And now, they’re happy about paying less than $3… .

Remarkable.

Meanwhile, the average price paid for a new car (as of this past April) now exceeds $30,000 (news story here).

In 1990, it was just over $16,000.

So, we’re paying twice as much for gas – and for the cars we put the gas into.

Hence my not smiling.

Inflation accounts for a lot of this, of course. $16k in 1990′s money works out to an inflation-adjusted $28,630 in 2013 money. And $1.10 in 1990 dollars is equivalent to just under $2 today, in terms of real purchasing power. But, income inflation has not kept pace with dollar inflation.

Especially not since 2008.

Most of us have been treading water for the past five years  . . . with one hand.

Before 2008, I didn’t personally know anyone with serious money (or job) troubles. Now, literally everyone I know has money – or job – troubles.

This is anecdotal, of course. But for me it’s a barometer of the true state of the economy – as opposed to the Happy Talk warbling out of the radio, which I regard as not unlike the “good news, comrades!” about the increased chocolate ration coming over the loudspeaker in Orwell’s 1984.

I don’t believe a word of it.

Yet, people are buying cars. The industry reports its best year in years.

Perhaps buying is not the right word, though.

That word (like “freedom”) is much-abused. If one is making payments on something, then one is making payments on something. One hasn’t actually bought it. Because the seller still has legal claim to it. One has agreed to make payments toward its eventual (theoretical?) purchase – and during the interval, the seller merely allows you to retain possession and use (under conditions). Fail to make a payment, and the seller may take back his vehicle.

Perhaps I am being pedantic.

But the point remains: The touted uptick of new car sales is almost certainly another spec-bubble created by financial flim-flams. It has to be – given that new cars cost more than ever – and given that most people have less real financial wherewithal than they used to have.

I will give you two specific examples:

My wife and I know a couple. The man is a part-time manual worker; the wife a part-time minimum wage worker. I doubt their combined annual income is more than $30,000 – if that. We know they are are mortgaged to the Adam’s apple and live paycheck to paycheck..

Both of them drive new cars.

Read the rest of the article

Too bad they can’t cut back on insurance – which for most of them is as far from essential as Federal Reserve notes are from sound money.

Insurance is a terrible deal for most people. A financial sink-hole that grows wider and consumes more with each passing day (and each newly “adjusted” premium).

No doubt this is why it has been made mandatory.

First car – now health.

Most people have, of course, been duped into believing otherwise – that insurance is essential – via the inculcation of fear. A whole industry (a mafia, actually) is predicated on it. Scare the crap out of people; convince them that catastrophe is right around the corner and inescapable.

The fallacy ought to be obvious.

If it’s true that catastrophe lurks – and is inescapable – insurance companies would go broke instead of rendering us broke.

Unfortunately, this simple deduction is not obvious to most people. Even though it’s right in front of their noses each time they pay a premium – for years on end.

Insurance is one of the greatest scams going – to a great extent, because it’s a scam you can’t say no to. Vegas is crooked, but you don’t have to go there. A back-alley card game is fixed, too – but no one makes you participate.

With car insurance – and now, Obamacare – you must participate.

Or else.

This is essential. Take away the marks and the “house” makes no money. Imagine a card game in which the only people playing could not ante up yet were entitled to saycall. Now think about car and health insurance – with the only people voluntarily signing up being those who fully expect to cash in.

Grab a piece of paper. How many years have you been paying for car insurance? In that time, how many claims have you filed? I will go out on a limb and guess you paid a lot more for insurance than the insurance paid out to you. Many – probably most people – will discover they paid so much in over the years that had they been involved in an accident, they could probably have paid for the repairs out of pocket.

If they still had the money, of course.

And what if you never have an accident? People have been conditioned – by the insurance mafia – to regard this as a near-impossibility yet it’s just the opposite. Most people never have more than a fender-bender accident – and it is not all uncommon for good drivers to go their entire driving lives without ever being involved in a significant wreck.

It has to be this way – or else the numbers would work against the insurance mafia, rather than against you.

Most “accidents” are not random events that just happen. They happen – for the most part – as a direct result of factors under one’s control. Control those factors, and the risk of being the cause of a serious accident falls to very small. In which case, car insurance is a bad bet. Just as health insurance is a bad bet for a healthy 25-year-old. (Or for that matter, a healthy 45 year old.)

Certainly, accidents happen. But most “accidents” aren’t.  Just as it’s no “accident” that obese/sedentary people who live on fast food tend to die sooner – and to develop diseases such as hypertension and diabetes that are largely avoidable if one maintains a reasonable body weight, eats moderately and exercises regularly.

Smart people know this, of course – and would skip car insurance when they still could – and said no thanks to health insurance when that was still possible.

Better to just put some money aside – and drive attentively and competently (with the strong inducement to do so being the knowledge that you’ll pay for it – directly – if you’re not attentive). Probably, nothing will happen. If it does, you’ll have the money to pay for it. If not, you’ll have the money to pay for other things.

For the same reasons, why would anyone other than a Forrest Gumpian innumerate pay $300 a month for health insurance and then a $30 co-pay on top of that when a routine physical might cost $300 once? Using health insurance to pay for ordinary check-ups, stubbed toes, the sniffles – and so on – is as ridiculous as using car insurance to pay for oil changes and tune-ups. At least they haven’t gotten around to forcing us to do that yet.

But probably, it’s on deck.

After all, why not? People expect Obamacare to “cover” everything – so why shouldn’t their car policy, too? Never mind the obvious – that when things are made “free” by government fiat, they tend to become both scarce and expensive.

In criminal cases, the basis of any investigation is cui bono – who benefits?

Who benefits from making insurance something you can’t elect to skip? If insurance is so wonderful, so essential, does it not follow that most people would eagerly sign up without being forced to? And if most people must be forced to sign up, does that fact not tell us something about the value of insurance?

How come it is not necessary to mandate that people buy ice cream? Or clothes? Or toothpaste?

People – stupid people – claim that mandatory insurance (both car and health) lowers cost by dint of spreading the cost around. Has it not occurred to them that any business that can force you to buy its product or service has virtually no pressure bearing down upon it to reduce the prices it charges? That such cartels become insolent and tyrannical precisely because they can – precisely because you have no choice? Have you ever heard of a business that charges less when it can get away with charging more?

Ever?

Read the rest of the article

But, there’s a catch.

A Catch-22, actually.

Mitsubishi – like all car manufacturers – must build every car it makes to government spec. That means multiple air bags – seven, in the case of the ’14 Mirage. Some are required directly in that every new car must by law have at least a driver and front seat passenger air bag. Others are required in an indirect way, via government crashworthiness requirements.

For a very small – and very light – car like the Mirage (which weighs just over 1,800 pounds) to be deemed “safe” as government defines it, a plethora of air bags is necessary. Side-impact bags, for both rows – plus a knee air bag for the driver (see technical specs here).

What happens when they deploy?

Keep in mind that the Mirage is a car with a sticker price, brand new – around $13,000. Two or three years old, it will have a book value in the $8,000 or so range. Most insurance adjusters will declare a car a total loss – throw it away, forget fixing it – when the repair costs are estimated to exceed 50 percent of the car’s retail value, pre-accident. So, if the car was worth about $8,000 before the accident, it will probably be “totaled” if the estimated repair cost is in the vicinity of $4,000.

It is very easy to spend $4,000 at the body shop – before even factoring in the cost of air bag replacement.

Much less replacing four or five air bags.

And you’re more likely to face having to replace them.

Because a car like the Mirage is small and light, an impact that might not cause the air bags (or fewer of them) to deploy in a larger, heavier car – in which there is more metal to absorb impact forces – is more likely to trigger an air bag deployment (multiple deployments).

Some will argue that’s a good thing; that air bags “save lives.” That it’s worth the cost. But unless they’re the ones paying the bills, who are they to dictate?

Shouldn’t it be the buyer’s choice?

I’d like to know where the air bags-at-gunpoint people get the idea that it’s ok to spend other people’s money. Whether it’s $1,000 or $100 per air bag, it’s none of their business (and so, no business of the government’s) whether your car has or doesn’t have air  bags.

Or ought not to be.

Read the rest of the article

It’s this fear – the sense of unease that accompanies the unknown – that pushes a lot of people into a new (or newer) car before they really need one.

Now, it’s generally true that an older car is more likely to need repair or maintenance than a newer one. And that higher miles means more wear – which means things like brake pads, suspension components, tires – etc. – will probably require replacement sooner rather than later.

But that doesn’t mean the car itself isn’t worth keeping – much less that it’s no longer a car you can count on.

Keeping an older car viable as everyday transpo comes down to two things:

Being mechanically observational – and being at least somewhat mechanically competent.

It’s not necessary to actually be a mechanic – or to actually work on cars. But knowing something about how cars work – the basics – will enable you to anticipate potential problems before they become problems – and keep little problems from becoming big ones. That, in turn, will help you keep an older car running reliably for longer.

A car-hip person, understands, for instance, how a car’s brakes work – the principle behind it (hydraulic pressure distributed through a system of steel pipes applying clamping pressure; the use of friction to slow the car down) and knows, at least, in general terms, what the various parts are and what they do.

Because he has some knowledge of how a car’s brakes work – and which parts do what – he will know almost instinctively when they’re not working properly – as well as the steps one ought to take to make sure they continue to work properly. He will know, for example, that after a given interval of time/miles, it is probably time to pull a wheel and take a look at the pads; to check whether they ought to be replaced before they  wear out completely and so avoid chewing up the much more expensive rotors. He will pop the hood fairly regularly – and check the fluid level in the master cylinder. He will also know what color the fluid ought to be – and that if it’s not the right color, it probably ought to be changed. Before it rots out the hydraulic system (lines, calipers, ABS pump, etc.) from the inside.

A car-hip person will be more attuned to the various noises – and smells – that portend trouble and take early action (either himself or through a mechanic)before a small, inexpensive thing (e.g., worn pads) becomes a big, expensive thing (ruined rotors). When he feels vibration through the steering wheel – or the car pulls to one side – instead of fear, he’ll realize it’s probably just an out of round rotor – fairly easily and fairly inexpensively fixed.

It doesn’t mean the car’s falling apart – or that it’s not otherwise safe to drive anymore. No need to panic – much less head frantically to a dealership – where the smell of desperation is an aphrodisiac to new car salesmen.

Read the rest of the article

This should be obvious by now – to anyone who has watched the pathetic spectacle of disarmed (and thus, helpless) men and women being cattle-chuted out of a building with their hands over their heads in the “I surrender” pose following a mass shooting – almost invariably perpetrated in a “gun free” zone.

Or by the way Obamacare will decide for you whether you need to buy health insurance – what kind of health insurance – and how much you’ll pay for it. The way your doctor will become another government agent, making decisions for you,controlling you – and your family’s private affairs – at the behest of the government.

The way the government dictates the type of car you’re allowed to buy – or build (if you wanted to).

The way they tell you what you may – and may not – do with your own physical body.

They way they affront your personal space – including your family’s personal space – at every turn.

It is relentless, systematic, synergistic – and absolutely deliberate. Part of a comprehensive plan that’s been carefully constructed and nurtured and advanced over decades to emasculate the populace so as to render it not only amenable to being led and controlled, but begging to be led and controlled.

Example: Successfully attack the principle that a man (or a woman) has the right to defend himself by taking away the means of self-defense and you’ve made him helpless, which makes him fearful … which renders him dependent.

Including that person’s family – because they cannot depend on him. And so they look to government – their “leaders” – for succor. To be kept “safe.”  Please, help us!  Dosomething!

Never – what can I do? I’ll handle it.

This is exactly what those who seek to control and lead are after.

A man with a gun in his home stands a good chance of successfully defending his home – his kids, his wife – against a violent intruder. The mere fact that a homeowner might have a gun is by itself a very strong deterrent – ask any thug.

This is hugely empowering. And it is why the right to keep and bear arms is under such concerted and vicious attack. Strip a man of the ability to defend himself and his family and you emasculate him. You diminish him as a man in his own eyes and in the eyes of his family. You make him something less than a man. Because after all, what else can you call a person unable to defend himself, his wife and kids? Who must cringe in a locked bathroom with them while he desperately calls on other men to come and save him. Such a man is something less than a man.

Again, exactly what’s wanted.

And of course, the same is true for women – perhaps even more so, because the object here is also to cause her to despise her man. Men, in general – except those designated as enforcers for the state. These, she is taught to reverence as “heroes.”

But never her own husband or boyfriend.

A woman who carries a gun knows she stands a chance against a man intent upon assaulting her. That she can do more than scream. That she is safe in her home – or walking to her car. That she is not utterly at the mercy of others, at any rate – because she can fight back. This imparts self-respect, confidence – and most alarming of all (to those intent upon leading and controlling) it renders them irrelevant. They’re not needed – literally – and thus, psychologically.

What, above all else, defines an adult human being? Is it not the ability to take care of oneself? Physically as well as financially? To be in control. To decide for oneself. To not have to always defer to others.

If that is taken away, what have you got?

Read the rest of the article

No word about the cost of the car it will go in.

The good news is, this prospective wunderwagen will be cheaper than a Tesla, which has starting price of about $70,000  – about $100,000 for the version that can go 200 or so miles on a charge . . . if you don’t drive it very fast.

What I want to know is who the heck is buying these things? And how many of them can there possibly be?

$30,000 is a lot to pay for a battery pack. And $70,000 is a lot to pay for a car – any car.

So, I dug up some numbers.

Turns out the Tesla is the third best-selling high-end car in California (where it doesn’t get too cold, an important consideration for an electric car) just behind the Mercedes-Benz E-Class and the BMW 5.

Sounds good – and is touted that way by the moo-cows of the media. But how many cars did Tesla actually sell?

So far, about 4,714. Out of about 1.6 million cars sold in California annually.

And with regard to those 4,714 Teslas, “sold” is probably not quite the right word to describe a transaction that involves a $7,500 kickback from Uncle (who steals it from you and me first) plus another $5,000 kickback from the state of California, which of course has stolen it first from the poor fools out there who continue to buy Corollas and Camrys and so on at full-fare on their own nickle. California also throws in – courtesy of more of other people’s money – a “credit” for installing the high-voltage charging station the Tesla needs in order to take less than several hours to re-juice itself. The charging station costs a another couple thousand for the electrician and the necessary parts. As per Chevy Chase in Fletch, send the bill to the Underhills.

So, each Tesla “sale” costs taxpayers at least$12,500 (not counting the recharge station) in direct wealth transfer to each Tesla owner. It might be more efficient to cut Tesla the company out of the equation entirely and simply give 4,714 people “free” Fiat 500s. There could be a lottery. A new Fiat 500 only costs about $16,000 – and though it only gets 40 MPG on the highway, it can travel an almost infinite distance on the highway – and be refueled in minutes rather than hours – which the electric-impaired Tesla cannot.

So, GM wants to get in on this action.

I am hitting myself on the forehead with my shoe, Muslim-style, as I ponder the madness of it all. A madness made possible only via the insanity of government. Absent government – and its Soviet (or NS Germany, take your pick) industrial policy of funneling other-people’s-money into “investments” it deems worthy but which the market has shown no interest in… well, there would be no Tesla. No Chevy Volt, either.

Read the rest of the article

That, at any rate, is the way it’s done in Germany. There is a reason why. It is called closing speed. If a Porsche turbo doing 140 is bearing down on a Fiat 500 doing 70, the Fiat driver had better notice the headlights getting much larger, much faster in his rearview – and get the hell out of the way in time.

Which he usually does. Which is why the German Autobahn is a safer place – without speed limits – than U.S. highways are with speed limits.

German drivers are taught to use the passing lane only to pass. They don’t set the cruise control and zone out or gabble on their cell phones like so many American drivers unfortunately do. Instead, they use scan their rearview and side mirrors so that they are always aware of the ebb and flow of traffic around them. They anticipate the need to yield to a faster-moving vehicle such that the faster moving vehicle’s driver does not have to abruptly slow then maneuver to get around a dawdler. Traffic thus flows.  And, high-speed traffic can mingle with lower-speed traffic safely.

U.S. highways (most of them) could also safely support much higher speeds than are currently permitted. Even the national high of 80 MPH in a few rural areas of Texas is absurd when put into context. That context being, the designed-for speeds of the U.S. Interstate Highway System – updated to reflect the advances in vehicle design over the past 60 years.

The starting point is 70-75 MPH. That is the average, routine speed of traffic envisioned by the Interstate system’ designers … back in the late 1950s. Curves, lines-of-sight, merge areas and so on were laid out on that assumption. Implicit in this is that maximum safe speeds were considerably higher. Pre-PC, a “speed limit” was precisely that: The maximum safe speed for the typical driver in the typical car on a given stretch of road. If 70 is just cruising along, then 90 is no big deal – assuming drivers practice lane discipline, use their mirrors – and yield to faster moving trafficbefore faster moving traffic enters their airspace.

A speed limit should not be synonymous with average, cruising along speeds – as they are today.

At any rate, the point is that 60 years ago – when the typical car rode on balloon-sidewalled, bias-ply whitewalls, had drum brakes at all four corners, a farm tractor-esque leaf spring suspension  and nothing in the way of electronic safety systems – the engineers who laid out the Interstate system deemed 70-75 MPH average speeds well within the design parameters of the road, of the cars of the era – and the average driver of the era.

The Interstate System’s designers were not speed freaks or maniacs. They were crew-cut ’50s men – responsible men, who came to their decisions and recommendations only after excruciating (and math-based) careful analysis of all the factors. And they considered 70-75 to be a reasonable, safe speed.

We’ve only recently seen speed limits go back up to about what they recommended – and posted – 60 years ago.

If you were to factor in the galloping technical advances in everything from tire design to high-capacity four-wheel-disc brakes with ABS and passenger cabins built to withstand impacts better than the race cars of the not-to-distant past 70-75 seems awfully slow.

If a 1958 Chrysler was deemed capable of safe operation at 70 then surely a 2014 Chrysler can handle 80 or 90 just as safely. Probably, in fact the 2014 Chrysler is safer at 80 or 90 than the 1960 Chrysler was at 70.

It’s modern drivers (Clovers) that can’t handle 80 or 90.

Clovers who don’t move over. Who squat in the left lane with the cruise control on. Who either don’t use their mirrors – or don’t care about overtaking traffic. Who consider it their American Idol watching, Football-worshipping, god-given right to park their car in the left lane, set the cruise control and ignore whatever’s going behind them.

Read the rest of the article

The old car, for instance. It’s an old Pontiac (’76 Trans Am). I know – because I am an old Pontiac guy – that all classic Pontiac V-8s (the 455, as in my car, bu also the 428, the 400, the 350 and the 326) take not the usual five quarts of oil that most American V-8s need but six. A person not into Pontiacs – or knowledgeable out them – or lacking a service manual – could easily make the mistake of under-filling the crankcase. Oil is important. You want enough of it inside your engine.

And, the reverse.

My four cylinder pick-up trucks only take a bit more than four quarts. Overfilling can be worse than underfilling the crankcase – but either can lead to troubles easily avoided by being sure to check before you pour.

And, measure before you pour.

It’s pretty common today for oil to be sold in five quart jugs. But what if – as in the case of my Nissan pick-ups – you need 4.2quarts? Some jugs have marker lines, but some don’t – and sometimes, the gradations are not very precise. To be sure, you can measure out the oil into a beaker – or use a quart bottle.

And, if you don’t do your own oil changes, be sure to check the work of whoever does. At most oil change joints, they do not pour the oil in a quart at a time. They use a gun that meters out “x” quantity from a 50 gallon drum. It is not uncommon for the guy wielding the gun to over (or under) fill the crankcase. Which is why the first thing you ought to do after getting your keys back is pop the hood and pull out the dipstick. Be sure it’s right before you drive away.

Here’s another – tire air pressure.

If you own several vehicles – especially if some are much older and some much newer – you will discover (or may already know) that tire pressure recommendations can vary a lot from one vehicle to another. For one thing, the old 28-32 psi rule that used to be a good rule of thumb for most cars does not apply anymore. Some of the new cars I test drive recommend 40 psi – or even more. Thus, 32 psi would be significantly under-inflated, and your car’s handling would be sloppier, its braking distances longer – and its gas consumption higher. On top of all that, the tires will wear faster, too.

Read the rest of the article

A friend of my wife’s works just down the road – maybe three miles from her house. She owns an old car – the Morris Minor I once wrote about  working on, for those who recall. The car is 44 years old; has “Antique Vehicle” plates. She likes to drive this car the three or so miles to her work, both for the fun of it and also to keep the car in good running order – as per my advice to her about not leaving it to just sit for weeks/months on end. Regular use means the gas doesn’t go bad and the carb doesn’t get gunked up. Oil flows – all that good stuff.

But, to get to back my story . . .

This friend tells my wife that a local cop has cruised the parking lot of her place of employment, noted the “Antique Vehicle” tags – and actually went in to the place to issue a “friendly warning” (that is, a not-so-thinly-veiled threat) to the supervisor of my wife’s friend that it is a “ticketable offense” to drive a vehicle with “Antique” tags to work.

Which is true – there is a “law” to that effect. But it takes a real Inspector Javert type to worry about it.

Much less to take action.

I’m actually surprised this cop didn’t simply park his taxpayer-extorted free (for him) squad car, engine idling using gas he didn’t pay for, and wait as long as it took for the “law breaker” to emerge, in order to confiscate some more of other-people’s money.

The truly sick thing is this cop thinks he was being “nice” because all he did – this time – was issue a threat.  Like the cop who “gives you a break” by reducing the number on the “speeding” ticket he just gave you. It’s like they expect us to be grateful for only kicking us in the balls once.

Or not too hard.

Think about it – and get mad.

Here’s a guy cruising parking lots looking for an excuse – a legal technicality – to screw with people who’ve done nothing to anyone. Meanwhile, there is no lack of people who’ve done horrible things to others – you know, actual criminals – loose among us. Yet this guy – like so many of his ilk – has time to fuck with middle-aged hausfraus who’ve committed the dastardly offense of driving their old car to work. (Where they work to earn the money which will be heavily taxed in order to pay for the costumes, armament and so on enjoyed by “heroes” such as the one I’m describing.)

Worse, it does not not occur to this guy that he is fucking with her. From his perspective, he is merely “enforcing the law” – which he in] his ethical nihilism equates with “right.”

He does not see himself as a bad guy. Because the law is good. All laws are good. Ipso facto, then, law enforcement is good.

Yet is there anything worse – anything more despicable – than shrugging off responsibility for your actions by claiming “it’s the law” – or put another way, to point guns at people or threaten them with violence for no more reason than you were told to enforce the law  – any law, every law -  by some higher-up authority?

In other words – just because?

Read the rest of the article

But is this true?

One of the most tiresome objections to a free society – that is, to a society based on the Libertarian ideals of self-ownership and non-aggression – is that absent police, there would be no way to prevent people from running amok and abusing others; that a Lord of the Flies scenario would ensue, with the strong dominating the weak. There would be chaos, insecurity and vigilantism, they cry.

Nonsense.

First, it is necessary (as Ayn Rand famously put it) to check one’s premises. It is true that a Libertarian society – a free society – would not have any need for police. Police enforce laws. As most thoughtful people know, laws are not always just. Indeed, laws are more often not just. This hardly requires elaboration.

Moreover, we already suffer from chaos, abuse and vigilantism – routinely. Only it is not seen as such by most people because it is done under color of law. We face impenetrable ukase – and arbitrary enforcement. People are treated as presumptively criminal on the theory that “someone” might be a criminal. At every step, we face demands for submission – and are threatened with violent reprisals if we do not. We are absolutely not secure in our persons or our effects.

Even something as elementary as being free to travel unmolested is denied us.

The average person is done more real violence by the law – and by the police who enforce these laws – than by the theoretical (for the most part) harm that might by done them by lawbreakers – i.e., their fellow men, absent the law.

And absent police.

For Libertarians, on the other hand, there is only one law – non-aggression: Do no harm to others or their property – but otherwise, do as you wish. Jefferson styled this the pursuit of happiness.

If this principle became the conceptual basis of our proposed system, at a stroke, the entire clunking, clanking, impenetrable, arbitrary, vicious, mindless apparatus of “the law” – and law enforcement – including the Talmudic parsing of codes and regulations – would be done away with and replaced by the simple principle: Cause none harm. It is a principle almost anyone of normal intelligence can understand – and articulate. Either a given act did – or did not – hurt someone, or cause damage to their property. Simple. No doubt, this explains why lawyers such as those who constructed the long-con Constitution venerate their laws – and loathe the Libertarian’s law.

The principle of cause no harm also implies its corollary: Go in peace. That is, if you’ve caused no harm to others, you ought to be free – have a right to be free – to go about your business in peace. To be left alone. And to have that right respected as inviolate.

But, cry the authoritarians, what about those who disrupt the peace?

Here they are manifestly disingenuous, because the majority of that which they revere in police work – that is, law enforcement – has little to do with keeping the peace and much to do with enforcing laws. It is true there are (and likely always will be) bad people in any society – including a free one. But there are far fewer genuinely bad people in any society – in the sense that they’ve caused harm to others, as opposed to “law breakers.” In a Libertarian – that is, a free – society – probably two-thirds of the work that currently occupies police (and courts and prisons, etc.) would simply . . . disappear.

But let us take the authoritarian collectivists at their word and discuss the the Libertarian replacement for police, already hinted at above:

Peace keepers.

In any community larger than a small group, there will probably always be a need for such – if only to avoid the same sort of arbitrary violence we suffer under today (only meted out by random individuals at their whim rather than by specially costumed goons acting under “color of law”).

As the term implies, their charge would be to keep the peace – but nothing more. To step in, for example, when one individual has harmed another – in order to prevent that individual from harming another (and to bring him to account for the harm he has already done).

There could be civil and criminal courts to arbitrate and adjudicate and – where necessary – make sure the scales are balanced. That miscreants are held accountable – but not cruelly or vengefully treated. That disputes are resolved, if not amicably, at least reasonably. It would not be perfect, of course – the straw man typically relied upon by authoritarian collectivists who of course never concede the endless imperfections of their system. But at least – being based on the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression – it would be more perfect than the existing system in that absent tangible evidence of having caused demonstrable harm  (as opposed to violating a statute) no charges could be successfully pressed. If this were the rule rather than the exception probably 9 out of ten people would never have any interaction with the peacekeepers – beyond offering a friendly wave and a “hello, there!” once in awhile.

Most critically – and to answer the critics of practical Libertarianism – peacekeeping would not require compulsory taxes (which would of course violate the NAP) for its support.

Read the rest of the article

You knew this was coming – right?

That they were not going to let you get away with evading paying your “fair share” of motor vehicle fuels taxes by driving a vehicle that uses less (or even no) gas.

Yup.

That Prius you’re maybe looking at because you’re thinking it’ll reduce the number of FRNs you have to shell out for fuel? It’s about to become the object of special taxesdesigned to make up for the ones you’re trying to avoid. Every time you fill up, you pay up – about 50 cents per gallon, on average. If you car has a 15 gallon tank, you pay about $8 bucks in taxes at every fill-up. But if you drive a hybrid car that only has a 12 gallon tank – and only needs to be filled up half as often – you’re paying a lot less. Nothing – if you own an electric car.

And that sets off alarms in certain quarters.

Several states have either proposed or are “looking at” additional “fees” – that is,taxes – to be levied upon the owners of hybrids and electric cars, because the growing number of these vehicles is reducing the revenue flowing into state and county coffers via motor fuels taxes. Something called The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy – one of those shill entities that isn’t technically the government but provides the intellectual ammo (PR, really) for government “estimates” that state and local gas tax revenue has declined by 7 percent since 2004 – even as the number of cars in service (and miles driven) has steadily increased.

And the reason why is simply that cars – and not just hybrid cars – are burning less gas. Which means their owners pay less in taxes.

To correct this atrocity, North Carolina (to cite on example) has proposed adding a $100 annual fee to the mandatory annual registration renewal for electric vehicle owners – $50 for hybrid (gas-electric) owners. News story here. One of the proposal’s backers, State Senator Neal Hunt, says “It just seems logical to me that they should pay a small fee for the use of the highways and the wear and tear they put on the highways.”

Italics added.

Hunt’s “small fee” adds up to real money over time. Keep your EV ten years and you’re out of pocket another $1,000 (a mere $500 for hybrid owners). So much for saving money. They’ll get into your wallet one way – or another. At least ten states – at the time this article was written – are considering or have actually passed new laws imposing targeted taxes on the owners of electric and hybrid vehicles. My own state, Virginia, has its hand out for another $64 annually – effectively doubling the cost of annual registration renewal for hybrid and electric vehicle owners. This new tax was supported by Republicans, incidentally.

All this is obnoxious, certainly. But the more worrying thing is that whines for more “revenue” could lead to drive-by-mile taxation – and in-car monitors not just for hybrid and EV owners, but for everyone.

Exactly such a proposal was floated in – where else? – New Jersey. It was defeated after a massive public outcry and replaced by a flat-fee on electric cars.

But – like the ever-tumescent war boner in DC – this is not going away for good.

Because – irony cue – the very policies so aggressively pursued by the DC Directorate have boomeranged in a way not to their liking.

At least, apparently.

The legislative nudges given to promote EVs and hybrids – everything from million-dollar manufacturer subsidies to individual buyer tax rebates – have done as intended and caused more hybrids and EVs to be made – and bought. On top of this, the ever-upticking fuel economy edicts imposed on the manufacturer of conventional (non-hybrid or EV) cars have likwise resulted in – wait for it, now – the manufacture of more cars that use less gas.

Sum? Less gas is being used in general. Which means, less motor vehicles fuel taxes are being paid.This creates a problem – from the standpoint of government. And government always has a solution.

Read the rest of the article

Watch this video; see for yourself:

Similarly chocolate bars – which have been downsized, too. They are about a third smaller in terms of overall dimensions – and also, thinner. Have you noticed? (Here’s a recent news story about that.)

Of course, the price of chocolate bars hasn’t gone down, either. You pay more for the same – which means, you pay more for less – and they hope you’re too dumb to notice. Or, perhaps, they are counting on the psychological angle; that it is preferable to see “price stability” – even to the extent of willfully ignoring that you’re getting less and less of whatever the item is and paying the same (or, in some cases, more).

I take OsteoBiFlex – a supplement that’s supposed to help keep your joints limber. Just bought a bottle – the same size bottle. But inside the opaque, deep blue bottle – half empty! Not even cotton to fill the air gap.

I admit it’s clever. Much less clumsy, at any rate, than simply jacking up the price. Corporate America is nothing if not clever. Lawyers are often disparaged as shysters, but Corporate America is the true master of the art of shysterism. They get us to refer to their ads as “sponsored content.” They advise that we’ll “learn more” (really? Gosh! It’s like a free college course…) if we click on said “sponsored content.”

They can – and do – sell us anything.

The latest being inflation.

Read the rest of the article

The United State is not quite there yet. It is merely at the late Czarist Russia – or Weimar Germany – stage.

Point being, one doesn’t have to sign up for law enforcement work as a Hail Mary way to avoid poverty, or the gulag . . . or the gas chamber.

So, what sort of person chooses to become a law enforcer – and remains one – when it is still possible to avoid such a dirty occupation? An occupation that, as a matter ofroutine, puts one in the position of rousting – and caging – people who’ve done nothing that can be characterized as causing harm to others (or their property)?

Who have merely run afoul of “the law”?

There seem to be four general types:

The well-intended type.

He thinks he’s going to go after Bad Guys – but finds the majority of his time is spent enforcing Bad Laws. Bad, because there’s no harm done. Well, no harm done by those he goes after. He, on the other hand, harms them. He extorts their money; he seizes their property. He throws people in cages who’ve done nothing more than cross an arbitrarily decreed distinction between one form of recreational intoxicant and another. Etc.

He is required to do things to other adults that he’d never dream of doing on his own absent the sanction – and the overwhelming “back-up” implied by his special costume, the gun on his hip and the sanction of the state – like hector other adults about things that are none of his business.

Like whether they’re wearing a seatbelt.

It may occur to him one fine day that the majority of the people he pulls over, puts in cuffs and takes to jail didn’t deserve it – because they hadn’t done anything (except, of course, violate “the law”).

At this point, he either has a come-to-Jesus moment and quits in disgust  . . . or graduates to our next “type.”

The “just doing my job” type.

This is guy is a cynic – and a nihilist. He knows, at some level, that much of what he does is ridiculous – and even, perhaps, wrong. But it’s become his living, his meal ticket. He’s got 10 years invested and knows that to quit now would mean the loss of a juicy pension after another ten – not to mention the loss of the free car to drive and all the free cups of coffee (and free meals) that flow the way of a uniformed enforcer.

He does what he is told – and expects youto do as ordered. For him, all that matter is “the law” – regardless of the law’s inanity. He may even agree with you that a given law is preposterous. But he’ll ticket – or arrest – you nonetheless.

Because, of course, it’s the law.

He does not question anything he does – and shows either boredom or annoyance when you do.

The upshot is this type of cop is basically a bureaucrat and – usually – only bad to the extent that the laws he enforces are bad. There is a limit. He usually won’t exceed the law or go beyond what he is ordered to do. That would be against procedure.

He is rigid and thoughtless, perhaps – but not usually deliberately vicious.

Which brings us to our third “type.”

The Bully.

As the system becomes increasingly (and obviously) brutal – brutal people gravitate toward the profession.

This one enjoys wielding arbitrary, unaccountable power over others. Making them feel afraid. Humiliating them in front of their spouse – or their children. His greatest satisfaction lies in forcing people tosubmit. It makes him feel like the tough guy he’s not. And the surest way to arouse his fury is to question his authority – or refuse to submit.

This type of cop is narcissistic and entitlement-minded. He is incapable of feeling empathy. He may be an outright sociopath.

Given the opportunity he will assault – and possibly even kill – you. He’s looking for that opportunity. Here’s a recent for-instance:

The cops in this video are the sort who would have eagerly lined people up in front of a ditch.

Or manned an oven.

And they’re becoming typical types – replacing the dwindling numbers of our final “type”  . . .

Read the rest of the article

Now comes confirmation – via Europe – where it’s all ultimately headed. You’re not gonna like it. But don’t say I didn’t warn you:

The European Commission’s Mobility and Transport Department – which wields regulatory power over most of Western Europe’s roads – has put forth a proposal under the typically banal-bureaucratic-sounding rubric, Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA). It would use the technology I referenced in the MKZ write-up – which endows a car with the power to know the speed limit on any given road, updated continuously in real time via in car-cameras/ GPS – in conjunction with automated braking – to electronically prevent the car from ever being driven faster than the posted speed limit.

News story here.

The hard (and soft) ware would be made mandatory – and not only for new cars. Older cars that didn’t come with the technology from the factory would be required to submit to a retrofitting – at the expense of the owner, of course.

But the most ominous angle is the one not mentioned in any news story. It is, simply, that all cars more than a few years old would be banned from the road if this measure becomes law. Reason? They can’t be retrofitted. At least, not within economic reason.

For instance, if a vehicle does not have ABS – four-wheel ABS (many trucks, even fairly recent models, only have rear-wheel ABS) – it can’t be made to brake automatically, via computer control. The only way to “fix” that would be to gut and replace the factory-installed non-ABS brake system with an ABS system – and now we’re talkingmoney. An ABS pump, wheel speed sensors at each wheel, specialized master cylinder and brake distribution box – plus all the necessary software to make it work – tied into a computer capable of governing the works (the factory unit may not be, in which case, a new, ABS-friendly computer would also be required).

You’d need to address throttle inputs – and that entails drive-by-wire, which most cars more than a few years old do nothave. Ditto the GPS unit – necessary for the “real time” updating of speed limit data as you drive.

Holy mother! There is some money to be made.

And control to be had.

But here’s where it gets really clever: If a given vehicle does not have a computer at all, forget it. Such cars also can’t be controlled – at least, not without a wholesale re-engineering of their entire drivetrains at prohibitive cost. This means virtually all cars made before the early 1980s  – and almost all motorcycles, for you bikers, made before the early 2000s – would be rendered illegal to operate. You might say: So what? That’s The EU, not the US. To which I’d reply: If only. What’s done in Europe first – everything from the Prussian government school model to the UK’s cameras everywhere – seems to be imitated here within a few years.

Read the rest of the article

It is shit statue-carving crazy.

Yet, “we” – meaning, they – Dear Leader and his relative handful of minions who control the missiles, the ships and “the troops” – appear determined to pursue this course nonetheless. Despite the obvious implications – and in spite of the equally obvious horn o’ plenty of reasons not to do it. Wait. Check that. There is a reason – several of them, actually. Just not the ones publicly stated. No one but a madman could entertain the idea of deliberately batting at a hornet’s nest that one could just as easily walk around. What goes on inside Syria may be tragic, but it’s not our tragedy. We – that is, the Dear Leader, et al, – are neither wanted nor requested – and have about as much right to lob bombs at the Syrian government over its alleged abuse of its people as Syria has to lob bombs at America over its government’s abuses of its people – none of them mere assertions based on iffy “intel” but admitted to, openly, by its government. For instance, rendition. And torture as state policy. Indefinite detention. And that’s only the recent stuff.  Let’s not forget who helped “Saddam” gas Iranians back in the ’80s. Or helped violently depose the “democratically” elected leader of Iran – ushering in the Shah and his Savak. “We” are in no position to lecture anyone about “human rights.” Much less bomb them over it.

Besides which, it would serve no purpose other than to cause the people over there – aka, the “evildoers” – to hate us even more. Not because of “our freedoms” (those being long gone) but for the simple, obvious reason that this country is an arrogant, know-nothing bully with big biceps and a very, very small brain.

Unless the shit statue-carving madmen in charge aren’t nuts – and have a different purpose in mind.

Perhaps that purpose is $10 gas.

They know perfectly well this is the likely result of “intervening” in Syria. And what it would mean. A catastrophe, economic and human.A political debacle, too – assuming they will ever have to account to the electorate, whom they clearly hold in increasingly obvious contempt.

Yet, they champ at the bit.

One cannot make sense of it – unless one views it from their perspective.

Because it would achieve, at a stroke, everything they have been trying to implement, piecemeal, and with only mixed results, for decades (if not longer). It would render 95 percent of the population destitute, dependent, freaked-out scared – and most of all, immobile – within a matter of days.The populace would be ready, then. One must never forget the advice of that latter-day Machiavelli, Rahm Emanuel: You never want to let a crisis got to waste.

Read the rest of the article

It is very low production – and very high cost – and thus, rarely seen. Like a Bugatti Veyron.

If we were talking Bugattis, there would waiting lists; people wrangling and wheedling to get their hands on one by any means – no matter the cost.

But there is no trouble finding the Unwanted Exotic – and (trust me) you won’t pay full sticker. In fact, some are downright bargains . . .  well, depending on your point of view.

There is the Honda Fit electric car. You can drive one (though not very far) for the low, low rate of $259 a month. It is very exotic. Honda has only found homes for about 83 of them so far this year. This is just a bit below the hoped-for target of just over 1,000 annually (2,100 over 24 months). No doubt it has something to do with the fact that you can drive the same vehicle – without the electric motor (and so, much farther) for about $100 less per month.

GM is having similar problems with its electrified exotic, the Chevy Volt. For some impenetrable reason, it languishes unloved – and unsold.

GM has had to to idle the plant where they’re made. Six-plus months worth of inventory has stacked up – and the end of the calendar year is only about fourmonths away. That means a lot of “new” 2013s are going to end up as last year’s leftovers before they’ve even taken the plastic covers off of the seats. GM keeps cutting the price – most recently by about $5,000 (transferring the balance to its other customers) but still, an insufficient number of rubes are sufficiently enthused.

Quit? Go back to the drawing board? Either option would seem to be a reasonablething to do. Nah.

Double down!

Make more of them. Damn the torpedoes – full speed ahead!

If the definition of insanity is, indeed, repeating the same action over and over and over – and expecting a different result – then the car industry is palpably insane. No, wait. I am not being fair. The car industry is not insane. It is merely being puppeteered – dancing on strings, the strings controlled by someone else.

It’s the government that’s crazy. Or perhaps, crazy like a fox. If the object of this exercise is not to find a way to reduce the cost of driving but rather to increase it. Check this out:

California – the biggest single market for cars in the U.S. – along with nine others – has set quotas for Unwanted Exotics. Fifteen percent of all cars sold in these states must be of the electrified variety by 2025. This a great deal more than the 80-odd electric Fits Honda has sold so far. And please, no eructations about the Great Success (cue Borat voice) of Tesla. With a base price of $70,000 – $100k-plus for the one the papers like to gabble about that can (in theory) go almost as far on a full charge  as a $15,000 economy car with a quarter-full tank of gas – volume production of the Tesla is as likely as volume production of BMW M5s. Teslas are expensive toys – but unlike BMW M5s, the expense is financed by you and I and millions of our fellow tax-cattle.

Read the rest of the article

In it, one of the many “crews” serving as muscle for this uber-mafia does what such crews always do: it destroys something owned by someone else in order to teach them (and everyone else) a lesson. That lesson, of course, is to never forget theviolence that hangs over everything the mafia does – and which will be visited upon you in the event you ever step out of line.

In this case, the crew is the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and the victim is a helpless Land Rover Defender  – and of course, its former owner. The Defender is a model Land Rover sells outside the boundaries of the U.S. Customs and Border Control’s (and EPA’s and DOT’s) “turf.” It is not a mafia-approved vehicle for sale herebecause it does not meet mafia-imposed requirements, particularly as regards the profusion of air bags and so on that the mafia insists every one of us must have – whether we’d like to have them or not.

Well, just as some people in the neighborhood refuse to pay the Black Hand for “protection,” just so there are people who think it’s no one else’s business what sort of vehicle they drive – especially as regards such things as air bags, the presence or absence of which in no way affects the well-being of other people.  They figure: Why should I be compelled to pay for things I feel no need for and do not want?

Seems reasonable. Certainly not objectionable in the sense that such an exercise of free choice ought to invite a violent response. If we lived in a free country, it would not invite a violent response. You want air bags? Buy ‘em! Youdon’t want ‘em? Don’t buy ‘em. No one’s going to force you, either way.

Ah, but we don’t live in a free country anymore. The black hand is in control.

The Defender is the sort of vehicle once very popular here but now unavailable –legally – and thus, virtually nonexistent here. It is a serious SUV. In addition to not having air bags, it does not have carpet – or anything else that detracts from being among the most off-road-able vehicles ever made. It is ideal for backwoods work and so beloved by people who actually use their SUVs for such work and who – unsurprisingly – aren’t much interested in the mafia-approved, leather-wrapped and air bag-festooned $50,000 absurdities that prowl suburbia but which their owners dare not actually take off-pavement (the lambs’ wool carpet might get soiled).

Land Rover stopped selling the Defender here about 20 years ago – because it could no longer do so legally.

That is, in compliance with the mafia’s orders.

Read the rest of the article

Not if you can help it.

Officer Friendly is a fiction – a vicious fable sold to schoolkids – who soon learn in one way or another that any interaction with a cop is a likely to be a bad interaction. You are dealing with perhaps the worst possible tag-team combination: Someone with legal power over you who is held to a different – and far more lenient – standard than you are. And therefore, you are dealing with a person who is much more likely to do things – not nice things – than you or I or any other person sans special costume and badge might be inclined to do. After all – why not? Especially if one is a bully – or an outright sadist – and the cop profession attracts exactly that type precisely because of the nature of the work. In its own way, giving a bully a badge is like giving a fat kid free reign at the candy store. Expecting him not to eat is almost silly.

But we are dealing with a thing much worse than mere gluttony.

A cop can:

* Commit assault with near-impunity. He might be fired. He probably will not be. It is hard to hold him personally responsible – let alone liable. His expenses will be handled by the department, by the county – which means, you will subsidize your own abuse, even if you do win in court . A cop enjoys “sovereign immunity” by dint of his special outfit and badge.

* He can draw his firearm and point it at you – even shoot at you – without fear of life-altering consequences – such as a felony record for brandishing and reckless endangerment. Much less a murder rap. But if one of us should happen to kill a police dog…. the canine “officer’s” life is regarded by the law as more valuable than ours.

And, of course, if a cop shoots your dog. . .  .

* He can rely on his cronies and the system to cover up or minimize his errors of judgment, even when they involve serious harm to innocent people such as yourself. Evidence can disappear – or bemanufactured. They are professionals – a team of them. You are an amateur – and on your own.

* His word will be treated as legal tender in court – while yours is considered suspect, biased – and will probably be dismissed out-of-hand as “hearsay” by the judge.

His very person is anointed.

* If you strike a cop, the consequences will be certain – and severe. Even if done in self-defense against a cop who has abused his already almost limitless authority – as, for example, breaking down the wrong door during a no-knock raid.

* If he is harmed in any way in the course of apprehending you, there will be additional charges levied against you for this. But if you are injured by him – including gratuitous injuries – it is unlikely any meaningful sanctions will be applied. Perhaps a letter of reprimand will be placed in his file.

What is the lesson to take away from all of this?

Avoid cops.

Read the rest of the article

But, he’s a big fish.

Smaller fish are just as hungry for your money – and your liberty.

For instance, there is Allan Marx. He is anOrdnungspolizei Obersturmfuhrer (police lieutenant, pictured at left ) in Sebastian County, Arkansas who is pushing hard for OralTox test swabs (see here) to be used upon motorists at Fourth Amendment-free “sobriety” checkpoints. It just happens that Marx is also a distributor for the product – and thus, stands to profit handsomely at the expense of his fellow citizens’ liberty.

Marx says:

“If there’s ever a new way, a new tool that we can use to help not only law enforcement but help the public and the safety of the people out there, it needs to be used.”

Always with the “tools” – and, of course, the “safety.”

No mention of the dollars involved.

Each case of OralTox swabs retails for about $300. Each case contains 25 individual tests. How many people are forced to run a single Fourth Amendment-free gantlet in a single county on a single night in Sebastian County, Arkansas?

How about the state of Arkansas?

Writ large – if this business goes nationwide – Marx, et al, stand to become very rich indeed. Oklahoma, North Dakota, Missouri, Michigan, Colorado, Utah and – of course – New York have already signed up. Who needs the free market and its bothersome demand for non-coercive free exchange when you can use the power of the state to force people to subsidize your product or service? Just get a law passed – and back up the Brinks truck. Policing for Profit. “Security” that pays.

It’s the wave of the future.

But the money’s a side issue, of course. Despicable as it is to profit off the police state, the police state is itself far more despicable. How did we allow things to come this? To accept being felt up, now swabbed – and probably soon, DNA-typed – by costumed cretins as a routine thing? To stand (or sit in our cars) meekly awaiting our turn?

Consider where this may lead. Where it will probably lead.

Read the rest of the article

I get asked this a lot. Everyone’s got an opinion. Here’s mine:

* Avoid giving your teen an underpowered car.

This may seem counterintuitive – and it’s probably the polar opposite of everything you’ve heard from “safety” experts. If fast cars are a bad choice for teenagers, then surely slow cars are a good choice  . . . right?

Wrong.

For example, an underpowered car lacks the guts to pull into traffic efficiently – that is, safely – forcing other drivers to slam on the brakes or swerve to avoid rear-ending the slow-mover. And a car that has trouble keeping up with highway traffic – which today means being able to maintain at least 70 MPH without struggling – winds up being tailgated and bullied by other cars.

That’s not safe, either.

An underpowered is worse than merely unpleasant – or even scary – to drive because it can encourage timidity behind the wheel – which can be just as bad as reckless aggressiveness. Many people develop lifetime driving habits during their first few years of driving. You don’t want to encourage Cloverism by making your son or daughter afraid to drive. A gutless car can do exactly that to them.

Most cars built during the past 10 or so years have adequate power – but watch out for econoboxes built prior to the early 2000s. For instance, Geo Metros – and so on. Also, many otherwise-adequately powerful economy cars with a manual transmission are absolute dogs – and thus, arguably dangerous – when equipped with automatics (more on that in a moment).

A good rule of thumb is as follows: If the car is capable of getting to 60 in 11 seconds or less (about what a current Prius hybrid can do) it is adequately powerful for A to B driving. Anything quicker than about 7 seconds to so is probably too quick for a first-time/teenaged driver.

Be sure to spend as much time researching a prospective car’s 0-60 time as you do its Consumer Reports reliability score.

* Stick with a stickshift.

A car with a manual transmission is agreat idea for a teen’s first car.

One, it will be cheaper to buy (usually). Two, it will probably use less gas. Three, learning how to smoothly coordinate hands and feet requires more concentration and that ultimately results in a higher-skilled driver. By encouraging your child to learn to drive stick, you’ll also open up new possibilities for him or her down the road. They’ll be able to buy the usually more affordable manual-equipped version of a given car, for example. Plus, it will give them a sense of accomplishment.

Also, a manual car – especially when it comes to economy cars – is usually a lot more peppy than the automatic-equipped version of that car. In some cases, a manual-equipped version of a given car is 2 seconds or more quicker to 60 MPH. This isn’t about drag racing. It’s about safety margin. If the manual version of a given car can get to 60 in 9 seconds – but the same car with an automatic takes 11-12 – the manual car has enough of a margin to deal with pulling – safely – into traffic.

The automatic version does not.

Read the rest of the article

Something happened – we’re not sure exactly what – about two months ago. We got a notice from Goo-guhl advising us we’d been “de-listed” – for reasons never explained and which we’ve never been able to discover. Since then, although the site still comes up when you enter the URL in a search engine, our traffic (and revenue from Goo-guhl ads, the primary source of our revenue) has collapsed.

We’re talking 75 percent down. And our Google page rank is now 0.

0 out of ten.

It used to be 5.

While your humble narrator isn’t looking to get rich, he does need to pay the bills. Unfortunately, things are slipping very close to the point of costing me money to keep this site up. As an example, the meager earnings from Goo-guhl to date this month have only – and just barely – covered the cost of our servers. I still have not paid the taxes I am compelled to pay (including my 15 percent self-employed FICA “contribution”) nor have I paid EPautos’ web master, Dom – who handles all the technical/site maintenance stuff here.

We have tried everything we can think of to placate Goo-guhl, but it’s impossible to know whether they’ve been placated or even what it would take to placate them . . . because they won’t tell us anything. Just form letters and generic auto-responses. There’s no one – no human being – we can call to discuss the matter with. All we doknow is that whatever we’ve done – and we’ve done a lot – has had no effect. This site went from being successful – and growing – to kaput, just like that.

Like a switch was thrown.

I want very much to keep on keeping on – to not have to go back to doing otherthings -  but the current situation is on the verge of not being viable. So, we are giving serious thought to the following – and are announcing it publicly, both to inform our regulars about what’s happened (and why) and also to solicit their input:

* Option One: Stay the course, but go subscription-based.

Read the rest of the article

As you drive, an icon within the speedometer (small image to the right of the speedometer needle in the image above) tells you what the speed limit is on the road you happen to be on – updated continuously via GPS as you drive.

The car doesn’t do anything – yet – beyond oh-so-helpfully remind you how fast the government insists you ought to be driving. But, consider the possibilities – and consider how all the technological pieces of the puzzle are rapidly coming together.

GPS mapping of virtually every surface street in the country is a done thing. A majority of new cars come equipped with GPS navigation – which is rapidly becoming a default standard in much the same was as power windows or air conditioning. Within a few years at most, it will be as difficult to find a new car without GPS as it is right now to find a new car without power windows or AC.

The latest versions of these GPS systems have “real time” functionality. They can adjust route guidance to take account of accidents along your planned route, for instance. This is handy. But the same functionality can be put to other uses, too. For instance, there is no technological reason why the new Lincoln MKZ’s ability to keep abreast of the speed limit wherever you happen to be driving could not also be used to limit the speed you drive – or at least, record your failure to abide by the speed limit and perhaps report your noncompliance to the authorities. Or more likely, your insurance company.

Perhaps both.

Remember MyKey (all new Lincolns have it, too). An “administrator” can program the car to never exceed a pre-set speed. Once programmed, the system cannot be over-ridden except by someone who has the “administration” key. For the present, this is you – the vehicle’s owner. But the fact is that Ford – or the government – or your insurance company – could simply arrogate to itself “administrator” powers – and that will be the end of your ability to use your car as you wish to use it. The car’s electronic nanny knows the speed limit is 55 – or 35 – or whatever it happens to be at any given moment – and will not allow you to drive the car any faster, no matter how hard you stomp on the gas pedal. (Just as you’re not allowed to build an addition on “your” home – without the government’s permission.)

Cars could also simply be turned off, individually (as when you haven’t paid a fine or dome some other thing to incur the government’s displeasure) or en masse – in the event of some “national emergency.” Imagine a Boston Bomber scenario. Forsecurity reasons, the authorities throw a switch – and no one goes anywhere.

At least, not by car.

Far-fetched? No, technological fact. (See also the hacking of a Prius – making the car accelerate, brake (or not brake) via remote control. This is not a Prius-specific possibility. Any modern computer-controlled car is subject to being hacked – to being controlled externally – in this way.)

Oh, come on, Eric. They’d never do that. It’s ridiculous!

Read the rest of the article

You should be, too.

Here are some suggestions to avoid coming home – or waking up to – a cleaned-out garage:

* Be discreet about what you’ve got. 

Keep the garage door closed unless it needs to be open. Don’t flaunt your stuff. Thieves are opportunists. When they see an opportunity – your toolbox just sitting there, for instance – they may decide to take advantage of that opportunity. Or, they’ll make a note to come back later – having seen what you’ve got and wanting to make it theirs. If your door is closed, there’s nothing to see. Probably, they won’t give what’s inside much thought – and will move along to the next – the obvious – target.

Related: If you’re getting ready to build a new home, think about locating the garage in the back – or locating the door/entrance so that what’s inside isn’t readily visible from the street when the door is open. If you’re stuck with what you’ve got, use landscaping – shrubs, trees and so on – to obscure the view. Keep pricey antique cars covered when they’re not being worked on. Get one that’s big enough to hide the wheels, too. They’re a dead giveway to something other-than-Camry underneath.

If the garage has windows, get blinds.

* Secure what you’ve got.

When we bought our current house, it had a side entrance door to the garage that a burglar could have defeated with an elbow. Because the upper half was glass-paned. Just smash the glass, reach in, unlock the door and in like Flynn. One of the first things I did after we moved in was to get rid of that door. I replaced it with a solid metal door – with a heavy deadbolt in addition to the normal lock. For even more protection, add slide-type deadbolts at top and bottom – with the mounts drilled with heavy duty screws into the frame surrounding the door.

Though not impervious, this door will require a lot more time and effort to defeat. The average smash-and-grab thief – who is often a teenager – will likely not bother. And that probably means your at-risk profile is cut by two-thirds.

For similar reasons, I also replaced both garage doors. The old ones had windows – which not only let in sunlight (bad for the paint and chrome of collectible old cars) but could also let in a thief. The new doors are solid – and they have a physical lock on the side rails I can use for an additional layer of security. I recommend such a system – which many new garage doors offer or which you can easily rig up yourself to an existing door using slide-lock hardware available at Lowes or Home Depot or any hardware store.  They make it all-but-impossible to manually raise the door from the outside. This countermeasure is particularly important if you have an electric opener. Keep in mind that it’s fairly easy for a thief to obtain a door opener with the right code (or hack your system, especially if you have an outdoor keypad). A physical lock will thwart anyone trying to open the door with an ill-gotten remote.

Adding cameras – in particular, obviouscameras – to the outside perimeter is also a really good idea. Even if they’re fakes – they have deterrent value. Ideally, get ones that have a blinking red light or something similar, so that anyone prowling around will see that they’re being seen.

Bright flood lights with motion sensors are also good. Mount them up high, so that it’d be hard for someone to get at them at – and turn them off.

Read the rest of the article

It is because they’re hypocrites. Pots calling the kettles black.

You cannot – to cite just one example of their intellectual-ethical disconnect – denounce welfare  . .  while defending Social Security. Because they’re both the same thing: The taking by force of one man’s property (his money – and if that’s not handed over, then his physical property will be taken and transmuted into money) in order to hand it over to some other person. That is the essence of the thing. It’s irrelevant whether the beneficiary of the largesse seems to you to be worthy – as “good Republicans” view the flag-waving oldsters on the dole who “paid in” to the system (but who were merely taxed in their turn and who now wish to prey on others to recoup their losses). What’s relevant – the only relevant thing – is, simply: Do you support use of government threats and violence to take other people’s property for your (or someone else’s) benefit for any reason? If you do, then you cannot object to other people’s advocacy of the same thing for their own reasons.

Not, at any rate, without being an obvious hypocrite. A Babbitt. A Grifter – who denies he is a grifter. Which is to say, the most odious sort of grifter. The one who brays about his morality – while denouncing others for being (as he styles it) immoral.

Which is exactly – and rightly – how Republicans (especially “conservative” ones) are viewed by liberal Democrats. To their credit, they – the Democrats – at least have a twisted type of honesty on their side.

They are openly for transfers-at-gunpoint.

Republicans are, too – of course. They merely regard those favored by Democrats as illegitimate. Republican support for the use of force to obtain the property of others is “different”  . . . somehow.

The how is hard to puzzle out.

Either it is – or isn’t – acceptable to take from Smith to give to Jones. To make an exception – any exception – is to surrender the field. No, worse. It is toembrace the enemy.

To be like him.

And that’s exactly what Republicans are – and why this country continues to descend ever deeper into the morass of redistributionist collectivism. Tweedle Dee – and Tweedledum. Is it not madness to expect a prison to cease the practice of executing prisoners by periodically giving the inmates the opportunity to vote for a warden who favors lethal injection as opposed to the gas chamber?

The only way to effectively challenge wealth transfer at gunpoint is to challenge theidea of it – as opposed to one or another particular transfer-at-gunpoint.

This, Republicans – and most notoriously, Republican “conservatives” – have manifestly failed to do. They defend the transfer-at-gunpoint programs they favor. Which they view as ethically acceptable.

Which is why Republican conservatism is a failed ideology. Because it is not an ideology at all. It is merely a watered-down (and hypocritical) version of the ideology espoused by its supposed opposite, the “liberal” Democrats.

They are birds of a feather. Opposing sides of the same Janus. They argue like hyenasover the spoils. Not about the idea of taking spoils at all.

This is why the Tea Party is a bad joke. Why there’s no debate about “the issues” – at the national level at least; and usually, at the local level, too. The basic premise – redistribution at gunpoint – is never challenged. Only the degree of the redistribution – or its object. Which is why this country – its people – will continue to practice a form of cannibalism that becomes more and more rapacious, since the “needs” upon which this cannibalism are based are limitless in principle – and increase exponentially with each election cycle – while the resources available to satisfy these needs are limited. And the incentive to produce the resources to be divvied up naturally declines with each passing year. It is inevitable that a critical mass of people will eventually shrug – or simply join the ranks of the looters. Which in fact is exactly what’s happening. Half the country is on the take , in one way or another.

Looting will eventually become a matter of literal survival. But only a temporary one. Because soon enough, there will be no one and nothing left to loot.

Read the rest of the article

Here.

One of the hallmarks of the Soviet System was top-down central planning – with “incentives” provided by the government. Natural market mechanisms were crippled. You got what the government decided you needed – at whatever price the government decided was appropriate.

The result – back then – was the Trabant and Lada.

Today, the result is electric lemons like the Tesla and Chevy Volt and Honda Fit EV.

People won’t buy them on the merits – because there aren’t any merits (not any that make economic sense, that is) so the government steps in with “incentives” – massive subsidies: $7,500 to the individual buyer and god-knows-how-much to the corporate cartel that made the thing. Anything rather than accept the market’s verdict that these vehicles are not economically viable.

And that’s as Soviet as it gets.

Only in the case of post-Constitution America, the fiction is maintained that a free market exists – even as market mechanisms such as moral hazard have been effectively eliminated and losses for large corporations with pull are “insured” by a mafia state that will not permit its crony capitalist partners to not make money – no matter how poorly conceived their products, no matter how ineptly or even criminally they run their businesses. It is Soviet in every way except for the doddering old Premier on the review stand – but no doubt that’s coming, too.

GM just announced it will drop the price of the 2014 Volt by $5,000 – to $34,995. This is before GM’s partner – the government – cuts the price down by another $7,500 via a taxpayer-funded individual  subsidy. In a roundabout way, GM is conceding that the car was priced at least $12,500 too high. (That sum, incidentally, will just about buy you a very decent economy car – the Fiat 500, for instance – without any “help” from the Politburo in DC.)

Why not just go whole hog and give them away? The plant where the Volt is built – currently idled – could be ramped-up to full production. GM could point to all the cars being made (as in Soviet Russia) and never mind about how much they cost to make – or whether anyone would be willing to part with their own hard-earned money to possess one.

GM Is actually doubling down. A Cadillac version of the Volt is on deck. It is even more divorced from economic reality than the Volt. Instead of an electric Trabant, we’ll get (to pay for) an electric Zil (the staff car of the Soviet elite). With an anticipated sticker price somewhere between $60,000 and $70,000 it will be – like the infamous Tesla – a  car for the New Nomenklatura of Bailout Nation. The ideal chariot for crony capitalists. Perhaps they’ll get their own special roads to drive them on, too.

Read the rest of the article

News  story here:

The black car – a color typically used by the military – was used by a young man in his 20s – probably a loner. He may have bought the car without a background check, since these are not mandatory in California.

Anyone can just go out and buy a car “under the table” – from an unlicensed seller. There are no laws requiring that high-powered cars be kept securely stored, with their ignitions disabled or locked so that unauthorized people can’t just jump in and go.

Perhaps this is why so many innocent people are harmed – and killed – by high-powered cars in the United States every year.The death toll is in the tens of thousands annually – a tsunami of blood and guts compared with the dozen or so mass shootings that have taken place during the past several years. Why, not a day goes by without children being killed by high-powered cars.

And not just high-powered cars, either. What about all those Saturday Night Specials? You know -  hoopties people buy for just a few hundred bucks?

Often, with cash?

Strangely, there have been no calls for an immediate ban on the sale of high-powered, menacing-looking automobiles. Nor even calls for reasonablebackground checks. No demand that drivers be trained and demonstrate competence behind the wheel.

Merely that they pay a fee.

Where is Mothers Against Hemi Chryslers? Where is President Obama? Doesn’t he care?

“We” need sensible car control, after all.

No?

Could it be because unlike guns – which many people (especially the people who want to ban them) don’t possess themselves – cars are a familiar tool used by just about everyone? Because it would be inconvenient to ban cars – or hamstring their use to such an extent that most people – including the suburbanites who favor “sensible” gun control – would be unable to use them or unwilling to endure the hassles involved?

Read the rest of the article

Herewith the latest addendum from the field:

* The Harley Clover

This Clover has managed to ruin the former outlaw image of bikers in general – and Harley riders in particular. He got his first bike – a $25,000 dresser – at age 47.

And rides it like an 87-year-old.

He’s the only motorcyclist who rides slower than most people drive. Which of course wouldn’t be a problem . . . if he just pulled off (or over) and let the people stacking up behind him proceed on their way at a speed that’s at least close to the posted lawful maximum. Instead, the Harley Clover will coast by every overlook and turn-out, his multitude of flags flapping in the breeze- his leather-jacketed, rhinestone-festooned stuffed bear passenger mocking you all the while.

Watch out for him coming the other way, too. That 900 pound dresser he bought? It often gets away from him in the curves. He’ll frequently need at least a third ofyour lane to  make it ’round the bend.

*  The Six Lengths Clover

Maintaining a safe following distance is a good thing – but this Clover takes it to an extreme. He leaves a football field-length gap between himself and the car ahead of him. If that car contains another Clover, it’ll be almost impossible to get around both of them. By the time you pass the Clover directly in front of you, you’ll have run out of road (and time) to get around the second Clover. Particularly infuriating is the six length Clover’s notorious habit of randomly increasing – and decreasing – the gap. He’ll bunch up close to the car ahead when it slows for a curve – then ease back to his usual 100 yard following distance when the road straightens out.

* Family Stick Figure Clover

A Clover characteristic is narcissism. This unfortunate trait manifests in many ways, including the archetypical Cloverish acts of hogging the left lane – and pulling out in front of you such that you’re forced to slam on your brakes to accommodate Clover’s slow-motion pace. But, just as the skunk has its signature stripe – and signature smell – so also the Clover has external characteristics that can help you spot – and avoid – him. A sure sign that the car ahead of you is carrying a Clover is the presence of those noxious stick-figure family figures. Clover thinks you need to be made aware of how many kids he has – their age range and sex, too. That is what’s known in law enforcement as a clue. A clue that you’re dealing with a self-important clown who touts successful reproduction as achievement – and  who is almost certainly addled by over-arching mother hen instincts. Whose world revolves around juice boxes and Pixar. Who can’t be bothered to look in the rearview. Who takes up two spots at the supermarket – or parks you in so that you’ve got to use the passenger side door to gain access to your vehicle. Who will squat interminably at the drive-thru while awaiting each of his brood’s pondering over the menu, including Q&A about multiple elaborate special orders.

See also: Magnetic ribbons (various colors/causes), American flag/eagle stickers.

Read the rest of the article

Meanwhile, 70 is perfectly legal on adjacent I-81 (which, incidentally, is only two lanes each direction). The same 76 MPH on that road would be – at most – a minor ticket.

However, Virginia has another nasty surprise in store for the unwary: Anything more than 80 on any road, anywhere in the commonwealth is also statutory “reckless” driving.

79 MPH – just a ticket.

81 – “reckless.”

This is no ordinary mail-in-the-fine-and-be-done-with-it ticket, either.

The cop can, at his discretion, arrest you on the spot and cart you off to the clink (and have your vehicle towed to an impound lot at your expense).

Usually, that does not happen – probably because the cops themselves know these “reckless” tickets are grotesque perversions of language. However, what will happen is you’ll be issued a piece of paper ordering you to appear at court (not optional) on such-and-such a date, where – if convicted – you’ll be slapped with six DMV demerit points (vs. the usual speeding ticket’s three or four) a hugefine (several hundred bucks, at least) a likely suspension of your “privilege” to drive – and the absolute certainty that your government-mandated insurance premiums will double for the next several years at least. Obviously, hiring a lawyer to game the system is essential.

But either way, you will pay.

Best case, you’ll avoid the conviction – but there’s no avoiding the lawyer’s fee. $700-$1,000 or so is the going rate. Worst case, you’ll be convicted. Which means in addition to the lawyer’s fee – which you’ll pay regardless -  you’ll also pay the fines levied by the court, as well as the jacked-up insurance rates for years to come.

The total cost if convicted of “reckless” driving can easily amount to thousands of dollars.

All for the Great Crime of driving 76 on an Interstate highway where everyone is doing about the same thing – and nothing unsafe (much less ”reckless”) about it. Ditto 66 in an under-posted 45 zone – or 82 in a 70 – and so on.

Which brings me to the following. It is a natural – a normal – thing for a prey animal to flee from a predator. No one expects an antelope to just freeze in place and await the lion. Most people, if they saw such a thing, would consider it odd. What is wrong with the antelope? Doesn’t he see the lion?

It’s interesting that many of these same people nonetheless expect two-legged prey to stand still for two-legged predators. It is a remarkable thing. A manifestation of cognitive dissonance – what I like to call Cloverism (see here for more about that).

Of course, it will be argued that the two-legged predators in question (cops) are not going to kill you. It is merely implied (though of course, sometimes they actually do kill their prey). All that cop’s going to do, these people will say, is hand you a ticket. Instead of all your flesh (as per the antelope and the lion) the two-legged predator merely wants a pound or two.

Read the rest of the article

I don’t recommend it – but I do understand it.

But, before you think about trying to Bo and Luke ol’ Roscoe P. Coltrane  – who has morphed into a PTS’D Officer 82nd Airborne and swapped his never-to-be-fired-in anger six-shooter for a hair-trigger Glock 40 -  keep in mind the following:

If you don’t get away – if they do catch you – you will be going to jail.

And, you may stay there for awhile. In most states, “eluding” or “attempting to elude” a cop is at least a major misdemeanor – and can be a felony. In my home state (VA), the very least you’ll be charged with is a Class 2 Misdemeanor, which carries a potential six month stay in Hotel Graybar. They may also charge you with a Class 6 Felony – a serious bust with severe immediate ramifications – not less than 1 year in the clink/$2,500 fine – and daunting lifelong repercussions: You’ll be a convicted felon for the rest of your life and as such, de-barred possession of firearms, among other things.

You might also wreck and hurt yourself – or someone else. That’s not something you want on your conscience.

Also, know yourself – and respect your limits. This sort of thing requires a higher-than-average skill set as a wheelman – and the steady nerves to go with it. If you’re not a very good driver – and very calm under pressure – do not attempt.

Bottom line: Think carefully about making a break for it – and be aware of and prepared for the consequences. It is not something to be done lightly. And if done at all, only do it when the odds are stacked in your favor.

For instance:

You’ve got “the drop” on the cop.

Classic scenario: You’re on the highway, running 80-ish  . . .  along with everyone else. Even though the speed limit is 70, you know that the 82 you’re running is statutory “reckless driving.” You pass a cop in a cut-out, obviously running radar. You glance in your rearview, see him turn on his lights or some other clue that he’s coming after you. Bad news.

But – the good news – you’re already moving at 80-plus and he is hardly moving at all. You know it will take him at least a critical minute or two to enter the highway from the cut-out and get up to speed – and get behind you. There are lots of other cars he must bob and weave around to reach you, too.

You’ve got “the drop” on the cop. The odds are stacked in your favor.

You’ll be out of his immediate sight for a few precious moments and given that you passed him doing 80-plus while hewas stationary, it is extremely unlikely he was able to see more than color, make and model. Certainly not your plate numbers. *

Read the rest of the article

Luckily, we’ve got opposable thumbs – and could (in theory) do something about the tags . . . on our cars. You know, license plates. They amount to the same thing as those tags in a cow’s ears. They are a way for our farmers – the people who operate the levers of state power -  to keep track of us   . . . a startling thing, given all the prattle about America being a “free” country. Free people ought to be free to come and go without being kept track of.

Prisoners (and cattle) are kept track of.

So what are we, exactly?

License plates are another (one of many) assertion by the state of ownership over us, in this case, via ownership of our vehicles. Because control of a thing – who has the legal power to determine how a given thing shall or shall not be used – is the essence of ownership. If I am in a position to tell you how you may use your car, and have the power to compel you to obey my orders, then you’re not really the owner – are you?

The state says we may only travel with its permission, which is an assertion of ownership. It does this via driver’s licenses – and by licensing “our” cars. Both types of license must be regularly renewed – in perpetuity. There is a fee involved, of course.

Each bite (annual renewal) is small but cumulatively, it amounts to a considerable sum. Let’s say the state demands $50 annually per licensed vehicle. Over 25 years, that’s $1,250 of your money you were forced to part with in order to operate your (ahem!) vehicle.

Well, yours in name.

But that’s piddly stuff compared with the true purpose of plates – which is to keep track of your comings and goings. Why do you suppose the state is beginning to deploy scanners capable of taking an electronic snapshot of every car that passes by – recording the information and cross-referencing each plate (and vehicle owner) against a database? This being done without warrant, without probable cause or even a whiff of specific suspicion – in keeping with the New American Idea that the presumption of innocence is old hat, an impediment to “keeping us safe.” Someone, somewhere might be up to no good. Therefore, everyone must beassumed to be up to no good – at all times.  Innocence at the moment doesn’t mean you won’t be guilty of some offense later on.

Perhaps tomorrow.

By monitoring all people all the time – and keeping records of this in perpetuity – the people who run the government have a much easier time of it. And that’s what matters – to them. Not your liberty, not silly old-fashioned ideas about self-ownership and being free to come and go as you please without being watched, recorded and catalogued.  Not your “safety,” either. Just their control over you. That is the only relevant consideration. You are their property. Not merely your vehicle.

You.

License plates are quite literally on the technological cusp of becoming the functional equivalent of electronic ankle bracelets worn by felons. And the purpose is exactly the same: To monitor and control. Prisoners have to accept this. They are, after all, prisoners.

But are we?

Read the rest of the article