Hostility against free choice continues to mount as our betters decide what’s best for us. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:
A long, long, time ago – none apparently remember – people could decide to buy an electric car if that’s what they wanted and weren’t punished if they didn’t want one. They were free to choose.
What a concept!
Americans have, to a sad extent, forgotten what that was like and many are actively hostile to the concept for reasons that are psychologically interesting.
A psychologically healthy person does not care what kind of car his neighbor drives, provided his neighbor pays for it. A psychologically disturbed person cares very much what kind of car his neighbor drives and wishes to make him pay for it. He seeks to punish him for driving a car he does not like, as via exorbitant taxes sicced on his neighbor’s car or the fuel it uses or perhaps restrictions on where he is allowed to drive it.
Yes, of course – there is the putative nostrum about non-electric cars “changing” the “climate” – a transparently non-specific, non-objective assertion that is of a piece with the one made about people who aren’t sick possibly spreading a sickness they might have. It is a wonderfully elastic, open-ended and difficult to “deny” thesis – which is precisely how it serves its intended purpose.
If it is accepted that vague assertions are synonymous with facts.
The “climate” is “changing”? How, exactly? How much, exactly? It is because people are not driving electric cars? How, precisely? Prove that people who are not driving electric cars are “changing” the “climate” and then prove that this “change” is something that is causing harm.
No vague if scary assertions, please. One can assert all kinds of things. As for instance 3 million dead from the ‘Rona. As for instance “asymptomatic” spread. If assertions, however scary, are to be the justification for impositions than any imposition can be justified by painting a scary picture – as Al Gore did, literally – in his now-ancient movie that asserted we’d be under water by now or at least treading it.
A fact, on the other hand, is objective. Something is – or it is not. It did – or did not – happen. Like the coastlines going glub-glub-glub under water, for instance. There is no need to argue about it because it just is (or isn’t) and that is the elegance – and justice of it.
If it can be shown – if it is a fact – that not driving an electric car “changes” the “climate” in a way that is harmful then it is not unreasonable to favor it. But it is the definition of unreasonable to demand it when there is nothing more behind it than assertions based on projections; on scary pictures like Al Gore’s movie and Greta Thundberg’s twisted visage.