I got an idea.

How about we all work basically for free, and then the government simply gives us everything we could ever ask for in return? None of us would own any land, because it is better off in the hands of our *elected* officials.

Each of us would get one loaf of bread every three days, and a gallon of milk once a week. Sure, the lines in the market to get a decent pair of shoes might keep you there all day ... but the rationed month-old beef would be the reward for such persistance.

Of course, the alcoholism rate would be out of control, three out of every four pregancies would end in abortion, and the divorce rate would exceed 75%. We would be the first industialized nation in world history to experience a decline in life expectancy suring peacetime. None of this would matter, because the Party would mask these results to the nation and the rest of the world.

Then we could have this really cool flag ... maybe all red with a little yellow hammer and sickle in the upper left corner.

This is how you get an entire population of people to conform to the wishes of just a few folks who think they are better than the general populace.

Hasn't someone tried this before?





NOTE: If you don't get it by now, basically, I'm trying to tell you to get over yourself. You are doing what you can (or so it seems) to be a good consumer of the Earth, but once you try to start manipulating groups of people to meet your agenda, you are nothing more than either a politician or a dictator. Again, get over yourself ... these types of threads are getting old.

Oh yeah ... I AM a psychologist by training, and will be the first to admit that the degree is largely a joke. The FIELD is decent. The DEGREE is a joke. If we are all shrinks, this Earth would be entriely unbearable ... I guarantee it.

Considering your alleged credentials, posts like this are in no way is helpful.

The issue is whether or not to take responsibility - not capitalism vs communism. Speaking of communism - where did Chernoybl happen? How pristene is Eastern Europe? The Aral Sea? The South China tiger is all but certain to become extinct - no thanks to Mao.

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated

Stereotypes, if you want to call this one, have degrees of truth to them. However, to say that the majority of pick-up truck and SUV owners have self esteem problems and that a good portion of them are also short is one thing; saying that all pick-up truck and SUV owners have self esteem problems and that all of them are short is another. Stereotypes do not say the majority of x group, but that all of x group. Regardless of what your feelings are towards stereotypes or what you have been taught to regurgitate about them, this is not one of them, so none of it applies. If you insist on declaring my statements to be stereotyping, I can declare your statements to be stereotyping, as you are making the declaration that linking a group in part to any negative concept is stereotyping, no matter what the situation is, which in itself is a stereotype.

Please do not group me with everyone else here. I am not partial to the idea that the world is going to end because of carbon dioxide and I did not have this idea because I thought it would somehow save the world. I just thought that the only practical way to reduce dependence on foreign oil would be to tackle the actual reason that many people drive inefficient vehicles, rather than ignore it.

Very cute, but where is your evidence that self-esteem is rampant and a possible solution to the pickup truck problem. Studies could show that hybrid owners have just as many self-esteem issues as pickup truck owners. Wouldn't it be premature to work the self-esteem problem not knowing of your stereotyping is accurate?

But the first post was helpful? Get real.

Over a year ago, I linked a CNN video on the HOV access controversey. They interviewed three drivers: a "smug" Prius, an H2, an Escalade. All of them were bad poster children (yes - as in spoiled brats) All of them thought they were special. The video sort of reminded me of how they select people on The Jerry Springer Show.

It's sort of like personal appearance - you can dress sharp, but some over do it and it's just vain - taking one's self too seriously. Our vehicles can often like our clothes - too much "hey - look at me!". There are several flavors of doing this....

In Ever Wonder How Much Gas is Wasted by Speeders Passing Hypermilers? - it was commented that most driving problems stem from a lack of courtsey. This issue also seems to be a behaviorial issue. To me, a vehicle is for transportation. Yes I want it to look nice, but I'm not concerned if I'm considered cool or look like a success.

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated

A family of 7. They often pull a trailer. Should they be shunned from getting an SUV?

<Best Tank Economy!><Best Tank Endurance!>

I'm not against whatever is "necessary" - but how many large families are there these days? The average family is getting smaller. At least 60% (it's probably 80%) of vehicles on work commutes are single-occupant - lot of 6-8 passenger vehicles commuting with just the driver. The point is obvious.

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated

I know of a fellow around where I live that just traded in his Honda Element for a Hummer H3. The reason he did it was for utility reasons, not ego. His Honda could not tow a trailer easily and got single digit mileage while towing. The H3 gets decent mileage while towing, so his was econic in a way. Now you might look at him driving it, and think he got the H3 because of ego, but the truth of the matter is he drives less than 10 miels a day and chose it for his weekend activites. He could have easily afforded a H2 or even an H1, but he chose the more practicle H3.

He also got a bunch of incentives to buy it, big rebates, very little interest, and a great trade-in value. All-in-all it was a wise choice for him.

Now I do think there are some that get the mega dollar SUVs for nothing more than ego.

I couldn't disagree more. What you are describing is behavior dictated by the government. The spirit of this original post was social change.
Other people have the right to drive whatever they want. But, as citizens, we also have the right to try to convince them to drive something else if they are willing to listen. This is how most changes occur in society. The government does not have the right to dictate that we all buy a certain type of car, unless...

They finally admit that C02 emissions are harming the environment. In the same sense that government(s) are coming around to the fact that second hand smoke harms non-smokers and are banning smoking in public places, they could also come around to the conclusion that "second hand C02 emissions" are harming our environment, therefore harming everyone, and ban large amounts of CO2 emisions in public places (i.e. all roads). But, that ethical matter is still up for debate.