[ExI] Dollar a gallon gas was Rationality and Irrationality

Kevin Freels kevin at kevinfreels.com
Thu Dec 20 19:33:42 UTC 2007

> ### Great Idea!
> But, why not get serious, and impose a tax on all homes with more than
> 100sq.ft per occupant - after all, home heating and cooling puts out
> so much carbon dioxide? We all could fit into 1/10th of available
> apartment space!
I'm game. Of course, I would prefer a bit more. Maybe 500 sq foot per 
person. But then you get into having to differentiate between 
"conditioned" space and non-conditioned space. It gets too complex to 
administer without too much additional cost of inspections.  A usage tax 
on excess energy usage over a base amount  combined with a usage based 
tax on oversized homes would be great though. That way you can tax those 
who simply use too much instead of having the poor people without the 
means to replace insulation and furnaces bear the brunt of the taxes.
> Now, actually, a guzzler tax is too timid - why not impose a 100,000
> tax on all cars that carry less than 50 passengers? We would hardly
> produce any CO2 if we all traveled in buses only.
Do you want to gain R&D revenue? Or is your goal to kill the economy? 
And do you want something that can actually be done? You have just as 
much chance getting a car ban passed. Then you just shift the burden and 
no real research gets done. We need to find ways that allow people to 
move about great distances quickly and independently using renewable 
resources and that's the objective. The goal is improving the lives of 
people for the short and long term. Not to simply speed up the process 
of making life intolerable.
> And if you are really serious about your beliefs, why not impose a tax
> of 1,000,000$ on all new births? After all, each baby born is nothing
> but pollution, tons and tons of CO2 generated over her lifetime....
I think I am sensing sarcasm? This is silly. No one could pay it. Human 
life would cease to exist. no one would be able to afford reproduction. 
I really don't care about the CO2. I'm not yet convinced that global 
warming is bad. It's just a question of funding the research necessary 
to maintain our way of life while freeing us from having to be dependent 
upon foreign countries for a non-renewable and limited energy source.
> OK, I admit I just can't contain my sarcasm when I read yet another
> call to threaten to kill somebody to get what "we" all "need". "More
> money needs" to be spent on your favorite project - hey, let's take a
> gun, stand by the gas pump and squeeze some jerks you hate for 1.50$
> per gallon? You get free cash, and a feeling of moral superiority to
> boot.
So I was right. That's good. Who said anything about killing anybody? I 
don't hate these people. And there's no moral superiority here. The 
question was how to change behavior and encourage R&D without destroying 
the economy. It's easy to point att he flaws in my ideas but do you have 
alternatives? Or do you think that the status quo is sufficient for our 
future needs and nothing at all needs to change?
> I prefer to get my feeling of moral superiority from saying "No to
> violence". "If you want something done, do it yourself, don't force
> others to do it". "You have no right to attack somebody unless he
> first provably and indisputably attacks you". Etc, etc.
Who is talking about violence here? Did I miss something? I never 
endorse violence. Having a viable alternative to foreign oil would make 
us less succeptable to what goes on in the middle-east and would reduce 
the need for us to be involved in wars over there. I don't see where you 
are getting this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071220/dfdccd66/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list