Logic – let alone reasonableness – is not one of government’s stronger suits. There are many examples of this, but here’s a newsie one: The use of public roads as test tracks for Tesla (and Google) self-driving car technology.
On the one hand, government rigidly persecutes “speeders” on the basis (so it is claimed) that driving faster than a number on a sign might increase the chances of having an accident. This being unsafe and hence “speeding” being illegal.
On the other, it gives the green light to Tesla racketeer Elon Musk to sell cars that encourage the driver to take not just both hands but also both eyes off the road – trusting in the infallibility of Tesla’s technology.
People have died as a result of this – which isn’t very safe.
With more to come, inevitably.
Inevitably, because technology – like the human beings who create it – is fallible. Things break, stop working. Or they don’t work exactly the way we were told they would.
Especially things controlled by a computer.
How reliable is your desktop PC? And it just sits on your desk. Do you like the idea of a PC being in charge of your car – your life – at 70 MPH?
The government does.
Understanding motives – as opposed to stated reasons – will help you understand policies that seem on the face of it idiotic or at least inconsistent. If “safety” truly is the object of everything the government does to us – for our own good, of course – then the government would never have allowed Musk to use public roads to Beta test his auto-driving technology, with you and me in the role of guinea pigs.
But “safety” is not the end goal. It is the excuse.
What the government wants is more control of our cars; ideally, absolute control. Musk is the five star general in charge of this operation.
He’s not coy about it, either.
Has publicly said that allowing (his word, very revealing) you and me to be in control of our cars is not acceptable. It is “too dangerous.” His technology – funded by milking the taxpayers, who get to pay for their own replacement as drivers – will see to it that we are not allowed to control “our” cars in the probably not-too-distant future. When it will be “illegal” for us – rather than his software – to drive the car. That software, incidentally, written by people like Musk or those who work for Musk.
The “self-driving” car is in fact a car driven by Musk and his minions.
Many people are unaware of it, but Tesla cars narc out everything done behind the wheel (no matter who or what is behind the wheel) to the Tesla Hive Mind, where – for now – it is merely pored over and recorded. If you own a Tesla, it tells Tesla – the company – when/where and how you drive. As you (or it) drives.
And the reverse is just as technologically possible.
This is a three-leap jump over the in-car narcing technology pushed by the insurance mafia (which is another arm of the pincer movement encircling what’s left of our driving autonomy) that uses a plug-in device to feed data about your speed and brake inputs to the mafia, in order to suss out “dangerous” driving practices such as accelerating too rapidly (be a good Clover, now!) and charge you accordingly.
Tesla’s operation is much more sophisticated, for one. It is not only real-time (Tesla, the company, knows what you are doing right now, as you are doing it) the technology embedded in the car can be used to control what the car does, right now.
Your speed, for example.
Or, your movement.
A car with Tesla Tech could be rendered inert (perhaps Because Climate Change, or a “lock down” situation) at the whim of Tesla, which – like every other rent-seeking corporate entity – is effectively an arm of the government itself. Musk is a kind of modern-day take on Francis Drake, except without the elan. Drake worked as a privateer for Elizabeth I – performing valuable services, ex-officio. He wasn’t the government, per se. But what he did was done with the government’s active connivance.
The two worked together.
Elizabeth later knighted Drake – who became Sir Francis Drake.
The fawning by government over Musk trends in the same direction.
He is – like Sir Francis – funded directly (via subsidies) and indirectly (via a scam called selling “carbon credits,” which force real car companies to give him money to fund his operations building “zero emissions” electric cars) by the government. Or – via insider /”no bid” contracts (the latest worth an estimated $112 million) that profit his other crony capitalist operations, like SpaceX. Which also suffer from embarrassing – and expensive – “glitches.” Last year, a SpaceX-provided rocket crashed and burned – taking an expensive NASA payload with it. Instead of sending Sir Elon a bill, he was awarded a new contract.
The government, in turn uses him as its front man, allowing him to do things that serve the Agenda, even when those things are palpably not “safe.”
Like putting self-driving cars on public roads that miss a Kenworth making a left turn in front of it – the “driver” meanwhile preoccupied with Pokeman.
EPautos.com depends on you to keep the wheels turning! The control freaks (Clovers) hate us. Goo-guhl blackballed us.
Will you help us?
EPautos stickers – new design, larger and magnetic! – are free to those who send in $10 or more to support the site.
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
Late reply, but it’s like I’ve said on another forum… if you’re ever on the freeway in California and you get cut off, it might be an exhausted Google engineer going to work to program a self-driving car!
Safety: The Battlecry of the Modern Day Tyrant
Yes, indeed.
“Safety” suffused the official speeches and edicts of the Nazi, the Soviet and… now… the American government.
And people fall for it every time.
If they want “self driving” stuff, why not go with passenger drones instead? They would not have to integrate flying machines that fly at low altitude into the traffic grid, and can build the whole system from the ground up.
They can have my P-71 Crown Victoria when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
So no one else will point out it was the truck driver’s fault for causing the accident?
Maybe we need self-driving trucks that won’t try an unprotected left turn across two lanes of oncoming traffic.
Note so far it is only the truck driver who claims that the Tesla driver was watching a movie/playing Pokeman/sleeping .
Were I facing a potential manslaughter charge I’d also be telling my lawyer to do whatever they could to blame the _other_ driver.
Hi Bill,
Ok, let’s assume everything you’ve written is accurate. The fact remains: This technology encourages inattention. Perhaps if the driver had been… driving, he might have noticed the problem in time to react to it, eh?
Yes, the truck driver pulled out in front of traffic expecting it to stop. I’ve had this “discussion” with our dear departed Clover more than once. Our resident troll would say that if the trucker had to wait for a gap in traffic he might had to wait there for a very long time. Our troll would also say that truckers are important and thus have priority. That’s cloverian thought for ya. But anyway what the trucker did is considered generally accepted practice despite being against the rules.
If the vehicle on the roadway is going faster than the number on the sign, speeding, then many americans feel this absolves the person who pulled out any responsibility. There have been efforts to make a speeder always be at fault no matter what the other guy did.
And lastly, american driver education teaches us to look out for the other guy. The end result is that an expectation is built that one can do as he pleases, become the other guy, and everyone else has to look out for him. This is why people who pull out into traffic and cause collisions can escape blame for them and why they do it.
So yes you’re correct, the trucker’s poor driving caused the collision, but the expectation of making everyone else stop is very much in the social fabric today and thus he won’t be shouldering any blame in the public eye. Those of us who believe in the rules of the road to avoid collisions with something other than going slow enough to dodge any idiocy that may occur are sadly in a very small minority.
Never the less who was at fault, the computer did not stop the car. The computer failed and someone get killed because of it.
If it had been anyone BUT Musk’s computer failing, the government would be calling to ban the computer from driving on public roads. But since it Musk and Telsa, its only crickets we hear. That is what Eric is pointing out. The dead will be the first of many.
I feel some sympathy for Musk (and all entrepreneurs) in this day and age. A business owner can’t do a got damned thing without 10,000 different government stamps of approval and permission slips. You either do exactly as you are told, or you get shut down. The price for being a successful innovator is compliance with government demands. There is no choice.
Hi Brian,
The very last thing Musk is is an entrepreneur. He is a rent-seeking crony capitalist who feeds like a leech off taxpayers.
I cry myself to sleep every night thinking about Musk and all his misfortune.
Elon Musk using the Tesla name for a battery powered car, (something Tesla tinkered with 100 years ago) is an incredible insult to Tesla, and his incredible inventions
O.K. But I want a self-driving car someday, and “allowing” any car, of any description, with any technology, to drive on public roads risks injuries and fatalities. As you say, narc-tech is coming regardless of self-driving cars. Musk’s crony capitalist rent seeking is fair game for ridicule, but lay off of my Jetson’s world!
Hi Martin,
It’s the double standard that grates (among other things). I am not allowed to drive a new car without potentially and actually lethal air bags – because “safety” – yet Musk is allowed to operate his demonstrably unsafe cars on public roads, endangering third parties who have no real choice about being placed in harm’s way by these things.
If you don’t want to drive, call Uber. But get your stories straight. George Jetson drove (flew) himself.
Right, but if you want SAFE self driving cars, the government must not protect them from tort, subsidize them, or regulate them. Of course they will do all those things and like govt roads themselves, be needlessly dangerous and expensive.
And not controlled by the owner.
But Eric! You speak as if the government taking control of your car is a bad thing. That’s the wrong perspective! Think of the life-saving uses, like when you’re having a heart attack and can’t drive yourself to the hospital, but the car can. The government, which loves you so much, will even intervene if it can tell you’re having a heart attack or other problem requiring intervention, and will take control of the car without you having to ask for it. Society will become much more peaceful as a result.
I know… I know… but I have yet to learn to love Big Brother… I need time in Room 101….
Yes–if you are fully paid-up on your Obamacare premiums. And you don’t have any outstanding speeding tickets from the local highwayman. And you didn’t post any supposedly mean-spirited rants against the government or any of its protected classes.
I’d rather take my chances driving myself.
Give totalitarianism a chance… we’re just about there.
Hi Libertyx,
Yes, unfortunately.
Hillary’s ascendance will seal the deal. Again, this is not a plug for Trump so much as the cry of a desperate man who would like to avoid a certain catastrophe at the risk of a possible one.
Oliver Stone’s promo for his new movie prompted quite a few comments over at Ars Technica along the lines of “Imagine what a president Trump will do with all the data collected by the NSA,” as if Hillary will be completely benevolent.
Of course, no one mentioned that the whole point of the 4th amendment is because politicians are petty and vindictive people who can’t be trusted, no matter what party they’re in.
Re presidency: It shouldn’t make much difference who is elected: Oath of office – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
There are legal remedies for those breaking their oath – remedies which are never pursued, so we accept equal opportunity dictators.
They are all equally ignored by today’s political class. You could even win a court case and it will still be ignored by these people!
Hello libertyx, that oath is meaningless because it is vague and mentions no consequences or enforcers.
“…and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
What does that really mean? The document still exists; therefore every president in the U.S. has kept his oath. Notice that the word “obey” is missing from it. The very people who attended the CONstitutional CONvention where violating the much superior Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union that they were supposed to be amending instead. These are the same people who would be breaking their treaties with the Indians, so of course the entire event was a fraud and a coup d’etat.
The document is toothless. The first 3 presidents violated it without any meaningful consequence. The worst thing that could have happened to them was an impeachment, which is merely getting fired, and yet not even that happened. There was never any effort to put teeth into it, which is quite telling about the real intentions of the fondling fathers.
There are therefore no good reasons for going back to the CONstitution!
And Word Depressed kept me from adding the 4th link: https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority/ because it thought that 4 links = spam.
Brian, do you agree with Eric’s assessment that Trump is a better choice, or doesn’t it make any difference?
Proposed solution(s) to eliminating the current lawlessness?
I agree with Eric that Trump appears to be less evil than Killary. Electronic ballots remain hackable, the deep state oligarchy still remains in place and still owns the congress, and the bureaucrats who actually enforce this tyrannical system remain entrenched. If Trump is allowed to win he might be able to make some improvements, but every president in U.S. history has left the citizenry less free than when he entered the office.
There really is nothing that we as individuals can do aside from preparing for the worst and educating others about the benefits of anarchy. You could start by reading the articles that I had linked so that you yourself understands why the constitution is not the answer. You could not have possibly read them this fast.
“You could not have possibly read them this fast.”
True statement if I hadn’t read them in a previous life and if I hadn’t been subscribed to Lew Rockwell.com. So I guess I’ve read them half-fast. 🙂
Hi Lib,
Here’s a stark difference to consider: Hillary is a murderer. A mass murderer. By proxy, yes – but a murderer, nonetheless. Eager to have people killed. Arguably, more guilty than Julius Streicher – who was hanged for merely inciting murderous hatred. Hillary literally reveled in the death-by-sodomy of Quaddafi, which she helped to orchestrate. She is an obvious psychopath.
Trump is arrogant, a blowhard. A dick. But he hasn’t killed anyone that I am aware of, either himself or by proxy.
He doesn’t seem eager to get the US involved in more wars. Hillary does.
If she is elected, more people will die – a certainty.
With Trump, they may not.
That’s a big got-damned difference, in my book.
Here’s another: If elected, Hillary will, for a certainty, pick at least two and probably three Supreme Court justices who share her views on the right of other-than-government workers to possess firearms. You and I and other not-government-workers who currently possess firearms will almost certainly be declared criminals by judicial (or executive) fatwa if that woman is elected.
Trump seems disinclined to disarm us. He has consistently defended our right to possess firearms. It is probable he would select justices who share his views.
That’s a big got-damned difference, in my book.
I do not think Trump would attempt to forcibly “diversify” every county, town and neighborhood in the country – by forcibly importing the Section 8 divisions of the Free Shit Army. Or by importing “refugees” into every nook and cranny of America.
That, too, is a big got-damned difference in my book.
Which of the two do you suppose is more likely to defend and expand Obamacare? There is a decent chance that Trump would at least attempt to dismantle it. Do you think there is any chance Hillary will attempt to dismantle Obamacare? Keep in mind that Obamacare provides the necessary pretext for the government-insurance mafia combine to control and micromanage every aspect of our lives. It is the end of whatever privacy/autonomy as individuals we still retain.
With Hillary, Obamacare is forever. With Trump, maybe not.
That is a big got-damned difference.
And then there’s the vote count: . “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” – Joseph Stalin
The last time that Tenth Amendment came into play, the Union destroyed those who wanted to leave in peace.
Better to assassinate them….
Jean,
I have to agree, Lincoln’s death was much much to long overdue. However, having said that, with the war ended, it is is my considered opinion Lincoln was off’d by Seward because the cause (by this time Slavery had become the main focal point) needed a martyr. A dead Lincoln, after Lee surrendered, was infinitely more valuable than a live Lincoln. The actions after the shooting was so staged it smelled like bad eggs all around. Amazingly all roads leading out of town but one was immediately blocked. The alleged assassin happened to pick the one road that would not be blocked. I’m sure you get where this is going…, The alleged assassin was killed in a fire that destroyed identification evidence. Yeah, that whole incident was totally false flag.
I was referring to the Union forcing the war, but your point stands, too – though I didn’t know those details.
Lincoln did not want to punish the South. The South seems to have been the last place where people understood culture and noblesse oblige.
But the Mercantilists won…
And we’re too stupid to send them to hell.
My brother sent me a picture of a ‘yuuuuuuge’ traffic pileup, and captioned it, “When Nintende releases Mario Kart GO”