Governments built the roads - other solutions are conceivable. Tax payers paid once for the roads to be built, and are now paying for roads to made unusable for cars (lane restrictions, pedestrianisation, etc). That's a waste.
Did you know that electric cars were very popular 100 years ago - but because of the oil industry + government, they were quashed?
Government waves through unacceptable, unenvironmental behaviour by corporations. However, it does want the consumer who bought the fridges, to foot the bill! Consumers are ignorant of course of the unenvironmental impact of the products they were being sold - that's what government was ostensibly there for - all those agencies were meant to assure that we were getting decent products.
It hasn't worked as we thought - but it has worked out as corporations planned.
A bigger governance system is not the answer.
Er this is extremely simplistic. Electricity wasn't as common as now and battery tech was extremely shitty (requiring maintenance every few days, handling acids, &c.)
> Electricity wasn't as common as now and battery tech was extremely shitty (requiring maintenance every few days, handling acids, &c.)
When automobiles first appeared, gasoline was not as common as now and internal combustion technology was primitive, requiring almost constant maintenance, handling flammable liquids etc.
The modern IC automobile is unrecognisable from those of the Benz/Ford era. Had electrical vehicles been preferred for 100 years of government financial and policy support they'd be equal or superior to combustion technology, and vastly superior to Tesla and other EV's around now which are catching up on decades of lost development.
(but then neither of us have a time-machine to prove our post-facto fantasies about alternative histories)
Yeah and one ended up easier to develop than the other. Even when we started producing proper batteries they were not good enough for cars (80s, 90s, 2000s), it took a few decade to get good engines, it took a century for proper batteries
"In 1828, the Hungarian priest and physicist Ányos Jedlik invented an early type of electric motor, and created a small model car powered by his new motor."
1828!!
"Rechargeable batteries that provided a viable means for storing electricity on board a vehicle did not come into being until 1859, with the invention of the lead–acid battery by French physicist Gaston Planté.[17][18] Camille Alphonse Faure, another French scientist, significantly improved the design of the battery in 1881; his improvements greatly increased the capacity of such batteries and led directly to their manufacture on an industrial scale."
"Electric battery-powered taxis became available at the end of the 19th century."
"To overcome the limited operating range of electric vehicles, and the lack of recharging infrastructure, an exchangeable battery service was first proposed as early as 1896.[41] The concept was first put into practice by Hartford Electric Light Company through the GeVeCo battery service and initially available for electric trucks."
It was viable technology!
Both were viable, one was much more easily developed. We can talk viability all day long, sadly it's history and there isn't much to discuss.
Solar panels are also viable and cheap right now, yet we don't use them much. Something existing and working doesn't mean it scales as easily as the alternatives.
If electricity storage is still a problem in 2022 you can imagine that it would be extremely hard in 1922. You can store gas in a bucket if needs be
I mean, I'd like to see the world move away from fossil fuels as well, but acting like BEVs are somehow universally better than ICEVs without acknowledging the tremendous ability and success of regular cars, and the shortcomings of BEVs, doesn't really help the cause, because in certain regions, applications, and for certain individuals, BEVs really are the wrong choice. There needs to be more acknowledgement of this, and acceptance of the fact that maybe a one-size-fits-all solution won't be the future of automobile propulsion.
The sentiment should be that we have less government - we should empower individuals, not monolithic state apparatus.
It would ideally be rolled back slowly, keeping a steady focus where governmental power is continuously eroded. However, I also think that things are so wildly out of kilter now, that it is far more likely that things could become even more tumultuous.
I even think the tumult is planned for - we are in a somewhat artificial and managed crisis - the co-ordinated global response to the virus, was calculate to devastate Western economies.
The plan - as I understand it - is for us to be brought to our knees so that we accept/want even global governance as an end to our suffering. At that point, when the deal is done, the crises will disappear as the global technocratic goals will have been achieved.
Does that mean that I now have to spend my time in the evening doing the "monolithic state apparatus'" job instead of going for a meal with my partner?
You can't address the rollback of government without addressing the corresponding power increase in corporations.
Did I miss anything?
Most people have been through the governmental education process and have been taught that the government is the only fair/legal/possible answer to all our ills. That 10+ formative years of propaganda to counter. Even more if you go to university and licensed to do your job - you are now vested in an exploitative system, that initiates harm against others.
Understandably people will want to stick with the devil they know until a/ they have worked through the alternatives and b/ understood that the problems commonly blamed on people are actually the natural outcomes of government policies.
Now, I'm with you that representative systems are undemocratic and centralised power leads to corruption and is a bad idea. Where we apparently differ is that my answer would also dissolve corporations by eliminating the concept of private property and use the minimalist government structures to provide social services and infrastructure rather than to protect private property.
