What kept the Inca’s from developing economically? It may be their socialism, but let’s not forget the lack of transportation. Any bridges thrh had to get from mountain side to mountain side, were rope bridges. Transporting cargo requires bridges made of stone or wood. Not only did they not have horses to pull carts laden with cargo, but they could only cross valleys one person at the time on theirctope bridges.
The travel bans the European dictatorships have announced will reduce the surviving population to the level of development and to the size of the incas.
Since no more energy may be used to grow food, the problem of shipping food from the farms to the inner cities will be hypothetical.
The people there to be the first to starve. (Not just in Europe, also in the USA; if a dem wins the next US presidential election, because they will definitely implement #AOC’s ridiculous #GreenLeapBackward.
RIPNew YorkcCity and Los Angeles etc. It’s no coincidence that I name the citirs on both coasts with the most regressive populations
There was a whole fuss about fuel consumption figures in brochures not being feasible on the road.
This should be of no concern, because if you use the consumption figures to compare cars, you could still buy Tlthe most frugal of the two. This meant that the consumer would still be best of. But: that was of no concern to the state (that after all does not care about the citizen), because the state wanted to base the degrees of punishment of individual citizens, on the fuel consumption (CO2-emmission)of the vehicle they foolishly chose to drive. Ideally they wanted to chose the vehicle the citizen was going to drive also. Even more ideally, they’d like to force the citizen out of any car at all, but that’s another subject entirely.
And to get away with the excessive punishment regime they were hoping for, they developed the New European Driving Cycle. That could generate more accurate & representative fuel consumption figures and allow more differentiated punishment, under the guise of stimulating more desirable behavior.
It is the sheer and utter failure (if not downright refusal) of governments to solve the climate crisis. Is it possible to speak of a crisis if it’s been lingering for a quarter century? Because the Paris accord dates back to 2016, Kyoto to 1992.
That’s 24 frigging years difference! Surely, all the totalitarian regimes that signed the agreement would have been able to make a dent in emissions levels? Every country in the world, apart from perhaps Liechtenstein, Bhutan and maybe a few others, are totalitarian regimes, meaning that they claim the exclusive right to manage, the total life experiences of their populations. And are therefore in the position to make the changes.
If governments are so unable (unwilling is more like it) to make the changes to e.g. the country’s infrastructure, to reduce emissions, they do not deserve to be in that position. Speaking for the Dutch case, the junta in the Hague is actively hostile to the actual reduction of CO2 emmissions. And has spent the past 52 years cultivating traffic jams, maximizing emmissions.
Of course, this can only mean that #Trump was right to shred the Paris accord
Because, either: levels have in the past 24 years been sufficiently reduced making the accord superfluous, or: they’re still too high, proving the incompetence / malice of governments. Anyway you look at it, the accord must be shredded by all signers.
#Climate has been the biggest deceit since 1917.
You can’t add lots of weight to a vehicle, ie make the engine perform more work (pulling in motion the batteries, or braking them to a stop), and expect it to consume less energy.
The only reason hybrid cars SEEM more frugal, is because they lose less energy on the typical state-operated road (with lots of stoplights, traffic jams, and similar obstructions) well, actually, they lose the same amout of energyas regular cars, but they are able to recoup some of that energy. Newton teaches us, that that is no energy gain (otherwise hybrids would be perpetal motion machines). So in order to reduce CO2 output, the state needs to do something itself, make the sacrifice of repealling the decades old policy of causing traffic problems. Or it must cease to exist, what everyone who truly cares for the climate (and believes that there’s a manmade climate crisis going on) has no other option but to wish for.
Who’ll make the roads?
Is a common complaint about statelessness; if there’s no state to build the roads, who would do it?
Proof that roads can be provided privately: the French Autoroutes are all privately operated toll roads.
Because the French state doesn’t have to spend money on .otorways, they can spend that money on luxuries like universal health care.
Of course, there is the issue of emminent domain where the state can confiscate property to make room for roads. Businesses can’t do that (which is why that is the prefetable solution) but at least one hurdle has been taken in answering the titular question.
Private roads need not be funded by toll, but that can be part of the price of products businesses sell, just like buildings are.
For the sake of protecting the climate, the government should encourage homeschooling.
Running a schoolbus (or children making their own way, whether
- on foot,
- on pushbike,
- by car
- Or motorbike/moped)
to: a big building that’s heated throughout including the halls / empty classrooms is a horrible waste of energy
and causes vast amounts of CO2 to be emitted.
Let’s see where the priorities lie:
- Protecting climate, or
- influencing the children.
In this great book Chaos Theory Bob Murphy partially quotes Thomas Payne: government is a necessary evil. Actually , the full quote is that government is atbest a necessary evil; at worst it is an intolerable evil. And going by what Professor Emeritus of management (bestuurskunde) Gabriël van den Brink reports,
government (esp. The Dutch one, but really all governments I know of) has made an effort to become as intolerable as possible, even going so far as attempting to kill the population, while blaming them for it! (After half a century, they surely know how to cure the traffic jams, that cause so much economic damage and such high emmission levels. One would be justified to expect that the CO2-hysteria would have them make an effort to cure the traffic jams, after 52 (!) years they know how to cure them, but they simply refuse to do it, wilfully causing high CO2-emmissions, which they condemn as harmful. That is not simply negligent, it is downright evil/murderous.
What is the “solution”? A travel ban per 2030, which must have been invented by GroenLinks (GreenLeft, formerly the, well, one of the communist parties), the party that was invited to negotiate to take part in the governing coalition, negotiations that (ostensibly) failed, but yet their wishes are made law, even though the voter voted against them. But such is the nature of dictatorships, that policies the voter voted against, get pushed through anyway. Per 2030 sales of cars with internal combustion engines are banned.
It’s the excise tax upon gasoline that is used to subsidize electric vehicles, public transport, and the soon equally banned hybrids too. So those already unaffordable cars will be even more expensive.
The claim appeRs to be that EVs don’t waste energy in traffic jams. Which is obviously patently ridiculous, as anyone with even a minor comprehension of physical reality will realize.
So in actuality, the way they hope to cure the traffic jams must be by bankrupting every single citizen. And so removing all traffic. As I said: beyond negligible, downright evil.