Individual wrongs v. common rights

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 4 2007, 03:42 PM) [snapback]490656[/snapback]</div>

The perfect question... and the one I'm trying to get you to answer. According to what you've said here, I don't have the right to eat at my favorite restaurant *without* smoke, because somebody else is exercising his right to smoke there? My right to a meal without smoke *at this restaurant* is of no consequence, right?

If I sit in a restaurant and sneeze all over your table full of food (and the other five tables around me), should YOU and anybody else who is annoyed be expected to leave, or should my actions be curtailed? Please realize that my other sick friends are currently dining in all the other restaurants in town.

And just how is that cat poop situation going for you, anyway? You still happy with my right to own a cat that poops in your yard? I assume you'll have the common decency not to shoot my cat, but to maybe sell your house and move to a home that is not neighboring another cat owner. You wouldn't want to impose your right to a clean yard on my right to own a roaming cat, right? I would sure like to get this one answered at some point. We aren't neighbors, and I don't even have a cat - but I can certainly find some cat poop to ship out there if needed to make my point.

Hmm. My mistake earlier. I guess I DID mean to come down on you hard on this particular subject that so interests me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 4 2007, 03:42 PM) [snapback]490656[/snapback]</div>

It shouldn't have to be, no. Yet we need laws because of the people who don't give a damn about how their actions affect others. We shouldn't need a law that says, "don't drive faster than is safe" or "don't take a gun on an airplane" or "don't throw raw sewage in the lake" or "don't smoke in areas where other people would like to breathe clean air."

But if we can't figure these things out on our own, we end up having the government protecting us from ourselves. Your ignorance of my rights is one of the reasons we have the laws you say we shouldn't need.

And you know what? Here in CA, restaurant owners do not have the right to allow smoking. And you know why they no longer have that right? Because too many smokers were not cognizant of the rights of non-smokers to enjoy a meal out. When we are too self-rightious to consider how our actions affect others, more rights are taken away.

To tie all of this together (the cat poop neighbor and the restaurant smoker - and who's rights are more important), let me give you a real-life sitation that my friend finds himself in. And I'd like to hear your solution.

My friend and his neighbor both have back-yard decks where they like to enjoy meals and entertain friends outdoors. The neighbor family members (and most of their friends) all seem to smoke. The smoke invariably drifts downwind to my neighbor's deck, and makes it impossible to enjoy an evening outside. Who has the right here? Should my friend move? Should he have to stay inside with the windows closed all evening so his neighbor can enjoy his right to smoke on his decK? Does anybody's "right" to their own version of a pleasant evening have more weight than anybody elses? Should common decency come into play? Or... should the smokers simply not care since it is their right to smoke on their property, and it makes no difference how it destorys my friend's enjoyment of his deck?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 4 2007, 01:19 AM) [snapback]490359[/snapback]</div>

Not sure where the estimates are from, since the EPA estimates werent' up at fueleconomy.gov. Couldn't find official test results through a google search. Found reports of GM saying 25% improvement, putting it at 17.5 city and 25 Highway (20 combined). Not quite the 22 you are touting, although the 25 is close. I personally wouldn't be touting the real-world numbers (new EPA estimates) are out. Not that it really matters much, I doubt many people on here are going to be convinced to be a vehicle getting 22-26 mpg, much 20 mpg combined, unless they absolutely needed it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Aug 4 2007, 07:18 PM) [snapback]490668[/snapback]</div>

So what's next? Banning smoking outside?

I find it highly unlikely that there is enough smoke from cigarettes drifting from backyard to backyard to cause any problems. Smoke rapidly dissipates in the air outside, so other than the possible smell of cigarette smoke, I really don't see how this would be a problem. It sounds to me like your friend has a hidden agenda. Does he complain about the smoke from their charcoal grill as well?

And what about campfires outside? Reports indicate that breathing in wood smoke is similar to second hand cigarette smoke. Wood smoke is 12 times more carcinogenic than equal amounts of tobacco smoke and attacks body cells up to 40 times longer than tobacco smoke. So, if this is really about health, wouldn't you want to ban those as well?



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micheal @ Aug 4 2007, 10:08 PM) [snapback]490717[/snapback]</div>

EPA estimates for the non-hybrid 2007 4X4 Tahoe with a Vortec 5.3L engine are 15 city/21 highway. Using Chevy's 25% estimate for improvement in fuel economy leads you to the 18.75 city/26.25 higway estimates that I cited before.

The point being that even a 25% increase in efficiency is not going to be enough for some people to stop complaining about SUVs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Aug 4 2007, 07:06 PM) [snapback]490664[/snapback]</div>

First of all, I don't smoke. I have asthma and avoid being around smoke as much as possible. However, I am adult enough to understand that one should have a reasonable expectation of smelling like an ashtray after a night in a bar.

Second, if you are willing to walk into a restaurant that allows smoking, then be enough of a man to not bitch about the smoke. How many restaurants have you really been in that didn't have separate smoking and non-smoking sections? Also, how many smokers have you asked to put out their cigarettes while you are eating? I'll bet none, because it is easier to complain about it afterward. Besides, most of the smokers that I know don't smoke while they eat anyway, unless of course you are talking about eating wings in a bar.

And for your other little scenario, if your cat poops in my yard, I'll have a polite conversation with you about it the first time. The second time, you'll find the poop deposited on the hood of your car, your front door, or wherever else I think it might make an impression on you. At some point, if it continued, said cat would disappear. End of story. I certainly wouldn't start lobbying the government to get rid of cats which is analogous to what you are talkling about with smoking and SUVs.

 

Excellent. OK, well you got me with the "adult" and "man enough" comments. I can hardly compete with that. I know that I'm not man enough to let somebody else crap all over my rights while I bend over and take it.

And thank you especially for finally answering the cat poop scenario. It is refreshing - if a bit confusing - to discover that you don't want your rights to a clean environment crapped on either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 5 2007, 12:42 AM) [snapback]490656[/snapback]</div>

The government tries to (and should) save people from themselves in a lot of different ways. Why do you think drugs like cocaine are forbidden? Following your argument, all hard drugs should be legal and sold freely. Would you advocate that?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Aug 5 2007, 03:46 AM) [snapback]490795[/snapback]</div>

Yes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Aug 5 2007, 03:46 AM) [snapback]490795[/snapback]</div>

I am a libertarian and firmly believe that the government that governs best, governs least. So yes, I do believe all drugs should be legal. Individuals should have the right to use drugs, whether for medical or recreational purposes, without fear of legal reprisals, but must be held legally responsible for the consequences of their actions only if they violate others’ rights.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Aug 5 2007, 12:06 AM) [snapback]490761[/snapback]</div>

I'm sorry if the "adult" and "man enough" comments got under your skin, but many of your arguments sound like my four year-old and his friends arguing over a toy. They can't seem to resolve issues on their own either, so they are always come running and looking for somewhere else to mediate things for them. Looking for government regulation of things like smoking and SUVs are no different in my mind.

I see that you didn't bother to answer my question of whether you had ever asked a fellow restaurant patron to put out their cigarettes while you ate. I'll take this as an idication that you never have. If non-smokers would have simply asked, they probably would have found out that smokers are not all that unreasonable. Also, what about asking the restaurant owner to change his policy of allowing smoking, or maybe just allowing it on certain days. Instead, people merely ran to the government and asked to have smoking outlawed in all public places. Now you have added to the bureaucracy and given more power to the beast.

And, following your logic and behavior with regard to the cat poop scenario, you would suggest that I should just run to the government and have all cats oulawed because of the behavior of one particular cat owner that was creating a problem with me. If nobody is allowed to own a cat any longer, then I would no longer have a cat poop problem in my yard.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 5 2007, 09:03 AM) [snapback]490872[/snapback]</div>

And I've never suggested it. I've pointed out several times that it is the actions that YOU suggest that inspires more goverment intervention. Trample others' rights too often, and YOUR rights will be taken away. Not by me, but by the majority of voters who are annoyed by your actions. If we can't control our own actions, they will be controlled for us. My idea here doesn't inspire more laws. My idea is to inspire people to take the right action ON THEIR OWN. What you suggest ends up ticking off enough people so that new laws are inevitable. Hold up a mirror and you'll find the law-maker.

Let me say it another way: My whole point in all this is individual responsibility. Consider the effect of your actions on others so that new laws are not needed. So that new laws are not needed. So that new laws are not needed. Can we get away from the inplication that I want more government intervention now? I want less. We can't have less unless people consider the effect of their actions on others. You have suggested many times that people should NOT care how their actions affect others. This is my big issue with what you have written. Not sure how many other ways I can say this! And I can only hope that I am still misunderstanding your position because your way is the route to more laws that I don't want.

I did. Several times. And then I deleted it all to be less confrontational. My last post was modified about ten times before I finally left it alone.

Well, you were wrong to assume it initially, and equally wrong to assume it now. Smoking in any restuarant in CA has been illegal for many, many years. Before that, I asked more people to stop smoking than I can possibly count. If you'll notice how I generate my energy, and the transportation modes I chose - you will find that I actually take action. I do complain, but I also do something toward fixing the problem. My actions and money are where my mouth is. I walk the talk. The smoking issue was/is no different.

BS. Some yes, others no. My friend's neighbors, no. MOST of the people I asked to stop, no. They took offense that I was cramping their "rights."

How the hell do you get that from my coments? You keep saying this, and it keeps not being true. Read this: I suggest that you do exactly what you're telling me to do: Suck it up and take it like a man. Don't kill the cat, and don't create laws banning cat poop on neighbor's lawns. Ah... but you WILL kill the cat because I have ignored your requests to curb my pet. Are you suggesting that I handle SUV drivers and smokers in this same way? Is this how you teach your 4-year-old to deal with his problems?

Your "man" and "adult" comment didn't get under my skin. It just took the discussion to such an immature level as to be pathetic. I find it interesting that I have enjoyed so many of your comments in other threads - and even some of them on this thread. Yet this one issue just confounds me. I am still holding out hope that I don't understand your position. When we start talking about "being man enough" I get very close to give up that hope.

 

darelldd,

I believe in the idea of pursuing personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility. I strongly oppose any government interfering in my personal, family and business decisions. Essentially, I believe that all of us should be free to live our lives and pursue our interests as we see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

It seems that you and I have different ideas about what causes harm to others and how to handle those things.

In terms of the smoking issue, I believe that it is everyone’s right to control the property they own, and everyone’s right to determine the standards of behavior on their own property. However, recent moves by government have sought to ban smoking in privately owned bars, clubs and restaurants.

Just as a private individual has the right to dictate whether visitors or guests may smoke in their living room or their car, so too the owner of a bar or restaurant should have the right to determine whether smoking should or should not be permitted on their premises. Some people may prefer that a particular venue is non-smoking, others may prefer that it is smoking, but the rule for a particular venue should be made by the venue’s owner.

Many of us may not like smoky environments, and we may not like them for a number of reasons - some of us may not like the smell, some of us may be concerned about long term health risks from passive smoking. But no-one forces us into those venues.

If there is a demand for smoke-free venues, then operators will make them smoke-free to attract more clientele. Any operator who ignores the hoards of patrons deserting their establishment for the smoke-free establishment up the road will soon be out of business, while those who recognise and meet the demand for smoke-free environments will prosper and grow.

The government does not need to be involved in this process.

In terms of environmentalism, I believe that this issue is far too important to be used as just another excuse for control freaks to impose authoritarianism. If we treated problems like global warming as technical problems instead of a moral outrage, we could all work together toward a solution.

So, instead of bemoaning SUVs and other vehicles that get poor gas mileage, we should be working to find alternatives that suit the needs of their owners. The Prius is not a practical vehicle for every family, nor is an EV. However, I think the family should be making the choice on what is practical for them, and not the government.

 

I have to add this:

I own a Prius. I own a Highlander Hybrid. When either vehicle is at a stop light, I am not polluting. I am emitting no pollution. When I drive either vehicle with the A/C off, on a nice cool night with the windows down, I can drive for miles with no gas engine being used, or hardly at all.

It's not about how many gallons I save every day, and how much money I may (or may not) save by driving a hybrid. It's about doing what I can to reduce pollution, even if it's just a bit.

Leave the planet a better place then you found it, that's the way I try to be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 4 2007, 11:30 PM) [snapback]490721[/snapback]</div>

Those are the old (unrealistic) estimates. New EPA for the 4x4 Tahoe is listed at 14 City and 19 Highway (17.5 City & 23.75 Highway--20 combined). See Link. Your original post was 22/26, I may have missed the 18.75/26.25. At any rate, the 25% improvement touted by Chevy may be even less than that (10-15% improvement of Malibu hybrid turned out to be 8%).


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 01:37 PM) [snapback]488668[/snapback]</div>

In reality though your point is still valid as people are not going to stop complaining (myself included) about SUVs with just a 25% improvement. When a person is only getting in the mid teens combined, an increase of 25% still is not mileage that people are going to jump for joy over. Especially when there is a way to get a bigger increase (HiHy 37% increase). A lot of people complain (I think rightfully so) about the HiHy only getting 26 combined. Personally, I think it is high time for Toyota to start making some more fuel-efficient hybrid SUVs that get 30mpg combined (i.e. a 4cyl HiHy or Rav4). To give people who "need" larger space decent mpg. All in all, a 20mpg SUV is just a slightly better version of a large vehicle.

EDIT: Added quotations marks around need to emphasize the same point Pinto Girl is making below.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 10:00 PM) [snapback]489030[/snapback]</div>

I don't think that we can EVER know why anyONE or any organization does what does. But, we can judge them by their actions, and Toyota is the one responsible for popularizing hybrids in the USA.

That much, we *do* know.

Why did they do it? There are probably only a handful of people who could answer that with even a semblance of accuracy. Just as very few (if anyone) knows why GM acts in the way IT does.

But, again, we can judge *them* by *their* actions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 5 2007, 06:37 PM) [snapback]491011[/snapback]</div>

How about if these folks just reconsidered what they "need" and made adjustments accordingly?

Wouldn't that be cheaper, easier, and quicker?

Of course it would...but it's *toooooo difficult* for little baby whiner Americans to actually improve themselves/be introspective/make the tough, adult choices.

What is being described here --our CHOICE of vehicle and what we CHOOSE to do with it-- is a "want" and will *always* be that (no matter how it's entwined with "freedom" or "patriotism" or "individuality" or "personal rights").

I think it's so totally messed up how, while some people here feel that being homosexual is a "choice," those same folks will likely assert that towing a boat or driving a monster truck on public roads is a "need."

Go figure.

Americans whine and bitch whenever they're asked to do *anything* but what *they* want. It was endearing for a few decades; now it's getting old.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 6 2007, 05:22 PM) [snapback]491502[/snapback]</div>

Because they don't have to. The only thing that is going to force them to reconsider anything is the price of gas. At some point, the marginal benefit that they gain by owning a larger vehicle will be outstripped by the cost of operation. Again, let the market sort things out.

When has government regulation ever been cheaper, easier and quicker?

Of course making decisions on your own is always difficult, but it is one hell of a far shot better than having someone else make them for you.

And what is wrong with "want"? "Want" is what gets most of us out of the bed in the morning

I don't particularly know if homosexuality is a "choice" or not, but it certainly should be a personal freedom that we respect.

Well, as the old saying goes, "Don't let the doorknob hit ya!"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 5 2007, 04:37 PM) [snapback]491011[/snapback]</div>

Well said. We both have the right to our opinions.
.....

Also well said, and something else that we agree on. And this touches on EXACTLY why I do what I do in reguard to being an EV proponent. (EV babble mode on - sorry, this is what I do).

Every family should not only MAKE the choice of vehicle, but even more importantly, HAVE the choice. And today, there are many factors that have lead to no family having ANY choice to buy a factory EV! No choice to buy a real alternative to a gasoline (or other fossil-fuel) vehicle. Imagine that - no choice. We're being told that we don't want EVs. That they don't really work like we need them to. Our choice has been made for us. And that choice is: Use gasoline, or hump it. And it is most definitely not the free market that is keeping alternatives from being built! How can there be any demand for something that (effectively) nobody has experienced - and that we're all told is no good? One of the most compelling reasons that car makers don't want to build EVs is based on sound short-term business decisions. Start making EVs, and you throw away a huge portion of the businesses you are invested in. BAD for the shareholders, even if good for the consumers.

My goal is NOT to take any vehicle type away from anybody else - but quite simply to have other options available to those who wish to purchase and drive them. Today we don't have those options, and I'm working hard to change that - mostly by increasing awarenes of alternatives through personal example. Again... NOT through government intervention.

Obviously, this all will work itself out as oil becomes more scarce, more expensive, and all that. My fear is that waiting for the big squeaze will just make this all more painful for everybody... and in the meantime, we suffer through having other countries (who don't like us all that much) holding us by the short hairs, as we have no real control over our energy source. Talk about having your rights taken away! The energy on which our society - our high standard of living - is based on... mostly comes from outside our borders. We don't control that life-giving spigot. All we can control is how much we drink from it. So... we have no real choice as to what energy propels our cars, and we have no real choice as to where that energy comes from.

As misguided as I may seem or be, my goal here is a more secure country, complete with a higher standard of living and health. My goal is not to take freedoms away- it is to create the ones that we don't have today.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 4 2007, 07:30 PM) [snapback]490721[/snapback]</div>

Hell yeah!

Outside patios of bars, restaurants and shopping malls in Victoria,BC are now all smoke-free by law.

I certainly applaud such laws.

It's not ok to pollute the air others breathe, and telling me that if I don't like it I should avoid those places is ridiculous. I'm not the one imposing a health risk on others. Wow!

How could it possibly be ok to allow someone to impose their noxious fumes in my face when I'm out in public?

It's also not ok for people to live unsustainably in regards to housing and transportation - using up several times more resources than the planet can provide to everyone.

Imagine if every country's standard of living was roughly the same - which is only just and fair and what all good capitalists should want - to create the maximum number of consumers. This is something we should be striving for. Could everyone drive hummers and waste energy the way we do? No way - that's not sustainable. So even though we can do it, we shouldn't because it's immoral. i.e. It's just not fair.

So yes there should be restrictions on your choices. And sorry, that's largely the government's job. To restrict individual freedoms for the greater good - to in effect, impose a certain public morality. We need a strong government to be able to step in and say, sorry, that's not ok anymore - we are smarter than that now.

And some people just don't realize that just because the market offers something doesn't mean it is ok to do it. Sure you can buy a hummer for your daily commute but by any measure it is not a morally defensable act.

If the government wasn't bought and paid for by lobbyists, they probably be doing more to make the world more sustainable and support a more reasonable morality. And so they should, even it means you don't get all the freedom you want.










<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Aug 6 2007, 07:06 PM) [snapback]491648[/snapback]</div>

I on the other hand, completely welcome and expect the government to intervene and say: "Hey, you can't sell such and such a vehicle with such and such a drivetrain. It's not acceptable, even if the consumers think they need or want it. Instead you have to make vehicles that do this and this and this...because on mass that is all the world can handle"...etc.

Why the hell not? Some vehicle types are just wrong.

Sure, try to use the market as much as possible, but really, the market often isn't powerful or quick enough in all cases to get the job done of creating the positive and necessary change. Not with climate change for example. We need a strong, wise government to step in and force changes in that area.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Aug 6 2007, 10:48 PM) [snapback]491658[/snapback]</div>

O Canada!

I'm sorry to see that our neighbors to the North are so quick to give up their personal rights and let their government make their decisions for them. As a libertarian, I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would want to give more power to their governemnt. Then again, socialistic tendencies run deep in your country as evidenced by your health system. Luckily you don't smoke, because the wait times to get into Canadian hospitals can span weeks or months, even for simple procedures.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Aug 6 2007, 10:06 PM) [snapback]491648[/snapback]</div>

Darell,

I think there is quite a bit of common ground between us. You and I both want the same goal, we just take divergent paths to get there. I think the demand for EVs and other non-polluting vehicles should come from the consumer. You think that the consumers need a little push to get them there. Either way, it is going to happen sooner or later.