Posted on 12/06/2008 5:58:34 AM PST by From The Deer Stand
“Actually, I don’t recall the time when the MARKET AS A “WHOLE purposely took actions over an extended period of time to hurt itself. Markets don’t do that.
Then you must have been asleep for the past six years. Rip Van Winkle !!!!”
That’s the second time you’ve posted an evasion instead of an answer. You wouldn’t be an official mouthpiece for the left, would you?
If not, consider accepting the job when it’s offered to you.
“Way to go newbie post BS and then run off!!”
;)
Darn! And I was all set to take notes on the wonderful blessings of government regulation.
True. Also, why do we need those seat-belts and airbags and all that stuff that prevents cars from rolling over? Sheesh, what a waste of money? And what about safety glass in windscreesn? Who needs that? Why not use normal glass that shards? And why not bring back fins on cars? /sarc
The few ankle biter libertarians and their millions and zillions of voters are such a pain in the arss.
So you support nanny-state laws such as the one enforcing automakers to put rust-protection on their cars? This mindset is why the U.S. can no longer effectively compete in the world marketplace. Why should the government be involved in this? Let the law of supply and demand dictate whether automakers rust-proof their cars. For example, if Toyota decides to stop rust-proofing their cars and consumers feel strongly about it, then maybe they buy more Hondas and Nissans instead. This will force Toyota to rust-proof their cars again should the market demand it. Then again, maybe not having to rust-proof their cars makes Toyota more competitive in places like Phoenix, AZ and Southern California by getting to offer cheaper cars? So let the businesses decide, not the government.
Ankle biter!!! Toyota treats their cars as do all car makers.
What does that have to do with anything? The subject at hand is your support of the nanny-state and your apparent supplication to government regulating our industries. The fact that all auto-makers in the U.S. are subject to nanny-state government regulation does nothing to support your argument that it is a good thing.
In the real world it is called realism, IE, they are not going to be changed.
There are sensible safety requirements like safety glass, front impact airbags, and seat belts, because they affect all occupants of every car.
Then, there are nanny-state safety requirements like child seat anchors and glow-in-the-dark trunk releases that cost everyone money and benefit few.
Can you see the difference?
I’m not calling for anarchy where every car bursts into flames on contact. I just want to pay for the features I need.
As for “the stuff that prevents cars from rolling over”, that stuff is between the driver’s ears. It seems that some cars have more of that than others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.