Date:         Fri, 15 Mar 96 20:54 CST
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         khooper@wsp1.wspice.com (Ken Hooper)
Subject:      Re: Appropriateness NON-VW [Rant. Political Content. Extremism. Beware.]


>>I cannot purchase the vehicle
>>I love and desire because some dork-in-a-tie decided that my vehicle of
>>choice is too dirty/unsafe for me to own.
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I think that beyond the restrictions of government there exists a higher set
>of rules. The Earth is not at our disposal. Within a closed system no action
>is ever done without consequence. Minimal impact on the system as we pass
>through it is more important than getting upset at a government regulation
>that, however poorly executed, is merely trying to enforce what you should
>already be doing.

>The Earth is not at our disposal.

The gentleman did not say he wished to dispose of the Earth. He said he
wanted to buy a new Transporter. Moreover,

> The Earth is not at our disposal.

At whose disposal is it, then? Life is for the living. We do not destroy
what sustains us because we realize that is not in our interest, not
because of environmentalist happy-babble. If this were not so the race
would have auto-destructed long ago.

> Within a closed system no action is ever done without consequence.

We wouldn't be carefully ignoring the inevitable consequences of blind
statism, would we? But that's really beside the point, which is:

Please demonstrate the grievous consequence of selling new Transporters to
people who wish to buy them. Then, please demonstrate that this consequence
is so catastrophic that it justifies this sort of wholesale bureacratic
meddling and ungodly cost.

>Minimal impact on the system as we pass
>through it is more important than getting upset

More important to whom? You'll choose your own priorities, please, and only
yours.

>Minimal impact on the system as we pass
>through it is more important than getting upset at a government regulation
>that, however poorly executed, is merely trying

That is, sure, it's almost completely futile, monstrously costly,
predatory, politically motivated, conducted by lazy, surly, corrupt fools,
and unjustifiable. But we *mean well*, so overlook all that.

>Minimal impact on the system as we pass
>through it is more important than getting upset at a government regulation
>that, however poorly executed, is merely trying to enforce what you should
>already be doing.

Enforce what you should be doing. Here it is, just where it always is. It
isn't about saving the whales and cuddling the koalas, it's about men with
guns and uniforms. Government is men with guns, Kevin. It's about bossing
people around and locking them in cages if they refuse, and shooting them
if they resist. "Enforce."

Here's what I think. There's always the risk of being charged with the
crime of hyperbole, but if I cared about that I wouldn't go through life
_cajones_ first: <grin>

I think that people who advocate the use of force in the name of half-baked
political goals--people who think men with guns can solve problems, rather
than create them--have at least 150 million political murders to answer for
in this century *alone*.

If there is a method by which people can contrive to destroy the earth (and
everybody in it) while they are "passing through the system," it is
statism, not driving a bloody Mexican Transporter. Buses don't bury their
dead in trenches with bulldozers.

[It's FRIDAY, hey. This is my idea of recreation. Flame all you like for
another three hours.]

--Ken
  '71 Bus, '68 Westy