Should the matter ever arise, they will have to take it from me by violence.
Yes, well, the problem is... they will. And you cannot stop them; you cannot defend any resistance against them; and you cannot resist them effectively. The reality is that the government has absolute control and access to effectively unlimited violence (and therefore coercion), they simply need to choose to exercise it. The most likely trigger for such an exercise is any resistance to any action of theirs on your part.
On their own. With human help, they can migrate faster than any anticipated climate change. We can move, and start generations of, any plant you can imagine, in just one season. If we have a reason to. So this claim is completely deceptive. There's no reason whatsoever to anticipate a problem here.
Similarly for animals.
"Similar" only in the sense that there is a limit; they can certainly migrate much faster than any anticipated rate of climate change, even on their own. And we can assist if we like. This claim is completely wrong in the warmist context.
Both of these points you make are at best, scare tactics. They're nonsensical in the picture of the rates of change the various models suggest.
Likewise human risk; the rates of sea level rise and the time available for adjustment of crops and accommodating whatever precipitation changes occur are both ultimately non-threatening. We've made more changes, agriculturally speaking, in the last 50 years, than have ever been made before. Both as to what is being grown, and how it is being grown. Migration of people away from a shoreline that is moving inland at slower than a walk is no threat at all; it will indeed force change, if it occurs, but there is no reason whatsoever to assume that change will be all negative. For instance, Florida largely consists of coral fossil; for all we know, climate change will (after considerable spans of time) result in a huge return of coral and lifeforms that thrive therein. And who's to say we'll breed at the same rates if population pressures begin to be felt? And then there is the impact of future technology we can't predict. There are so many false and/or unsubstantiated assumptions in the warmist cries of "sky is falling" that it is almost not worth trying to even talk to them -- except that they want control of the pursestrings based on their ideas, and that does not appear to be called for.
If indeed we face a warming period, that's one thing -- it is far from certain that the ultimate consequences of this will be negative. A great deal of the claims, as yours, are exaggerated and not well thought out at all. Furthermore, no doubt there will be changes that are of advantage; you might devote some time to thinking about that as well. This isn't a volcano or a meteor -- this is a glacially slow set of temperature changes happening in the face of an enormously capable, scientifically literate, fast-reacting race. If, in fact, these changes occur at all. That remains to be seen.
Soylent green was 100% algae until Hollywood got hold of it.
So clearly, Hollywood is the enemy.
Read "Make Room, Make Room" to learn all about Soylent, and for that matter catch a great story that was muddled into unrecoverability by pinheaded filmmakers.
If robots are built from standard parts -- as surely they will be -- then a maintenance robot can fix either your household robot, or another maintenance robot. Just as a doctor can fix you, or another doctor, with equal competence (not saying it's high competence, but it is the same, nonetheless.)
There's absolutely no question that the advent of general purpose robotics would drastically shift our economy around. How well we manage that shift would be the fulcrum from which we tilt forward, or backward. Add AI to the equation, and things might go entirely another way, however. Clever functional programming is one thing; an intelligent, independent entity is another. I think it really comes down to AI, or no AI; the latter will work out well for us, the former... unknown.
The s-meter in my SDR software has native Klingon support. It's one of the easter eggs. I'm imagining people finding it, then actually translating the s-meter readout by going to Bing. Having a little trouble with how they'll encode the input font, but I'm sure MS has it all figured out. Perhaps it's OCR.
I dunno if it's just me, because I'm wacky that way, but... lol.
Bestiality is soft porn? Those green alien women Kirk bangs aren't human, you know.
They're not beasts, either, though. Seems like "bestiality" isn't really a term developed with sexually compatible sentients in mind. What about sex with an artificially intelligent sexbot? Bestiality? I don't think so. Both would be consensual, informed... Seems like eventually, at least if these things arise in other than fictional venues, we'll have to expand our outlooks a bit. Even in fiction, you need a way to look at it that makes sense. Bestiality doesn't qualify.
The voters elect people to represent their interests in government. These representatives are accountable via the means of regular elections, by which unpopular actions on their part will result in their not being re-elected.
What you're missing here is that should representative Doe fail to be re-elected, then candidates Smith and Williams, one of whom will replace Doe as the new representative, will both have been pre-selected by the power brokers to have whatever characteristics they require at the moment. These may be exactly the same as rep. Doe. Depriving an individual of the job is not effective in altering the system when each replacement individual is pre-selected.
The basic problem is that the power brokers - political parties, driven by moneyed and powerful interests - are not accountable. But they are the ones actually controlling the precise selection of the representatives.
It's as if you go to the only store there is, intending to buy yogurt, because you don't like cheese. But they don't offer yogurt. They offer cheese. They offer you a choice of two types of cheese. You pick the cheese that seems least offensive to you. But it's not yogurt. It will never be yogurt. And you will keep buying cheese. Furthermore, it turns out that it's the same cheese either way. They just change the labels. You cannot resolve your preference for yogurt, because its a situation that only offers cheese. Suggestions that you switch to a new cheese don't really address the problem.
Here's the thing. It happens quite a bit right here on slashdot. The rationale "most people want this, so we should have it" is constantly trotted out. That's because people have an extremely simplistic (and foolish) view of how things "ought" to go. We're not a democracy. We have tiny, diseased democratic process segments. No more than that. Everything else is managed in a decidedly non-majoritarian manner. Oligarchy. Say it, believe it. It's what we have today.
Your "issue" is that you presume other people have an obligation to be your unpaid servants. Or do you perhaps think that you owning the real estate you mentioned earlier means anything without the systems tracking and backing such ownership?
What the heck are you talking about? Did you even read the thread? The only mention I made of real estate is as an example of (just one of many) uses of forced takings by the government against the citizenry, I didn't say a flipping *word* about the systems for tracking same -- I was talking about things taken against the citizen's will to accomplish goals opposed to the citizen's principles. Nor do I think *anyone* has an obligation to be my servant, paid or not. I have no idea what you're actually trying to say, but I suggest you start over again, this time paying more attention to what you read.
Nope. Nobody force feeds me marketing now. There's no problem to solve there. No force is in play. The only force I experience comes from the government. All else is at my option. You're a bit bewildered here.
Hacking your computer to get your online banking password and subsequently emptying your account doesn't involve force or the threat of force
You're quite wrong. This is a forceful act, undertaken against my will. You're very confused. Violence is not the only form of force, you know.
Of course you have an option for paying taxes: don't live in a society that demands rent from you for the privilege.
No. This old canard incorrectly presumes that there is somewhere to go that resolves the issues you have with where you are; it also incorrectly presumes that such mobility is practical or even possible. All of these are disingenuous presumptions.
Why do people keep saying this? The two aren't mutually exclusive.
We keep saying it because they're radically different from one another.
A Democracy directly implements the will of the majority. 51 out of 100 want something? They get it. Simple. Appealing until you realize that often, the 51 want slavery, religion in government, control over your sex life, retarded limits on contracts such as marriage, to deny health care to you because you're not wealthy, etc. Best not to go there. The old saw "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner" about covers it.
Whereas a republic doesn't implement the will of the majority at all; it implements the will of the representatives. The idea being that the representatives are honorable, thoughtful people guided by principles more sophisticated than the masses, if for no other reason than because they actually have the time to think things through, as this is their day job, as it were. The concept of a working republic depends utterly on the consistent selection of a majority of honorable, thoughtful representatives who are able to gather sufficient truths about the matters they must create legal structures for (if you're thinking "uh-oh..." then you get a gold star.)
In the specific case of the USA, which is a constitutional republic, by design it implements the will of the representatives, moderated by the constitution's fundamental limits and enumerated powers. Furthermore, the US constitution insists (in article 4, section 4) that each state government is also implemented as a republic. The limits and enumerated powers of the constitution were intended to prevent abuses such as those I outlined as typical for a democracy.
Design aside, the actual function of the US federal government is implementation of the will of the representatives as dictated to them by moneyed and powerful special interests, very rarely moderated by the constitution, then further (as a matter of fiat power grab) moderated according to the whim of SCOTUS, which, thus far, has often been quite at odds with the plain and obvious requirements of the constitution. Technically, this actually turns out to be an oligarchy, something quite prone to abuses, as we see demonstrated in a most concrete manner on a daily basis.
The difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic is immense enough. But the difference between a democracy and the oligarchy we actually have is almost incomprehensible.
What is most likely confusing you about our (nominal) republic is that small portions of the process appear to be somewhat democratic in nature. For instance, once the power brokers in the political parties pre-select the special-interest-compliant figureheads we get to vote for, we can, quite democratically, select either one from column A or one from column B. Most other portions of the process are not democratic. For instance, the FCC, the FDA, the DEA, the CIA, the FBI, the reserve banking system, SCOTUS... these are not democratic institutions, they exist in forms almost completely insulated from the democratic process. For instance, many functionaries persist across voting cycles for representatives; some, like SCOTUS, are effectively impossible to dislodge; some entities, like the federal reserve system, exist outside effective control of anyone at all.
The bottom line, though, is perfectly clear: The USA is not a democracy, and has never been one.
If nothing else, take your hint from the pledge to the flag: "...and to the republic, for which it stands..."
If you do not like how a country is run, you can always leave.
Nonsense. Leaving is not an option for most, "always" is a disingenuous exaggeration. Furthermore, there may well be nowhere to go that resolves the problems you have with where you are. Please leave that old saw in the trash, where it belongs.
No one made you hand over your money to any bank. You made a free choice, there was no taking; you're just screaming about the consequences of that choice because it turned out to be a poor one, for whatever reason.
You are responsible for making the best choices possible. If you don't, your results will not be optimal. That's life. At the next level, you're responsible for learning from poor choices you made. If you don't, likely your results will continue to be less than optimal.
That's what freedom brings to the table: Opportunity and risk. Don't want a particular risk? Fine, in the specific instance you mention, simply don't put your money in a bank. Of course, now there are other risks. Or, perhaps, research the venue before you put your money anywhere. Imagine that!
Governments do not take your money. You vote them in and they collect taxes to do the stuff you elected them to do
No. The majority votes them in, and they do whatever they want; and there is little to no certain connection between what they do, and and what I in particular would have them do. I would not have them go to war outside our borders; provide subsidies to the oil companies; prosecute the drug war; impose rules on personal choice; interfere with the sex lives of those capable of informed consent; etc.
They collect taxes to do all of this anyway, and they do it over my complete disagreement that it is legitimate that they do so. What happened there is that other people have decided to use force against me to make me support their will. That's force. Period. I have no other feasible option whatsoever or I will get hammered.
If your guy didn't win, well that can suck, but its part of the whole "democracy is the worse form of government except for all the rest".
In the USA, we don't have a democracy. We have a republic. It isn't even the will of the people we are bound by; it's indirected one very effective level away from that. Which would probably have been fine if the legislators so chosen were the people of honor envisioned by the founders; but unfortunately, they are the puppets of the rich and powerful, and so it is their bidding, not the public's, and not that of responsible, honorable legislators, that we are made to do.
No. Taking money involves force or the threat of force. Businesses very, very rarely engage in such things, and when they do, they're usually acting as an agent of the government one way or another.
For instance, RIM has never gotten any of my money, nor do I expect to ever hand any over to them, because they make nothing of interest to me. You see? It's my interest, however aroused, that instigates the transaction. So slick pitch or not, they get nothing. My choice. Not theirs.
Likewise, cable television providers: They get nothing. They have absolutely nothing I want; no transaction ensues. They cannot take; they can only accept what I offer freely -- and I don't.
The government, however, tells me I owe them X, there's absolutely no choice or option about this for me, and in fact, if I don't hand it over, they will take it from me. Furthermore, if I don't have the money they want to take, they can and will escalate and take other things like real estate, etc., perhaps incarcerate me, ruin my working life, interfere with my family... this is what taking means. It's about use of force.
A mugger takes. The decision is not yours. There's the force.
A beggar does not take. No matter how hard he begs, no matter how smooth his "sales pitch" or heart-rending his circumstance; the decision is yours. There is no force involved.
And the 60-mph maximum speed on the highway test does not accord with the 75-mph truth of today's interstate traffic.
Where I live the posted limits are 75 mph. Very few people here drive that slow unless the radar detector is going off or there is a cop actually in view.
The reason I know this is because I *do* drive the posted limit, and I am *constantly* being passed.
And the very *idea* of your typical driver taking 18 seconds to hit 60 mph, or accelerating at such a rate, is hilarious. Near as I can tell, any typical mom-n-pop vehicle, the pedal goes to the floor until the desired speed is hit.
First, you're making invalid assumptions about motor weight. Second, you're making invalid assumptions about total unsprung mass based upon our current (and I use that word loosely... I mean, we're talking early 1900's here) *very* heavy tire tech. It's quite possible to put motors on every wheel -- which, btw, can remove the need for a brake assembly, there's a mass savings right there -- and still have a very light total mass, even with today's tech, although not with mass market tech. Once you have motors on all wheels, you have amazing options for skid control, you (obviously) have 4wd, which is highly desirable in many markets (you can't drive in the winter here without it on many days), and as mentioned previously, you have amazing torque and available power to the wheels. You can put the power supply low in the vehicle, which contributes stability, and nearly the whole car becomes electrical, lots of moving widgets eliminated. And to top it off, it's *mucho* more efficient than an IC-driven vehicle.
It's not just about supply. It's about the work you have to do to get to that supply. Deep sea mining? Compare that to an array of solar cells in the desert. Heck, compare just about anything to an array of solar cells.
We're steadily making inroads on every issue electric has (primarily generation, storage, transmission); and in the interim, the end user already has many advantages. Huge torque from initial RPM for motors (you want a fast car? Electric is your friend. You want individual wheel drive? Electric is perfect. You want efficiency? Electric motors are right up there. Etc.) efficiency for light and other applications. You want a device? Electric is what it'll almost certainly run on.
Right now, we need fossil fuels for other things: plastics, lubricants, etc. But even that will probably come to an end, assuming we can get to mining resources from outside our gravity well. That's a long way out right now, but it seems inevitable once we establish a real presence. Zero pollution, zero land disturbance, zero waste products, transport cost of "shove once"... sensors will advance so that asteroids and such can be interrogated at a distance, basically spectrometer type data, give us a good hint of where to go for what...
Eventually, tech will change everything, just as we've seen in the past. Prediction is almost always disrupted by tech. I mean, it's fun to engage in, but if you look back at various predictions from pundits, SF authors, etc... didn't turn out that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, well, the problem is... they will. And you cannot stop them; you cannot defend any resistance against them; and you cannot resist them effectively. The reality is that the government has absolute control and access to effectively unlimited violence (and therefore coercion), they simply need to choose to exercise it. The most likely trigger for such an exercise is any resistance to any action of theirs on your part.
On their own. With human help, they can migrate faster than any anticipated climate change. We can move, and start generations of, any plant you can imagine, in just one season. If we have a reason to. So this claim is completely deceptive. There's no reason whatsoever to anticipate a problem here.
"Similar" only in the sense that there is a limit; they can certainly migrate much faster than any anticipated rate of climate change, even on their own. And we can assist if we like. This claim is completely wrong in the warmist context.
Both of these points you make are at best, scare tactics. They're nonsensical in the picture of the rates of change the various models suggest.
Likewise human risk; the rates of sea level rise and the time available for adjustment of crops and accommodating whatever precipitation changes occur are both ultimately non-threatening. We've made more changes, agriculturally speaking, in the last 50 years, than have ever been made before. Both as to what is being grown, and how it is being grown. Migration of people away from a shoreline that is moving inland at slower than a walk is no threat at all; it will indeed force change, if it occurs, but there is no reason whatsoever to assume that change will be all negative. For instance, Florida largely consists of coral fossil; for all we know, climate change will (after considerable spans of time) result in a huge return of coral and lifeforms that thrive therein. And who's to say we'll breed at the same rates if population pressures begin to be felt? And then there is the impact of future technology we can't predict. There are so many false and/or unsubstantiated assumptions in the warmist cries of "sky is falling" that it is almost not worth trying to even talk to them -- except that they want control of the pursestrings based on their ideas, and that does not appear to be called for.
If indeed we face a warming period, that's one thing -- it is far from certain that the ultimate consequences of this will be negative. A great deal of the claims, as yours, are exaggerated and not well thought out at all. Furthermore, no doubt there will be changes that are of advantage; you might devote some time to thinking about that as well. This isn't a volcano or a meteor -- this is a glacially slow set of temperature changes happening in the face of an enormously capable, scientifically literate, fast-reacting race. If, in fact, these changes occur at all. That remains to be seen.
Fine, take the camera out, and no one will object.
This is, of course, after a diligent search for such a book that is upside down.
Are you saying the new playstation will be the PS 720?
Soylent green was 100% algae until Hollywood got hold of it.
So clearly, Hollywood is the enemy.
Read "Make Room, Make Room" to learn all about Soylent, and for that matter catch a great story that was muddled into unrecoverability by pinheaded filmmakers.
If robots are built from standard parts -- as surely they will be -- then a maintenance robot can fix either your household robot, or another maintenance robot. Just as a doctor can fix you, or another doctor, with equal competence (not saying it's high competence, but it is the same, nonetheless.)
There's absolutely no question that the advent of general purpose robotics would drastically shift our economy around. How well we manage that shift would be the fulcrum from which we tilt forward, or backward. Add AI to the equation, and things might go entirely another way, however. Clever functional programming is one thing; an intelligent, independent entity is another. I think it really comes down to AI, or no AI; the latter will work out well for us, the former... unknown.
SdrDx
The s-meter in my SDR software has native Klingon support. It's one of the easter eggs. I'm imagining people finding it, then actually translating the s-meter readout by going to Bing. Having a little trouble with how they'll encode the input font, but I'm sure MS has it all figured out. Perhaps it's OCR.
I dunno if it's just me, because I'm wacky that way, but... lol.
They're not beasts, either, though. Seems like "bestiality" isn't really a term developed with sexually compatible sentients in mind. What about sex with an artificially intelligent sexbot? Bestiality? I don't think so. Both would be consensual, informed... Seems like eventually, at least if these things arise in other than fictional venues, we'll have to expand our outlooks a bit. Even in fiction, you need a way to look at it that makes sense. Bestiality doesn't qualify.
What you're missing here is that should representative Doe fail to be re-elected, then candidates Smith and Williams, one of whom will replace Doe as the new representative, will both have been pre-selected by the power brokers to have whatever characteristics they require at the moment. These may be exactly the same as rep. Doe. Depriving an individual of the job is not effective in altering the system when each replacement individual is pre-selected.
The basic problem is that the power brokers - political parties, driven by moneyed and powerful interests - are not accountable. But they are the ones actually controlling the precise selection of the representatives.
It's as if you go to the only store there is, intending to buy yogurt, because you don't like cheese. But they don't offer yogurt. They offer cheese. They offer you a choice of two types of cheese. You pick the cheese that seems least offensive to you. But it's not yogurt. It will never be yogurt. And you will keep buying cheese. Furthermore, it turns out that it's the same cheese either way. They just change the labels. You cannot resolve your preference for yogurt, because its a situation that only offers cheese. Suggestions that you switch to a new cheese don't really address the problem.
Here's the thing. It happens quite a bit right here on slashdot. The rationale "most people want this, so we should have it" is constantly trotted out. That's because people have an extremely simplistic (and foolish) view of how things "ought" to go. We're not a democracy. We have tiny, diseased democratic process segments. No more than that. Everything else is managed in a decidedly non-majoritarian manner. Oligarchy. Say it, believe it. It's what we have today.
What the heck are you talking about? Did you even read the thread? The only mention I made of real estate is as an example of (just one of many) uses of forced takings by the government against the citizenry, I didn't say a flipping *word* about the systems for tracking same -- I was talking about things taken against the citizen's will to accomplish goals opposed to the citizen's principles. Nor do I think *anyone* has an obligation to be my servant, paid or not. I have no idea what you're actually trying to say, but I suggest you start over again, this time paying more attention to what you read.
Nope. Nobody force feeds me marketing now. There's no problem to solve there. No force is in play. The only force I experience comes from the government. All else is at my option. You're a bit bewildered here.
You're quite wrong. This is a forceful act, undertaken against my will. You're very confused. Violence is not the only form of force, you know.
No. This old canard incorrectly presumes that there is somewhere to go that resolves the issues you have with where you are; it also incorrectly presumes that such mobility is practical or even possible. All of these are disingenuous presumptions.
We keep saying it because they're radically different from one another.
A Democracy directly implements the will of the majority. 51 out of 100 want something? They get it. Simple. Appealing until you realize that often, the 51 want slavery, religion in government, control over your sex life, retarded limits on contracts such as marriage, to deny health care to you because you're not wealthy, etc. Best not to go there. The old saw "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner" about covers it.
Whereas a republic doesn't implement the will of the majority at all; it implements the will of the representatives. The idea being that the representatives are honorable, thoughtful people guided by principles more sophisticated than the masses, if for no other reason than because they actually have the time to think things through, as this is their day job, as it were. The concept of a working republic depends utterly on the consistent selection of a majority of honorable, thoughtful representatives who are able to gather sufficient truths about the matters they must create legal structures for (if you're thinking "uh-oh..." then you get a gold star.)
In the specific case of the USA, which is a constitutional republic, by design it implements the will of the representatives, moderated by the constitution's fundamental limits and enumerated powers. Furthermore, the US constitution insists (in article 4, section 4) that each state government is also implemented as a republic. The limits and enumerated powers of the constitution were intended to prevent abuses such as those I outlined as typical for a democracy.
Design aside, the actual function of the US federal government is implementation of the will of the representatives as dictated to them by moneyed and powerful special interests, very rarely moderated by the constitution, then further (as a matter of fiat power grab) moderated according to the whim of SCOTUS, which, thus far, has often been quite at odds with the plain and obvious requirements of the constitution. Technically, this actually turns out to be an oligarchy, something quite prone to abuses, as we see demonstrated in a most concrete manner on a daily basis.
The difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic is immense enough. But the difference between a democracy and the oligarchy we actually have is almost incomprehensible.
What is most likely confusing you about our (nominal) republic is that small portions of the process appear to be somewhat democratic in nature. For instance, once the power brokers in the political parties pre-select the special-interest-compliant figureheads we get to vote for, we can, quite democratically, select either one from column A or one from column B. Most other portions of the process are not democratic. For instance, the FCC, the FDA, the DEA, the CIA, the FBI, the reserve banking system, SCOTUS... these are not democratic institutions, they exist in forms almost completely insulated from the democratic process. For instance, many functionaries persist across voting cycles for representatives; some, like SCOTUS, are effectively impossible to dislodge; some entities, like the federal reserve system, exist outside effective control of anyone at all.
The bottom line, though, is perfectly clear: The USA is not a democracy, and has never been one.
If nothing else, take your hint from the pledge to the flag: "...and to the republic, for which it stands..."
Nonsense. Leaving is not an option for most, "always" is a disingenuous exaggeration. Furthermore, there may well be nowhere to go that resolves the problems you have with where you are. Please leave that old saw in the trash, where it belongs.
No one made you hand over your money to any bank. You made a free choice, there was no taking; you're just screaming about the consequences of that choice because it turned out to be a poor one, for whatever reason.
You are responsible for making the best choices possible. If you don't, your results will not be optimal. That's life. At the next level, you're responsible for learning from poor choices you made. If you don't, likely your results will continue to be less than optimal.
That's what freedom brings to the table: Opportunity and risk. Don't want a particular risk? Fine, in the specific instance you mention, simply don't put your money in a bank. Of course, now there are other risks. Or, perhaps, research the venue before you put your money anywhere. Imagine that!
No. The majority votes them in, and they do whatever they want; and there is little to no certain connection between what they do, and and what I in particular would have them do. I would not have them go to war outside our borders; provide subsidies to the oil companies; prosecute the drug war; impose rules on personal choice; interfere with the sex lives of those capable of informed consent; etc.
They collect taxes to do all of this anyway, and they do it over my complete disagreement that it is legitimate that they do so. What happened there is that other people have decided to use force against me to make me support their will. That's force. Period. I have no other feasible option whatsoever or I will get hammered.
In the USA, we don't have a democracy. We have a republic. It isn't even the will of the people we are bound by; it's indirected one very effective level away from that. Which would probably have been fine if the legislators so chosen were the people of honor envisioned by the founders; but unfortunately, they are the puppets of the rich and powerful, and so it is their bidding, not the public's, and not that of responsible, honorable legislators, that we are made to do.
No. Taking money involves force or the threat of force. Businesses very, very rarely engage in such things, and when they do, they're usually acting as an agent of the government one way or another.
For instance, RIM has never gotten any of my money, nor do I expect to ever hand any over to them, because they make nothing of interest to me. You see? It's my interest, however aroused, that instigates the transaction. So slick pitch or not, they get nothing. My choice. Not theirs.
Likewise, cable television providers: They get nothing. They have absolutely nothing I want; no transaction ensues. They cannot take; they can only accept what I offer freely -- and I don't.
The government, however, tells me I owe them X, there's absolutely no choice or option about this for me, and in fact, if I don't hand it over, they will take it from me. Furthermore, if I don't have the money they want to take, they can and will escalate and take other things like real estate, etc., perhaps incarcerate me, ruin my working life, interfere with my family... this is what taking means. It's about use of force.
A mugger takes. The decision is not yours. There's the force.
A beggar does not take. No matter how hard he begs, no matter how smooth his "sales pitch" or heart-rending his circumstance; the decision is yours. There is no force involved.
The singular of data is not "personal anecdote."
Some people can learn multiple languages easily. Others have enormous trouble. In between is a wide range of learning abilities for this.
Same thing for programming, music, math, spatial skills, etc., etc., etc.
...most of congress, along with scotus, suffers from reasonable seizures. It's from the bill of blights, supported by executive disorder.
FTFS:
Where I live the posted limits are 75 mph. Very few people here drive that slow unless the radar detector is going off or there is a cop actually in view.
The reason I know this is because I *do* drive the posted limit, and I am *constantly* being passed.
And the very *idea* of your typical driver taking 18 seconds to hit 60 mph, or accelerating at such a rate, is hilarious. Near as I can tell, any typical mom-n-pop vehicle, the pedal goes to the floor until the desired speed is hit.
You're making two technology related errors.
First, you're making invalid assumptions about motor weight. Second, you're making invalid assumptions about total unsprung mass based upon our current (and I use that word loosely... I mean, we're talking early 1900's here) *very* heavy tire tech. It's quite possible to put motors on every wheel -- which, btw, can remove the need for a brake assembly, there's a mass savings right there -- and still have a very light total mass, even with today's tech, although not with mass market tech. Once you have motors on all wheels, you have amazing options for skid control, you (obviously) have 4wd, which is highly desirable in many markets (you can't drive in the winter here without it on many days), and as mentioned previously, you have amazing torque and available power to the wheels. You can put the power supply low in the vehicle, which contributes stability, and nearly the whole car becomes electrical, lots of moving widgets eliminated. And to top it off, it's *mucho* more efficient than an IC-driven vehicle.
It's not just about supply. It's about the work you have to do to get to that supply. Deep sea mining? Compare that to an array of solar cells in the desert. Heck, compare just about anything to an array of solar cells.
We're steadily making inroads on every issue electric has (primarily generation, storage, transmission); and in the interim, the end user already has many advantages. Huge torque from initial RPM for motors (you want a fast car? Electric is your friend. You want individual wheel drive? Electric is perfect. You want efficiency? Electric motors are right up there. Etc.) efficiency for light and other applications. You want a device? Electric is what it'll almost certainly run on.
Right now, we need fossil fuels for other things: plastics, lubricants, etc. But even that will probably come to an end, assuming we can get to mining resources from outside our gravity well. That's a long way out right now, but it seems inevitable once we establish a real presence. Zero pollution, zero land disturbance, zero waste products, transport cost of "shove once"... sensors will advance so that asteroids and such can be interrogated at a distance, basically spectrometer type data, give us a good hint of where to go for what...
Eventually, tech will change everything, just as we've seen in the past. Prediction is almost always disrupted by tech. I mean, it's fun to engage in, but if you look back at various predictions from pundits, SF authors, etc... didn't turn out that way.