|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Author: BrianWBrianW Date: Jul 16, 2008 03:48
The planned 2p increase in fuel duty this October is to be postponed.
This is the second time it has been put back - it was due to be
introduced in March, but was delayed for six months because of rising
oil prices.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7509156.stm
Not bothered one way or the other, personally - 2p is neither here nor
there - but I'm glad it has been done just so we can all have a laugh
when Gollum gets even more angry.
|
| |
|
| | 23 Comments |
|
  |
Author: DougDoug Date: Jul 16, 2008 10:53
2p? Yawn. To cover the real cost of motoring petrol would need to cost
2.50 per litre. 2p more or less won't do anything to discourage
frivolous hypermobility or ameliorate the external costs imposed by
selfish motorists on the rest of society. So you are quite wrong. Even
if the government were to increase duty by 2p, I would still think
that petrol is scandalously cheap.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
  |
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Jul 16, 2008 10:57
Doug googlemail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:
> 2p? Yawn. To cover the real cost of motoring petrol would need to cost
> 2.50 per litre. 2p more or less won't do anything to discourage
> frivolous hypermobility or ameliorate the external costs imposed by
> selfish motorists on the rest of society. So you are quite wrong. Even
> if the government were to increase duty by 2p, I would still think that
> petrol is scandalously cheap.
Even if the government were to increase duty by £20 per litre, you would
still think that petrol is scandalously cheap. Mind you, since you're an
anarchist and therefore against the very concept of "government", I don't
quite know who you're planning to be in charge of setting and collecting
the duty on fuel.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: BrimstoneBrimstone Date: Jul 16, 2008 11:07
Doug wrote:
> 2p? Yawn. To cover the real cost of motoring petrol would need to cost
> 2.50 per litre. 2p more or less won't do anything to discourage
> frivolous hypermobility or ameliorate the external costs imposed by
> selfish motorists on the rest of society. So you are quite wrong. Even
> if the government were to increase duty by 2p, I would still think
> that petrol is scandalously cheap.
So how would the price of petrol, or any other commodity, be arrived at in
an anarchist society?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Mike PMike P Date: Jul 16, 2008 11:23
Doug wrote:
> 2p? Yawn. To cover the real cost of motoring petrol would need to cost
> 2.50 per litre. 2p more or less won't do anything to discourage
> frivolous hypermobility or ameliorate the external costs imposed by
> selfish motorists on the rest of society.
Doug, motorists *are* society. There's 26,208,000 cars on the roads in the
UK. 60 million people, 14 million of which are too young to legally drive.
That makes it a majority of people who own or have access to a car.
You don't get that part though do you?
Mike P
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: DougDoug Date: Jul 16, 2008 13:35
> Doug, motorists *are* society. There's 26,208,000 cars on the roads in the
> UK. 60 million people, 14 million of which are too young to legally drive.
> That makes it a majority of people who own or have access to a car.
>
> You don't get that part though do you?
Yes I do. It's called the tyrrany of the majority. You don't seem to
get that acting in a selfish, disrespectful, and ultimately
destructive manner is not justifyable simply because more than 50%% of
people are doing it.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Jul 16, 2008 13:42
Doug googlemail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:
> Yes I do. It's called the tyrrany of the majority.
Oh, ffs...
Parliament isn't democratic, because only a minority are represented.
OTOH, the majority is "tyrranical".
Basically, it comes down to Duhg should not be prevented from doing
whatever he wants, whilst everybody else should be forced to do only what
Duhg allows.
This is anarchy in Duhg's book.
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
  |
Author: DougDoug Date: Jul 16, 2008 13:53
On Jul 16, 7:57 pm, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:
> Doug googlemail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>> 2p? Yawn. To cover the real cost of motoring petrol would need to cost
>> 2.50 per litre. 2p more or less won't do anything to discourage
>> frivolous hypermobility or ameliorate the external costs imposed by
>> selfish motorists on the rest of society. So you are quite wrong. Even
>> if the government were to increase duty by 2p, I would still think that
>> petrol is scandalously cheap.
>
> Even if the government were to increase duty by £20 per litre, you would
> still think that petrol is scandalously cheap. Mind you, since you're an
> anarchist and therefore against the very concept of "government", I don't
> quite know who you're...
|
| Show full article (1.63Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: BrianWBrianW Date: Jul 16, 2008 14:02
On 16 Jul, 18:53, Doug googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2p? Yawn. To cover the real cost of motoring petrol would need to cost
> 2.50 per litre. 2p more or less won't do anything to discourage
> frivolous hypermobility or ameliorate the external costs imposed by
> selfish motorists on the rest of society. So you are quite wrong. Even
> if the government were to increase duty by 2p, I would still think
> that petrol is scandalously cheap.
That's interesting. The market seems to think that the correct price
for petrol in the UK is around 50 p per litre, the rest of the current
price being excise duty and VAT. You believe it should be five times
that price. I have some questions for you as to how that would be
achieved in your anarchist paradise:
1. Who would get to decide what the price of petrol should be?
2. Who would get to collect and spend that money?
3. Who would enforce it?
Now, I know you are not good on the specifics of your anarchist
system, so may I suggest the following answers:
|
| Show full article (1.07Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: BrianWBrianW Date: Jul 16, 2008 14:03
On 16 Jul, 21:42, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:
> Doug googlemail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>> Yes I do. It's called the tyrrany of the majority.
>
> Oh, ffs...
>
> Parliament isn't democratic, because only a minority are represented.
> OTOH, the majority is "tyrranical".
>
> Basically, it comes down to Duhg should not be prevented from doing
> whatever he wants, whilst everybody else should be forced to do only what
> Duhg allows.
>
> This is anarchy in Duhg's book.
Perhaps it should be renamed "Gollarchy"
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|