Once again I’m inspired by Fred to create a post. Darn libertarians are constantly driving the discussion. I’m inclined to accept:
Newman's corollary as restated by Gordon
Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is the primordial net.news discussion topic. Any time the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin)
"I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest." - Martin Luther King, Jr, Autobiography, Chapter 2 (http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil.html)
So, are the critical mass participants engaging in noncooperation with evil? If one believes that oil is the cause of the Iraq invasion, that car exhaust is a major green house gas contributor, and that global warming is occurring and human activity is contributing, then one would could easily conclude that cars are evil. And from that vantage point, participating in critical mass and blocking traffic would be justified. I think the point is to increase awareness of the consequences of our car habits.
Certainly our love of the automobile has serious negative social, political, and ecological consequences (as well as positive ones). We’ve structured our cities and towns around cars. Bicyclists are put at risk, or extreme inconvenience on many routes due to lack of consideration of biking needs. The 101 Mad River bridge is a prime example. I’ve crossed that bridge in both directions on bike, and on foot, and it’s risky trip. The alternate route is several miles longer. If our goal is to increase bike use, then it is an issue that needs addressing.
If more of us rode a bike, instead of drove a car, we would reap numerous benefits as a society. If 5% of car trips were replaced with bike trips, that would be a 5% reduction in gas consumption. This would reduce the amount of air pollution, and it would extend the world’s oil supply. The individuals riding bikes would reap personal health benefits from the exercise.
Since (and no pun is intended) the squeaky wheel gets the grease, I think that the cyclists are justified in continuing the critical mass protests. In our two party, democratic system, tyranny of the majority is one of the faults. Sometimes a minority must create a fuss to get their legitimate concerns heard, to have any chance of remedy. The police must do their job, and enforce the law; if the cyclists are breaking the law, then the police can and should cite them. These civil disobedience confrontations are a clash of cultures: protestors who want change, citizens who want the status quo, and officers charged with enforcing the laws and keeping the peace. It’s an unfortunate feature of human nature that these clashes will sometimes turn violent. The police are armed and trained for violence, and sometimes legitimately and other times illegitimately, they act violently towards protestors. If protestors are acting belligerent, throwing things, and defying orders, then they should darn well be expecting to be tear gassed, beaten, etc.; right or wrong, that's the way it goes. But sometimes it’s the officers who show up with ill will towards the protestors, and are looking for an excuse to lash out at them. Prejudice is the likely culprit.
Newman's corollary as restated by Gordon
Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is the primordial net.news discussion topic. Any time the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin)
"I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest." - Martin Luther King, Jr, Autobiography, Chapter 2 (http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil.html)
So, are the critical mass participants engaging in noncooperation with evil? If one believes that oil is the cause of the Iraq invasion, that car exhaust is a major green house gas contributor, and that global warming is occurring and human activity is contributing, then one would could easily conclude that cars are evil. And from that vantage point, participating in critical mass and blocking traffic would be justified. I think the point is to increase awareness of the consequences of our car habits.
Certainly our love of the automobile has serious negative social, political, and ecological consequences (as well as positive ones). We’ve structured our cities and towns around cars. Bicyclists are put at risk, or extreme inconvenience on many routes due to lack of consideration of biking needs. The 101 Mad River bridge is a prime example. I’ve crossed that bridge in both directions on bike, and on foot, and it’s risky trip. The alternate route is several miles longer. If our goal is to increase bike use, then it is an issue that needs addressing.
If more of us rode a bike, instead of drove a car, we would reap numerous benefits as a society. If 5% of car trips were replaced with bike trips, that would be a 5% reduction in gas consumption. This would reduce the amount of air pollution, and it would extend the world’s oil supply. The individuals riding bikes would reap personal health benefits from the exercise.
Since (and no pun is intended) the squeaky wheel gets the grease, I think that the cyclists are justified in continuing the critical mass protests. In our two party, democratic system, tyranny of the majority is one of the faults. Sometimes a minority must create a fuss to get their legitimate concerns heard, to have any chance of remedy. The police must do their job, and enforce the law; if the cyclists are breaking the law, then the police can and should cite them. These civil disobedience confrontations are a clash of cultures: protestors who want change, citizens who want the status quo, and officers charged with enforcing the laws and keeping the peace. It’s an unfortunate feature of human nature that these clashes will sometimes turn violent. The police are armed and trained for violence, and sometimes legitimately and other times illegitimately, they act violently towards protestors. If protestors are acting belligerent, throwing things, and defying orders, then they should darn well be expecting to be tear gassed, beaten, etc.; right or wrong, that's the way it goes. But sometimes it’s the officers who show up with ill will towards the protestors, and are looking for an excuse to lash out at them. Prejudice is the likely culprit.
posted by Jeff Kelley at 4:10 PM
13 Comments:
Jeff's assumptions:
"If one believes that oil is the cause of the Iraq invasion, that car exhaust is a major green house gas contributor, and that global warming is occurring and human activity is contributing, then one would could easily conclude that cars are evil. And from that vantage point, participating in critical mass and blocking traffic would be justified. I think the point is to increase awareness of the consequences of our car habits."
Each one of these assumptions is the subject of considerable debate and not universally accepted. If the assumptions are accepted the logic leads to Jeff's conclusions. There are literally volumns of arguements however both pro and con on the assumptions alone.
The "policeman's dilemma" alone could be the subject of a lengthy debate. When the Leonidas was first sworn in as a peace officer in 1964, the California Vehicle code weighed in at 8 ounces. The current copies are almost 2.5 lbs. This is only the Vehicle Code! Our rulers have been very busy indeed. Enough already!!
Well said leonidas. I have not accepted any of the assumptions you've stated, but do accept the assertion that increased bicycle use that leads to decreased automobile use would benefit our society.
I'm not sure what the "policeman's dilemma" is, but will research it later.
I tip my hat in respect to you for your service as a peace officer. I can only imagine what a challenging job that must be.
Jeff states that he has not accepted any of the assumptions listed in his original post. He then goes on to accept the assertion that increased bicycle use is desirable insofar as it reduces the use of autos. He thus accepts the desirability of reducing auto use but on what basis? Is there a paradox here? It would appear that the undesirability of the use of motor transport is in fact based on the acceptance of the aforementioned assumptions. The debates on the individual assumptions are ongoing and have as yet to be conclusively and scientifically resolved but still the greenies insist that government power be used to force others to comply with their positions. This insistence impacts the liberties of others and is therefore opposed by Leonidas.
Policeman’s Dilemma: A law officer observes a vehicle on the highway with a 2 year old passenger not restrained in a government approved seat. The elderly driver is transporting his grandchild to the emergency room and the vehicle is a 1961 Chevrolet pickup truck. The Calif. vehicle code clearly states that no child under 60lbs can be transported in a motor vehicle unless “properly secured in an approved child safety seat”. The officer consults his 2.5lb copy of the vehicle code and notes that the vehicle is not required to be equipped with any seat belt device. This is an example of the “policeman’s dilemma” and could lead to disciplinary action regardless of his subsequent actions based on either common sense and mercy or strict compliance with the diktat of our rulers.
MOLON LABE
I just spent 15 minutes responding, and lost it to a bad connection. Such is cyberlife.
The policeman's dilemma is that sometimes the right thing to do is against the law?
FYI, critical mass by causing cars to idle, in fact cause more greenhouse gases. Idling a car causes more crap to come out then one at a higher RPM.
Just so you know. And don't gt me started about PPM per mile of cars at speed vs one sitting there.
Jeff,
Sorry about the connection.
The "policeman's dilemma" also involves victimless "crimes": e.g. seat belt and helmet laws, gaming, prostitution, narcotics use, drunk driving etc. wherein no other violations are involved.
anonymous,
You are right to characterize the critical mass people as "jerks". They would force the rest of us to accept their vision and value system and will infringe on our rights to exercise that power.
But Bill G, my rain crystals might get wet! And like, it's Sunday, man, and I'm like, too hung over from last night....
"They would force the rest of us to accept their vision and value system and will infringe on our rights to exercise that power."
So should have the rest of the country stayed out of the South's "right" to segregation? When the vision and value system has moral/ethical authority, then perhaps we should be forced to accept it. White only and colored only drinking fountains, bathrooms, restaurants, etc. was wrong.
I don't think it would be difficult to make the case that the critical mass participants do not have moral/ethical authority in their cause, but none of you have done so.
"FYI, critical mass by causing cars to idle, in fact cause more greenhouse gases. Idling a car causes more crap to come out then one at a higher RPM."
If critical mass reduced the use of cars, then there would be a net reduction in greenhouse gases.
The relevant questions are: does critical mass have a worthwhile goal, and if so, then are their methods effective?
They did do one thing: we’re talking about it.
leonidas, to answer your early question, I do believe that cars pollute and pollution is bad, I believe that our oil consumption is excessive and should be reduced. I also believe that cars disconnect us as a community, and contribute to the poor health of our citizens. These are the basis of my beleif that reducing car use would be good.
I'm not convinced that cars are "evil."
Jeff, I'm glad you don't live in the "real world" Someone said you are a teacher or something, please tell me where so I can make sure the my children never go to that school.
Jeff:
We all know that cars pollute. All human activity pollutes. The generation of electricity including the very expensive and wasteful process of manufacturing solar panels pollutes. Pollution has been reduced over the last several decades by the introduction of technology and that will continue to occur. Every time you exhale the “greenhouse gas” CO2 (not considered a “pollutant” by the way) is produced. Given the absence of empirical data that pollution is reaching dangerous levels, (actual pollution levels are measurably declining) your belief carries less weight than those of us who disagree. The efforts of the critical mass people or others whose true agenda is to control their fellow citizens by dictating behavior are therefore rightfully resisted.
MOLON LABE
Bill G, "...And don't excercise"
Riding a bike instead of driving would serve as exercise.
Leonidas: "Pollution has been reduced over the last several decades by the introduction of technology and that will continue to occur"
The predictions of The Population Bomb didn't come true because of scientific advancements in agriculture.
"Given the absence of empirical data that pollution is reaching dangerous levels,"
It sure depends on which scientists you listen to. The melting of the antartic ice sheets and the ice packs on the equatorial zone mountain peaks, and the increased flow of freshwater into the ocean, are a bit alarming. From the little I've read, it doesn't appear that the warming trend is in dispute. What's disputed is whether human activity plays a significant role in the warming trend. Hopefully you'll consider National Geographic a reliable source.
Jeff,
Riding a bike is great exercise but is an inefficient way to transport goods especially over any distance (unless one is a Japanese infantryman in Malaysia in 1941).
Advancements in agriculture and other technologies are unlikely to end soon.
Scientists are not unanimous on (almost anything) all subjects. The air in the Los Angeles basin today contains a fraction of the pollutants of 1948 even though the number of motor vehicles has multiplied several times. Leonidas has seen/breathed the air there and knows this is a fact. Rivers in the east and midwest that were toxic in 1952 now contain and support wildlife. The ice thickness in Greenland is increasing at a rate of 21.26 inches per 11 years according to measurements made by the Centre for Global Ocean studies in Norway. Scientists [have] no explanation yet as to why Mars might be warming. The Mars Global Surveyor reached orbit in September 1997 and shows a steady retreat of the Martian ice caps.
To base a national policy on computer models which are notoriously inaccurate for even predicting next week’s weather is little short of insane and to leonidas makes about as much sense as the assertion that global warming is explained by the reduction in the number of pirates since 1800 http://www.venganza.org/. Unless of course you are a modern leftist who wishes to dictate policy based on your collectivist world vision.
PS National Geographic: Nice photos, often bullshit science.
MOLON LABE
Post a Comment
<< Home