4 ms·

Completely ignoring for a moment the parallels and long established links between hacker/tech culture and libertarianism, you don't need to be seasteading, Ayn

by Helmet 9y ago

Completely ignoring for a moment the parallels and long established links between hacker/tech culture and libertarianism, you don't need to be seasteading, Ayn Rand worshipping Peter Thiel protégé to see something wrong with the idea that the State outright banning a product that contemporary society uses every single day, that many people need to survive for which there are currently no affordable and/or reasonable alternatives. Sure, maybe in 20 years battery tech will have improved to the point where cost won't be an issue and maybe we will have charging stations everywhere, or maybe not, maybe the innovation plateaus as happens often. My point is, these things are unknowable and uncertain and the state should stop issuing these authoritarian decrees and let the technology catch up and work itself out and then maybe we can collectively as a democratic society vote on and decide what we want the laws to be in 2040.

ceejayoz 9y ago
> Sure, maybe in 20 years battery tech will have improved to the point where cost won't be an issue and maybe we will have charging stations everywhere, or maybe not, maybe the innovation plateaus as happens often. Upon which the regulations will be adjusted accordingly. > My point is, these things are unknowable and uncertain and the state should stop issuing these authoritarian decrees and let the technology catch up and work itself out and then maybe we can collectively as a democratic society vote on and decide what we want the laws to be in 2040. You mean like by the election they just had?
- Helmet 9y ago
  > Upon which the regulations will be adjusted accordingly. So you seem to be advocating for wide, sweeping bans and regulations, and then working backwards if the technology doesn't pan out. I'm advocating the opposite: tax credits, incentives, etc. to move the technology forward and when it's ready, perhaps make the big shift to all electric. > You mean like by the election they just had? I guess we differ on the authority that elections that for out should have. But that is a more ideological issue, so I'll concede the point.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    I think we've got plenty of corporate welfare in place already. If people are pissed about the upcoming regulations, they can vote in a new government that'll revoke it. They've got several five year periods in which to do so. From what I know of French politics, this ban shouldn't be very controversial.
the8472 9y ago
Many bans have been announced in advance while the alternatives were still in development stages or more expensive. Think CFCs, leaded gasoline, scrubbing sulfur from smokestacks etc. How is this any different? The government is not blind, they can make projections and at this point the must have concluded that alternatives are likely to be ready in time. Plus cities are moving to ban ICE cars anyway due to particulate pollution instead of CO2.
jonknee 9y ago
> My point is, these things are unknowable and uncertain and the state should stop issuing these authoritarian decrees and let the technology catch up and work itself out and then maybe we can collectively as a democratic society vote on and decide what we want the laws to be in 2040. If the goal looks more and more impossible as time goes on it can be adjusted, the more important aspect is making it a national goal in the first place. It's not much different than the US and CAFE standards, there's something quite powerful about a far off mandate that can make the impossible gradually doable.
dpark 9y ago
> ...banning a product that contemporary society uses every single day, that many people need to survive for which there are currently no affordable and/or reasonable alternatives. Sure, maybe in 20 years battery tech will have improved... If in 20 years battery-powered cars are still not feasible for most people, do you think the French government will forget that they have power to modify or repeal the law?

by Helmet 9y ago

ceejayoz 9y ago

> Sure, maybe in 20 years battery tech will have improved to the point where cost won't be an issue and maybe we will have charging stations everywhere, or maybe not, maybe the innovation plateaus as happens often. Upon which the regulations will be adjusted accordingly. > My point is, these things are unknowable and uncertain and the state should stop issuing these authoritarian decrees and let the technology catch up and work itself out and then maybe we can collectively as a democratic society vote on and decide what we want the laws to be in 2040. You mean like by the election they just had?

Helmet 9y ago
> Upon which the regulations will be adjusted accordingly. So you seem to be advocating for wide, sweeping bans and regulations, and then working backwards if the technology doesn't pan out. I'm advocating the opposite: tax credits, incentives, etc. to move the technology forward and when it's ready, perhaps make the big shift to all electric. > You mean like by the election they just had? I guess we differ on the authority that elections that for out should have. But that is a more ideological issue, so I'll concede the point.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  I think we've got plenty of corporate welfare in place already. If people are pissed about the upcoming regulations, they can vote in a new government that'll revoke it. They've got several five year periods in which to do so. From what I know of French politics, this ban shouldn't be very controversial.

the8472 9y ago

Many bans have been announced in advance while the alternatives were still in development stages or more expensive. Think CFCs, leaded gasoline, scrubbing sulfur from smokestacks etc. How is this any different? The government is not blind, they can make projections and at this point the must have concluded that alternatives are likely to be ready in time. Plus cities are moving to ban ICE cars anyway due to particulate pollution instead of CO2.

jonknee 9y ago

> My point is, these things are unknowable and uncertain and the state should stop issuing these authoritarian decrees and let the technology catch up and work itself out and then maybe we can collectively as a democratic society vote on and decide what we want the laws to be in 2040. If the goal looks more and more impossible as time goes on it can be adjusted, the more important aspect is making it a national goal in the first place. It's not much different than the US and CAFE standards, there's something quite powerful about a far off mandate that can make the impossible gradually doable.

dpark 9y ago

> ...banning a product that contemporary society uses every single day, that many people need to survive for which there are currently no affordable and/or reasonable alternatives. Sure, maybe in 20 years battery tech will have improved... If in 20 years battery-powered cars are still not feasible for most people, do you think the French government will forget that they have power to modify or repeal the law?