If a government wants to conserve a particular product, it does not need to make rhetorical pleas for people not to use it. It can adjust its own policies to make us more fuel-efficient and less dependent on foreign oil, especially from the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration has, alas, never made this a priority.
[N]either YOU nor THE GOVERNMENT own car manufacturers or their suppliers, so neither YOU nor THE GOVERNMENT have a right to tell them how to build their products. For the very same reason conservatives (are supposed to) oppose having the state tell you what you can't write on your blog and how you write what you can, conservatives (are supposed to) oppose the government imposing economic controls on businesses to achieve social goals.
We need to increase the cost of gas to force the auto industry to move to newer, better fuels and consumers to make wiser choices. A phased in gas tax of a dollar on the gallon is a tax that most sane economists support, helps wean us off foreign oil, helps the environment, and defunds the terror-masters.
What I will get into are the necessary consequences of his argument. If an additional gas tax were applied (on top of the federal 18 cents and the local-state quarter and up), it would require enforcement because if given the choice, why would a gas station voluntarily jack the prices of its fuel higher when the station across the street can simply sell at the same price? If a consumer is aware of the difference (and it would be a growing difference, since it'd be "phased-in"), why would he willingly waste that extra $10-15 with each fill-up? The "tax" price will loose to the normal price and the "tax" station will loose customers.
No, a tax can only be effective if you have an active and reasonable threat in place, a threat of police violence against you if you don't comply. By advocating a bigger gas tax, Andrew Sullivan thinks it is OK for people to be ticketed, arrested, fined, jailed, and ultimately killed by law enforcement for not going along with his "budget-balancing" scheme. That flow of police aggression is roughly how the sequence of events would unfold if the gas retailed refused to impose the tax each step of the way; or, with not conforming to the revocation of the person's license to sell gas and operate a business.
In effect, Andrew Sullivan wants slaves and slave-like behavior.
I'm a low tax kind of guy. I support Bush's tax cuts on most areas (I exclude the estate tax, because it rewards inheritance rather than work). But this is an area that, in every substantive regard, is a win-win. Except that politically, it's lose-lose.
Because, for some incomprehensible reason, there still exists a significant portion of the people living in this country that hate taxes because they'd rather put that money towards other uses. It's the lingering apparition of what a free market mentality looks like. And this bastard wants to join the horde in sticking another knife in it.
A "win-win"? Is that how would you describe the state-created suffering that millions of Americans would needlessly undergo to finance the federal government; a move that would dangerously impact everyone living on a tight budget; a policy that would increase the cost of not just the fuel to drive to work, but the fuel to ship goods around the country and to your home?
What an asshole. Why I ever respected him is a mystery to me now.
Previous posts on the Daily Disher: Talking About Whom?, The Jubilation of Catching Saddam is Fraying Minds, Andrew Sullivan's Confused, What the Hell, Sullivan's Hand in Your Pocket
UPDATED 2/1/2006 11:17am
Andrew Sullivan Needs Slaves, II
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.