Musings on a National Review Article about Auto Regulation

Share

I was recently E-mailed a link to a National Review article on how federal mandates for better gas mileage are killing people.  Here is the link:  http://www.nationalreview.com/article.

It’s a well-written article.  It delves into how government-mandated MPG requirements make for cars that are less safe.  However, it left my wanting.  It seems like Robert Norton, the author, yearns for better policy, rather than none.  I could be wrong.  Maybe it’s my hot liberty-loving blood, but it is what is not written in the article that leads me to believe that this comes from a “your government hack is bad, but my government hack would be better” perspective.  Then again, maybe Mr. Norton is just going for a base hit rather than a home run in taking on the Federal monster.

All in all, the article goes for a tree rather than the forest.  First of all, the 54.4 MPG mandate was set by an an administrative dictate, NOT BY LAW signed by the U.S. Congress and the President (see this from http://majorityleader.gov/TheImperialPresidency/, for the sake of brevity only read the auto efficiency part, read the rest later and feel your blood pressure skyrocket).  It is certainly correct that government mandates destroy our lives, but that is because government destroys everything.  In essence, the author is pruning the man-eating plant.

The Smart Car.  Oh, the irony of a name!

The Smart Car. Oh, the irony of a name!

So today, we simply have unconstrained monopoly of force.  What is needed now are more people who simply say, “this is not law, so we will not follow it,” when there is an administrative edict not backed by law.  So who would that be?  It certainly would not be the poor chump buying the car; it would have to be the automakers.  What is not said in the National Review article, and needs to be hammered home, is that the auto company big-wigs probably love this regulation.  It creates a barrier to entry for any competition.  Only the big 3 can comply this mandate because:

  1. Who could possibly follow this mandate without loads of production (i.e. make lots of itty-bitty cars that get 60+ MPG, and then actually sell profitable large vehicles that get far less…as a result the average MPG meets the mandate)
  2. They get subsidized when they get in trouble by bailouts

This is a complicit arrangement between the Big 3 automakers and the centrally planned government.  The automakers are the bosses, the government are the thugs.

Robert Norton ends the piece by essentially blaming liberals, but says nothing of so-called conservatives lack of will to put an end to all federal regulation, as well as the subsidizing of preferred segments of the economy, like the auto industry.  Essentially, what is missed time and again in these ‘conservative’ pieces is that of 535 in congress about 533 or so are statists.  They all think that the state is the answer: as long as my guy is in charge.

Many (though not all) of the originators of the United States government felt that a divided government was a good one.  The U.S. Constitution was a compromise document that provided for a stronger union, while still holding the government in check because of how it limited its powers.  If the Executive branch can create an edict that must be followed as law, then that concept is LONG gone.  If all 50 States fall in line, without nullifying such edicts according to the 10th amendment, then there is no division of power.  Without division of power, there is no lesser evil of divided government.

So now as Mark of Free Talk Live fame (my absolute favorite audio show), often says, we have a government “of the lawyers, for the corporations, by the lobbyists.”

Share

Sociopathic Hyprocisy

Share

Imagine being so important that you need armed guards who are authorized to kill, even if they think someone is a threat to you.  Now imagine believing this is true; that your life is so important, that you require an entire army of people with automatic weapons, assault rifles, grenades, drones, whatever it takes just to ensure that your life is protected.  This includes after (click here) you are the so called leader of the “free” world (imagine that, a LEADER of the FREE world…oxyMORONic)

agents

Click on photo for more!

Now imagine that, simultaneously, you think that you have the right to decide whose life can be protected with this type of force, and whose life should not (click here).  Additionally, that you can restrict this ability for over 300 million by a decree (called an executive order in “newspeak”) made ONLY BY YOU, who should be allowed to defend themselves and who should not.

To have both beliefs, 1) that you deserve a lifetime army of protection, and 2) that you should limit others in this ability, seems hypocritical, no?  If you were to think this way, one might think you were a sociopath.  Of course power does corrupt, doesn’t it?

Who owns this assault weapons collection?  Hmmm...

Who owns this assault weapons collection? Hmmm…

Same issue, different hypocrite:  New York Governor Andrew Cuomo suggests that certain types of weapons are far too scary.  He says,“No one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer.”

While some people may need 10 bullets to kill a deer (and if I were a starving hunter, I would want the ability…I could eat around the pellets.  Now that I think about it, I would probably need more than 10), his implication is meant to imply that assault weapons are for killing people.  In this implication, he is basically correct.  So apparently, since this is true, that assault weapons (the ones that look scary) are meant for people, they should be banned.

To this I say, Mr. Governor, you first.  You must disarm your posse now, your collection of police, guards, and the National Guard, because we are not deer, either.  Nor am I a sheep.

Share