d**chebags who shouldn't have been invited to the party complained to Washington, and our representatives were convinced that your imaginary right to control what you smell on other people's property trumps basic property rights.

How did these d**chebags even get an ear from Washington? Of course! That's there right to free speech in action. The fact that I disagree with the d**chebags doesn't mean I advocate the removal of their right to free speech - because it *should* have been up to the congressmen to recognize just how ludicrous the d**chebags' claims were.

Free speech is the staple of any free society. The ability to say whatever we like is completely necessary to the preservation of whatever rights haven't been usurped by the d**chebags. Some may abuse their right to free speech, like the imaginary characters in your head that somehow simultaneously edit credible newspapers yet have no credibility themselves. This doesn't mean that it should be removed or even limited - because contrary to the d**chebags' beliefs, not every problem has to be solved with legislation. People who lie despicable lies lose business and reputation.

That's about it, packed most of what you failed to understand in one post. Redeem yourself and prove it wasn't a waste of my time.

[kharvel]

The whole federalism vs. state rights controversy is irrelevant to the topic at hand which is:

Should there even be a national speed limit?

The answer is a resounding NO.

People respond to economic INCENTIVES. The high gas prices alone will force the drivers to drive more slowly. If you don't feel that they are driving slow enough then you can either raise the gasoline taxes and/or ask the oil producing countries to produce less.

Bottom line is this: when one is addicted to something, make the addiction so expensive that people become less addicted. Forcing people to become less addicted while the price of addiction is low is like asking a heroin user to take less opium when opium prices are cheap.

I ask the proponents of the national speed limits to STOP telling people what to do and just let the people make rational economic choices based on the PRICE of gasoline.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: kharvel The whole federalism vs. state rights controversy is irrelevant to the topic at hand which is: Should there even be a national speed limit? The answer is a resounding NO. People respond to economic INCENTIVES. The high gas prices alone will force the drivers to drive more slowly. If you don't feel that they are driving slow enough then you can either raise the gasoline taxes and/or ask the oil producing countries to produce less. Bottom line is this: when one is addicted to something, make the addiction so expensive that people become less addicted. Forcing people to become less addicted while the price of addiction is low is like asking a heroin user to take less opium when opium prices are cheap. I ask the proponents of the national speed limits to STOP telling people what to do and just let the people make rational economic choices based on the PRICE of gasoline.

This is an argument for keeping or even raising our current gas taxes.

TC

[Gods_Mercenary]

Which will happen on its own, china and india continue to demand more, the supplies of oil continue to get smaller, which is a double whammy on the supply/ demand end of things.

I would also point out, techno, that in the workplace carcinogens are not regularly detectable, so workers should at least be informed of the danger. Whereas if you enter a restaurant labeled "smoking" sit next to smokers, and breathe in cigarette smoke, but are still ignorant of the danger, you are likely an idiot who would find a way to kill yourself in the future anyway. Where you work is often a somewhat forced choice, whereas even in a town with one restaurant, there are plenty of other places to eat.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The fact that you do it does not mean it's right or constitutional to tell others what to do with their property.

Yes, yes, property rights uber alles. Sorry, but I don't goose-step to that tune. I care more about human rights and civil rights, instead. I don't think we should allow people to die from benzene fumes just because you don't care about the impact to society.

Take a step back. Citizens do not have sovereignty over "their" property. Property is a means toward an end, not an end itself, a societal right, not a natural right. It's a very good idea, within certain limits. To the extent that property affects others, however, others have a right to have some say in how it is used.

For example, if you want to own a car, fine, but if you want to drive it down the same street as the rest of us, we suddenly have a stake in it. That's why we restrict what you can do with your property, requiring you to have a license, to follow traffic rules, and otherwise act as a good citizen. The alternative is to allow antisocial people to be a hazard to all of us.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It's obvious you find nothing fundamentally wrong with disregarding the constitution to shelter dumb people from continuing to make the same mistakes, at the expense of civil rights.

The Constitution doesn't in any way suggest we should let businesses profit from their workers and customers dying. Of course, you'd simply abuse the notion of personal responsibility to hold the people who die of cancer accountable but not the business that made money from it. How curiously selective.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 One major problem I find with your position is a lesson I learned in preschool - people don't appreciate being told what to do with their own things. This lesson carries over into adulthood. If I invite someone to a party at my house, warning that there may be smoking, how much of a d**chebag would that person be if they came and complained about the smell all night?

I'm not here to please people.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 One could make the argument that "there aren't an infinite number of parties to go to!", but there are several fundamental flaws with that. First of all, your want to go to a party does not supercede my right to manage my own property. It's idiotic to suggest otherwise. Secondly, if enough people cared about the smoke enough to not come, they could go have their own party and restrict whatever they like. What if not enough people care? Tough sh*t. That doesn't mean it's constitutional to comandeer another person's house and manage it however you like.

Parties are things we do for fun, so they're a poor analogy for the ability to get a job, to find a place to live, to buy food. These are not optional.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 These principles should carry over into other aspects of private property ownership, but for some reason, they don't - and I'll tell you why. It's because enough d**chebags who shouldn't have been invited to the party complained to Washington, and our representatives were convinced that your imaginary right to control what you smell on other people's property trumps basic property rights.

We already know that in matters such as racial discrimination, the free market is worthless. We need societal intervention, in the form of government regulation. It does piss off the bigots, but who cares?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 How did these d**chebags even get an ear from Washington? Of course! That's there right to free speech in action. The fact that I disagree with the d**chebags doesn't mean I advocate the removal of their right to free speech - because it *should* have been up to the congressmen to recognize just how ludicrous the d**chebags' claims were.

We're not talking about free speech, we're talking about making money from the deaths of people.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Free speech is the staple of any free society. The ability to say whatever we like is completely necessary to the preservation of whatever rights haven't been usurped by the d**chebags. Some may abuse their right to free speech, like the imaginary characters in your head that somehow simultaneously edit credible newspapers yet have no credibility themselves. This doesn't mean that it should be removed or even limited - because contrary to the d**chebags' beliefs, not every problem has to be solved with legislation. People who lie despicable lies lose business and reputation.

I already explained why defamation is not protected as free speech, but I'll remind you that truth is an iron-clad defense against charges of defamation. If I call Hans Reiser a murderer, nobody can ever sue me for this, since he was convicted for this crime and even showed the police where he buried his wife. In short, the limitations against defamation do not impact the freedom needed for a liberal democracy.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's about it, packed most of what you failed to understand in one post. Redeem yourself and prove it wasn't a waste of my time.

I merely "failed" to agree. You failed to understand, which is why you kept making silly, irrelevant arguments. Either that, or you understood but don't know how to debate.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I would also point out, techno, that in the workplace carcinogens are not regularly detectable, so workers should at least be informed of the danger. Whereas if you enter a restaurant labeled "smoking" sit next to smokers, and breathe in cigarette smoke, but are still ignorant of the danger, you are likely an idiot who would find a way to kill yourself in the future anyway. Where you work is often a somewhat forced choice, whereas even in a town with one restaurant, there are plenty of other places to eat.

Yes, where you work is often a somewhat forced choice, so the waiters and other staff get stuck inhaling poison. You'll also note that I chose benzene for my industrial carcinogen, since it's an aromatic, meaning it has a distinctive odor.

It would be great if workers had a strong enough bargaining position to always be able to turn down jobs with workplace hazards, assuming they even know about their existence and can evaluate the risk. There's a reason why OSHA was created, and it wasn't just to piss off libertarians.

TC

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: shawmutt What's missing here is the bell curve displaying gas economy. For instance, I know that my motorcycle gets 55+ mpg when riding easy at 60mph, but dives down to 45+ mpg when riding hard at 70 mph. Does anyone know a source that displays what the best speed is for the majority of cars to get the best gas mileage? The speed limits just seem like arbitrary numbers to me, 55 in New York, 65 in PA and MD, 70 in WV...

Myth Busters did an old show over the myth of sports cars getting better gas milage at higher speeds. You'd have to google the episode but they showed 45-55 offered the best tank on a car continually run at a set speed till empty. 60+ and the mpg's dropped off more rapidly the faster travelled.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: shawmutt Does anyone know a source that displays what the best speed is for the majority of cars to get the best gas mileage?

According to HowStuffWorks, they provide some math reguarding what driving speed gets maximum fuel efficiency.

[Kamehameha34]

Yes, yes, property rights uber alles. Sorry, but I don't goose-step to that tune. I care more about human rights and civil rights, instead.

..As you interpret them, it seems. It seems as though your system gives the d**chebags every right under the sun, except for the right to take responsibility for entering someone else's property.

How do you act when you go into someone else's house? Do you criticize them if they decide to allow smoking in their own homes? Would you bring a court order to a Muslim family that chooses not to keep the company of jews?

Of course not, because although you disagree with their decisions, you have no right to impose your own on their property. It's a shame this lesson is lost on you.

Take a step back. Citizens do not have sovereignty over "their" property. Property is a means toward an end, not an end itself, a societal right, not a natural right. It's a very good idea, within certain limits. To the extent that property affects others, however, others have a right to have some say in how it is used.

Very good! You can't violate the rights of others with your property!

If only we could get you to realize that you don't have the natural rights to shop at your choice of stores, and demand a ban on smoking on someone else's property.

The Constitution doesn't in any way suggest we should let businesses profit from their workers and customers dying.

Businesses don't profit from that. They would profit from the labor of workers that consent to work in an environment with certain health hazards that should be made clear upon application. Nice try to bastardize the issue, though.

I'm not here to please people.

Clearly.

Parties are things we do for fun, so they're a poor analogy for the ability to get a job, to find a place to live, to buy food. These are not optional.

That doesn't mean it's up to the businesses that provide these things to accomodate your every will. They don't even have to accept your patronage.

We already know that in matters such as racial discrimination, the free market is worthless. We need societal intervention, in the form of government regulation. It does piss off the bigots, but who cares?

You keep repeating this lie, when it's been shot down several times. You're not convincing anybody.

For the last time, no one's suggested that a free market would 'fix' discrimination. It would provide alternatives to stores to stores that discriminate.

I already explained why defamation is not protected as free speech

Incorrect. You just rattled off an unfavorable scenario that would actually remedy itself in a libertarian - but doesn't because it apparently takes place in a socialist fairyland where societal justice doesn't exist.

I merely "failed" to agree.

Incorrect, as further demonstrated by your response.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Even the right system is not invulnerable. The mistake we made was to allow conservatives/libertarians to illegally get into power, and this is the price we pay. TC

LOL you're hysterical in your ignorance of politics.

Name one either "conservative" or "libertarian" elected in the last 40 years "into power".

Good luck.

The problem is we haven't elected any conservatives or libertarians, only politicians who think big government and big spending and big social programs are the way to go.

Your argument is absolute, unadulterated nonsense.

[Apeman81]

"No one has a right to drive, ..."

This nation is founded upon the idea that the rights of the people rest with the people. The government can only claim powers the people cede to the government, for only as long as that power is ceded

Just who, if not the people, decide what rights we have in America?

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: Thanatos Heck, lets get rid of all speed limits. Live free or die, right? This way many motorists shall be free to go as fast as they want, die, and ultimately reduce the number of cars on the road leading to a cleaner environment and lower gas prices.