NationStates Jolt Archive

The car give us FREEDOM! It allows us to drive where we like and when we like. Freedom is the core of democracy.

So why should the UN legislate against against a democratic institution and a democratic industry?

I call on you all, in the name of democracy, to oppose this motion.

A vote AGAINST this motion is a VOTE FOR DEMOCRACY!!


King Paddy
Monarch of Paddys Castle, President of the Bigtopian Automotive Manufacturers Association

The car give us FREEDOM! It allows us to drive where we like and when we like. Freedom is the core of democracy.

So why should the UN legislate against against a democratic institution and a democratic industry?

I call on you all, in the name of democracy, to oppose this motion.

A vote AGAINST this motion is a VOTE FOR DEMOCRACY!!


King Paddy
Monarch of Paddys Castle, President of the Bigtopian Automotive Manufacturers Associationyou came to the UN expecting democracy and freedom? HAHAHAHAHA

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/naunm.jpg

Democratic Institutions and cars are two very different things.

the illusion of the car granting freedom is a bill of goods that with
only the slightest objectivity is readily debunked

were it to be an object of magic rather then tecnology
requiring only that the owner/opperator keep it pointed in the desired
direction and regulate its speed within the bounds of saftey and
consideration for others this pretense might hold some water

reality however couldn't be further from the case.

to begin with the car itself is such a high ticket item that combining
that with economic coersion that is built into making it the primary
form of trasportiation is the capitol equivelant of collectivization
defacto inducing virtualy everyone to indenture themselves

second of all
would that it were an item requiring little investment of time and resources to maintain
the first shortcomming could almost be forgiven
reality though is that more time is spent maintaining them the waiting
for public transport where such actualy exists
you either spend half you life under the damd things with a wrench
or just as much of it wage slaving to pay someone else to do so

unlike waiting for a train or a bus where you get to relax with
a good book or actualy get something done on your laptop

no
to equate the automobile with anything resembling freedom
is a pure sucker game, no matter how many idiots buy into it.

and all of this doesn't even begin to address environmental and political issues

the food and textbooks that are robbed from the mouths and hands of babes
to subsidise the oil and automotive industries at the expense
of more sustainable alternative
who i must be pointed out, not only build and maintain their
own rights of way at their own expence but are actualy taxed to subsidise the rights of way of their arbitrarily and gratuitously favored competition.

freedom of the car
no thanx
give me freedom FROM the damd thing

the oil and automotive industries can dam well afford to build and maintain their own roads just like everybody else, we don't need to be sold a bill of goods AND have to carry our donkey on our backs.

and what happens when the oil runs out.
i may not be able to say when it will but don't kid yourself that it
won't.

what then? with only a rubber tire on pavement infrastructure
to bring food to the cities there will be famine and mass starvation the like of wich you cannot even begin to immagine

and still there are is more
it isn't just driveing cars that endangers the air we breath and the water we directly by what comes out of the back end of them.

have you forgotten where the oxygen in the air you breathe comes from? that stuff that makes leaves green?

or how the foundation of environmental stability is environmental diversity
and the biggest threat to that diversity is habbitat loss

and what is the biggest source of habbitat loss?
is it not roads for cars (along with clear cutting of course)?

yes i want freedom
REAL freedom
not enslavement to the pretentions of a greedy and deceptive vested industry

=^^=
.../\...

gees it's not like the resolution takes away the right to drive

The Kingdom of Paddys Castle
UN Category: Compulsory Consumerist State
Civil Rights: Some
Political Freedoms: Unheard Of

You know all there is to know about freedom and democracy, don't you?

This resolution isn't attacking the car, it is demanding that automobile manufacturers pay for some of the common sense research for alternative energy sources.

I cannot support this resolution, but not because it directly attacks the civil rights of citizens in general by making it harder for them to drive. I recognize the good intentions of involved governments, but, simply put, I feel it is immoral to require a person to pay for technology that will put them out of bussiness. This being said, I do not object to the general idea of the use of alternative fuels, there benefits to the environment and the economy, or their eventual feasibility.

the Great Dausmaniac :mrgreen:
via Chancellor Wilhelm Jackson

I fully support this resolution, on the basis that their "business" does harm to the environment, and furthermore, the oil business has in the past caused war. Since the UN promotes international peace, this takes away one of the many reasons for war to occur.

I don't see any problems or abuse in this bill.

The following statement was issued earlier today by President of the Republic of Rixtex:

Regarding the current resolution before the United Nations, Alternative Fuels, the Republic of Rixtex cannot support this resolution and intends to vote no.

Rixtex always supports alternative fuels. In fact, our very own Singing Hills Institute has been at the forefront in developing the hydrogen economy. Its Hypercar initiative has been designing the transport of the future; fuel cell-powered vehicles that use clean, reformed hydrogen for fuel and emit only clean water. Our natural gas industry has been re-tooling its assets in order to deliver reformed hydrogen to distributed energy centers and auto refueling stations. Our nation, through entirely private innovation, is at the forefront in the quest for alternative fuels. Fossil fuels are the fuels of the last century. Hydrogen shall power this one.

Nevertheless, all of this progress has been made through the application of private enterprise, as is the case for all progress in human history. There is no need for a tax. Those nations who want to use public funds for alternative fuels research and development are welcome to do so without any interference from the outside world. They should recognize another nation’s right to spend their money as they see fit, or not spend it, as the case may be.

Regardless of the philosophical arguments in favor or against the resolution, it is inherently unfair. It taxes one industry. Nations with well-developed automobile manufacturing will suffer a burden that others will not. It is apparent from the voting that those for this resolution understand that, as none are known auto manufacturing powerhouses. Arguments by some that it is only “1% of the profits” are either ignorant or disingenuous as to how such a tax would be paid for.

Our nation is a new member of the United Nations. We joined immediately before the passage of the “Rights of Labor Unions” resolution and immediately suffered its devastating effects. It is unclear what the present effects of the current resolution will have, but, like all of them, there will be effects. For some more than others to be sure, but the fact there will consequences for all is certain.

The Republic of Rixtex casts a no vote for the Alternative Fuels resolution.

Rix Wax, President of the Republic of Rixtex

I cannot support this resolution, but not because it directly attacks the civil rights of citizens in general by making it harder for them to drive. I recognize the good intentions of involved governments, but, simply put, I feel it is immoral to require a person to pay for technology that will put them out of bussiness. This being said, I do not object to the general idea of the use of alternative fuels, there benefits to the environment and the economy, or their eventual feasibility.

the Great Dausmaniac :mrgreen:
via Chancellor Wilhelm Jackson

Won't it put "automobile manufacturers" out of business when the world eventualy runs out of conventional fuel?

The Prime Minister of Nateoria issued the following statement at 12:42 PM EST on the subject on the upcoming UN resolution:

United Nations resolution number 48 has the full support of the Commonweath of Nateoria. The other delegates have spoken of freedoms and democracy, however these are completely irrelevant. Whereas one's freedoms do not include murder, one's freedoms do not include the destruction of the environment. Use of fossil fuels has been proven time and time again to cause damage to the environment.

This resolution will not prevent individuals from driving, it merely requires auto manufacturers to submit a small 1% of profits to alternative fuel research. This will not destroy economies or civil rights. Again, this resolution does not infringe on civil rights., and as such, it deserves the support of the UN.