SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the ban-gas-instead-of-passing-it dept.
France and the United Kingdom are doing it. So is India. And now one lawmaker would like California to follow their lead in phasing out gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.
When the Legislature returns in January, Assemblyman Phil Ting plans to introduce a bill that would ban the sale of new cars fueled by internal-combustion engines after 2040. The San Francisco Democrat said it's essential to get California drivers into an electric fleet if the state is going to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets, since the transportation sector accounts for more than a third of all emissions.
"The market is moving this way. The entire world is moving this way," Ting said. "At some point you need to set a goal and put a line in the sand."
California already committed five years ago to putting 1.5 million "zero-emission vehicles," such as electric cars and plug-in hybrids, on the road by 2025. By that time, the state wants these cleaner models to account for 15 percent of all new car sales.
Could the hills surrounding Los Angeles one day become visible?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:28PM (3 children)
What delineates a patriot from a tyrant, or a citizen-soldier from a murderer? I'm trying to push your viewpoints, which I perceive through your words as being hazy at its foundations, into sharper relief.
Who are "we the people"? This is a deadly serious question. Are "We the People" 50%+1 of the specific subset of all humans within the USA's borders who are allowed to vote? That would necessitate things like the stupid ICE vehicle ban as being perfectly legitimate, and that any watering of the tree of liberty would in fact be murder by thugs angry at justified government agents. If in fact "We the People" are 50%+1 of the voting populace, then there are effectively no limits on "legitimate government authority" as anything that 50%+1 can be bamboozled into voting for becomes justifiable for government to enforce at gunpoint. Therefore, I assert that "We the People" are no greater than a single human individual in terms of authority: "We the People" are just ordinary lone humans writ large
This is why I harp repeatedly about the original source of authority, which starts at a single individual human and his right to life. The mechanics of a right to life require that the human who inhabits the body is the exclusive and sole owner of that body, because ownership includes and necessitates the ability to destroy, and if someone else has authority to destroy a human's body, then that human can't very well have a right to life. (Please excuse me if I don't address conjoined twins or pregnant women at this time.) If you are the ONLY owner of your body, then all you do with your body also belongs to only you: your work, your artistic creations, and all derivative works are yours alone with no one else having a legitimate claim to any portion of it.
This means that you and I are exactly equal in authority. I have 100% authority over myself and 0% authority over you, and vice-versa. I can offer to buy your land if I want to build a road over it, and if you consent, I can proceed with proper authority as you have sold your land to me which I can then build my road on. If you refuse to sell me your land, then NO amount of neighbors I gather together to support my cause will have any more authority than I do to take your land without your consent. Likewise, I cannot delegate authority to seize your land to my enforcer, Brutus, nor to my band of neighbors, nor to a gaggle of people I refer to as a government
I can't delegate what I don't have.
Thus US government authority is FAR diminished from what most people perceive it to be, and anyone using power against others without authority is aptly described by a common term: criminal.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 01 2017, @06:40PM (2 children)
Hey, AC. I haven't forgotten you. I'm thinking. Or, at least putting my thoughts in order. Maybe I'll have a good answer for you, maybe I won't, but I haven't forgotten you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @09:57PM
Awesome. I'm still stalk- er, watching this thread.
I'd be very much interested in your thoughts after having them mulled over. I'm encouraged to have engaged with you on this topic, and am quite interested in the outcome, even if it means you find a flaw in my assertions that I hadn't thought of myself. It's fun when two minds meet to dissect a topic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:44PM
I've still got an eye on this thread. Though my ultimate goal isn't to solicit further responses from you, but to find a "better truth". I hope the ideas we talked about have had some merit, and can be used to bash away some of the weaker aspects of your ideology. Likewise, I hope to have the weak bits bashed off of mine, so I'll keep pitching them to seemingly-interested folks and see what comes of it.