: For the most part I agree with what you said. But I believe that you have overstated the problems associated with cars.Actually, I've probably understated it for the sake of brevity. I
didn't mean to imply that cars are the sole cause of overcrowding,
accidental death and pollution, but they do exacerbate those problems.
In addition, the car itself eventually breaks down and is discarded,
creating more problems of waste disposal. And the manufacturing
process required to make the car creates yet another set of problems
with regard to resource usage and environmental destruction.
Don't misunderstand me--I don't hate automobiles. Driving and restoring "classic" cars is something I enjoy. But I think the entire
system of manufacturing, purchasing, repairing, driving and disposing
of cars is not something that improves the quality of life for most of
us. And the car is just one of many capitalist products that we could
use for the sake of discussion.
: I think that technology needs looking at, but in a realistic light. When you start over exaggerating your case people begin to doubt what you say. Be realistic.
The problem is, when do you decide that someone is exaggerating?
When does initial evidence of problems with technology become overwhelming evidence? I don't believe that manufacturers will stop
the production of a profitable item until they are forced to do so,
either by the government or by citizens in private litigation. By
that time, the damage is already done. Caveat emptor.
: Just because there is a possibility of disaster hardly rules something out. If that were the case then we would have to rule all life out. Life itself results in a disastrous end at death.
By the same token, just because something enriches a handful of
individuals doesn't mean we should tolerate it. The American financial
system is a house of cards, and ordinary citizens have few, if any
alternatives to it. You can start your own business, but banking is
a closed club. Why should banks have such control over our futures,
and enlist the help of the state to assure their dominant positions?
: Again, like the people who made horse drawn carriages. When the automobile came along the disastrous result to them was the loss of their livelihood, so should we freeze all technology were it is so we won't harm any more companies/employees? If so then you can forget advancing the car so it is safer and causes less or no pollution.
Up until the 1970s, changes in automotive technology were made for
reasons of performance and style. Emissions and safety were not the
automakers primary concerns. Government regulation, not the profit
motive, has caused these changes. A freeze on all technology might not
be such a bad idea. Some wise person recently noted that the western
world is rapidly becoming one big black box emblazoned with the words "No User-Serviceable Parts Inside."
: What part of capitalism requires you to buy the car?
That part called the "employer". Here's some examples from newspaper
job advertisements: "Travel required"; "Must have valid drivers license"; and my favorite, "You must have a car to get to work." I
don't know about your part of the country, but this trend is increasing
here in Madison. Theoretically, a car is optional. Practically
speaking, it is a requirement; even in a city like mine, with mass
transit.
: Lets go with the old excuse "I need a car to get to work"; and work it from the angle of the suburbanite getting from the suburb into the city.
: The suburbanite has a couple of possibilities. He/She could move into the city closer to work and walk or ride a bicycle to work, or use the mass transit system that cities have, or work to get his/her employer to move all/part of the business closer to home. Each has its advantages and disadvantages depending on what that person wants.
Again, this is theoretically possible, but day-to-day realities have a
habit of intruding on theory. As I mentioned above, employers often
require you to have a car: as part of the job, or just because they don't want to hear an employee say he's late because he missed the bus/train. And that only applies to cities with mass transit, which
are a minority here in America. People choose to live in areas for
reasons other than proximity to employment. School district, neighborhood environment, family and friends all enter into the decision. And what employer will move his business to facilitate an
employee's commute? That's not at all realistic.
: This general idea can be played out against MOST of the problems we have. The thing about a capitalist society is the fact that the people, not the government, make the choices. With a freedom to chose and provide viable alternatives the people themselves can and will eventually find the answer that is right for THEM. No other method allows so many people to supply viable alternatives or even useless items for everybody else.
Yes, capitalism does provide many alternatives, but those useless items
have some of us a bit concerned. Even useful products and services
have an impact on our lives which may not be beneficial. As I stated
in my previous post, capitalism can solve problems, but it creates a
host of new ones. Why should we freeze ourselves at this point in
history and declare that we've arrived at the ultimate political and
economic system?
