Don't know if I can buy a government car?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Fireball

You have two basic choices here:

(1) Advocate politicians & bureaucrats to regulate & control businessmen and everyone will end up driving Yugos. :(

(2) Advocate individual liberty for all members of society whereby government only protects individuals and their property rather than running everyone's life -- and the ensuing prosperity will result in new Z/28, COPO & ZL1 Camaros for everyone who wants one.

What do you mean by liberty and protection? Protect them from bad air quality? Freedom from foreign oil dependency? The Government has other things in mind than reducing consumer choice when they make these laws.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Fireball

You have two basic choices here:

(1) Advocate politicians & bureaucrats to regulate & control businessmen and everyone will end up driving Yugos. :(

(2) Advocate individual liberty for all members of society whereby government only protects individuals and their property rather than running everyone's life -- and the ensuing prosperity will result in new Z/28, COPO & ZL1 Camaros for everyone who wants one.

No middle ground?

[Kyle2k]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

No middle ground?

There never is when given an agenda focused ultimatum. There is, however, the possibility of responsible regulation. Every facet of life has some form of it, whether it be parental discipline when you're younger or a moral responsibility you SHOULD have developed by the time you're older. For example, even religion is a form of societal regulation when you think about it. To think someone should be free of taking responsibility or discipline for the sake of personal "success" is ludicrous.

[Mr. Wyndham]

This is actually a pretty good article I just found. As I read it -- it took no stance on the subject...rare in modern journalism. It also mentions a few times how under no conditions is GM to become "government motors".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/bu...l?ref=business

[dkb]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

This is actually a pretty good article I just found. As I read it -- it took no stance on the subject...rare in modern journalism. It also mentions a few times how under no conditions is GM to become "government motors".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/bu...l?ref=business

Hey Dragoneye ... your Times article IS interesting. Here, for me, are the most relevant pull quotes.

BTW .. nowhere does the article say that GM isn't going to become government motors????

What it DOES say is this ...

"Mr. Obama has said repeatedly that he is not an automotive engineer and has no desire to pick models, engines, factories or corporate governance structures. But while he may not be choosing automotive designs, he has already started dictating the company’s direction."

and this ....

"The president has made it clear that G.M. must produce small, fuel-efficient, low-carbon-emitting cars —"

and this ....

"Instead, Mr. Obama will effectively use taxpayers as that investor, with the federal government getting slightly more than a 55 percent stake in the company in exchange for forgiving $10 billion in the automaker’s outstanding federal loans. The United Automobile Workers’ retiree trust would have just under 40 percent of the stock, under the G.M. plan."

I believe that's about 95% of the company ... owned by the government and/or the unions.

So he WILL be dictating what they build ... who owns them ... who sits on their board what jobs they're going to cut and what plants they're going to shut down ... and keep.

I can't understand the psychology of people who continue to say he has no interest in controlling a company which he just went out and BOUGHT!

In '79 .. the government simply lent Chrysler money which they eventually paid back. The government didn't take ownership in the company. The government could do that again now if it wanted to.

What's obvious is that Obama wants to control these companies for a host of reasons. He has a green agenda which he can push this way .. he has some political allies in the Unions which he's paying back big time as well as a host of other political objectives we can only guess at.

At the very least will some of you stop denying that the government is taking over these companies and let's talk about the prospects for a 425 HP muscle car being in the inventory of a company run by Obama and a board he selects with executives he picks?

[Fireball]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

What do you mean by liberty and protection? Protect them from bad air quality? Freedom from foreign oil dependency? The Government has other things in mind than reducing consumer choice when they make these laws.

Camaro5 members come here to learn about the 5th generation Camaro rather than political philosophy. However, if they do not understand the basics of political philosophy or if they advocate an improper political philosophy, we will see the end of the 5th generation Camaro and no 6th generation Camaro...until people rediscover a rational political philosophy.

By individual liberty I mean each citizen must be free to think and speak and act without being coerced by anyone. If a citizen is threatened by another, then he is not a free man. The purpose of government is to intervene on behalf of the citizen to stop the coercive threat...or punish someone who has initiated force against another citizen.

This is the only justifiable reason for government. Since members of society grant government with a monopoly on the use of physical force, society must strictly delimit what a government does. Defending each citizen and his/her property is the ONLY justifiable role of government.

Yet today the government has moved far beyond its proper protective function. Rather than protecting citizens from force & fraud, the government attempts to do all things for all people: provide housing, food, jobs, pensions, education, health, mail, libraries, roads -- really everything.

But when a government goes beyond its proper role as protector against initiatory force and fraud, it necessarily initiates force and coercive threats against citizens. Why? Because the government itself is not productive, so it must target the productive members of society, confiscate their earned wealth, and redistribute this to favored members of society.

At that point anything goes. If a certain segment of society doesn't like big, powerful cars, they lobby government to end production of those cars. The reasons are endless: global cooling, global warming, ozone depletion, protecting polar bears, saving whales -- whatever the duped public will accept.

The bottom line is a 6-pack GTO or a Daytona Charger or a ZL1 Corvette could never arise from a collectivist society. Only a society that honors & protects individual rights can give birth to a GTO, Charger & Corvette because the voluntary interaction among citizens makes this possible.

[Kyle2k]

Originally Posted by Fireball

By individual liberty I mean each citizen must be free to think and speak and act without being coerced by anyone.

Originally Posted by Fireball

Camaro5 members come here to learn about the 5th generation Camaro rather than political philosophy. However, if they do not understand the basics of political philosophy or if they advocate an improper political philosophy, until people rediscover a rational political philosophy.

Yet today the government has moved far beyond its proper protective function. Rather than protecting citizens from force & fraud, the government attempts to do all things for all people: provide housing, food, jobs, pensions, education, health, mail, libraries, roads -- really everything.

But when a government goes beyond its proper role as protector against initiatory force and fraud, it necessarily initiates force and coercive threats against citizens. Why? Because the government itself is not productive, so it must target the productive members of society, confiscate their earned wealth, and redistribute this to favored members of society.

At that point anything goes. If a certain segment of society doesn't like big, powerful cars, they lobby government to end production of those cars. The reasons are endless: global cooling, global warming, ozone depletion, protecting polar bears, saving whales -- whatever the duped public will accept.

The bottom line is a 6-pack GTO or a Daytona Charger or a ZL1 Corvette could never arise from a collectivist society. Only a society that honors & protects individual rights can give birth to a GTO, Charger & Corvette because the voluntary interaction among citizens makes this possible.

[Tomash]

Originally Posted by Fireball

(...)

[stovt001]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

This is actually a pretty good article I just found. As I read it -- it took no stance on the subject...rare in modern journalism. It also mentions a few times how under no conditions is GM to become "government motors".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/bu...l?ref=business

Uh, Dragon, that article pretty much put it clear as day that GM would essentially be controlled by the President. There hasn't been such a direct media statement of that fact since The Economist called GM Government Motors in the first place. That article in no way supports your argument that GM isn't nationalized an a waiting tool for the left-wing, environmental-wacko agenda.

[Kyle2k]

So....who is going to buy me a beer when GM is privately owned again and the Camaro is still being sold in 5 (edit: or less) years?

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by stovt001

Uh, Dragon, that article pretty much put it clear as day that GM would essentially be controlled by the President. There hasn't been such a direct media statement of that fact since The Economist called GM Government Motors in the first place. That article in no way supports your argument that GM isn't nationalized an a waiting tool for the left-wing, environmental-wacko agenda.

I'm glad now I had to run out and didn't get to read the article.... it would have been too depressing.

[BowtieGuy]

Originally Posted by Kyle2k

So....who is going to buy me a beer when GM is privately owned again and the Camaro is still being sold in 5 (edit: or less) years?

I'll share it with you. Seems like as soon as the Camaro is out, so many people have forgotten our favorite mantra...

Keep The Faith.

[stovt001]

I still think the Camaro will be sold in 5+ years. I'm fairly confident that the administration is smart enough to know that canceling a project without recovering the sunk costs of development wouldn't be a smart idea, no matter how much the greenies might hate it. However, I'd place a strong bet on the Camaro being the last exciting vehicle to come out of GM for a long, long time.

[dkb]

Originally Posted by Tomash

what's PARTICULARLY ignorant about this cartoon is that virtually all the American soldiers who were in Somalia fighting to get food and water to the starving throngs ... hate taxes ... hate regulation ... hate government and love guns.

... but so it goes ...

its no use pointing out that the somali warlords were and are all leftist thugs ...