Climate Change? Nahhh ...

Let's give drivers ANOTHER button to try to find as they try not to have an accident. And ANOTHER piece of computer software to jack up the price of the car another $2,000.

 

Again, I don't disagree with any of the arguments here about the creep of authoritarianism.

But we're really arguing over how technology interacts with politics and philosophy.

If we could save 10000 lives a year with a breathalyzer interlock on every car ignition, would it be worth the cost to individual freedom?

I don't know.

 

If I’m not free to crush a 12 pack and go for a cruise, are any of us truly free?

 

home of the brave, my friend

home of the brave

 

This is a whole other issue, or maybe the root of this one, is the way the governments of the world are doing end runs around protected personal freedoms by engaging in public-private partnerships of all sorts.
Elon Musk builds a car that can be programmed to stop, and a government seizes on that feature to keep people out of certain areas — in the name of public safety and environmental justice, of course.
Or for political, legal or constitutional reasons a government can't ban a certain product (guns would be the better example, but ICE engines and gas stoves work for this discussion) that it deems unsafe or undesirable. So behind the scenes it partners with the banks to cut off your ability to buy them through the use of ESG or social credit scores. The banks can't do business with the government without a good ESG score, so they try to boost it by declining car loans or credit card sales of undesirable items. In the name of the greater good, of course.
Or, more insidiously, they put pressure on or partner with banks to cut off an individual's or group's access to the banking system, thus limiting their ability to assemble and protest. That's what Canada did during the trucker protests. The push for digital currency will only make all of this easier.
Just because a system exists, a government doesn't have the right to take advantage of it for its own ends. That's not a slippery slope to totalitarianism, it's a hard push down a ski jump.

 

Again, I don't disagree with you. It's all pretty complicated.

We're an ingenious species, and we've invented a lot of great stuff. Trouble is, we mostly try to argue the philosophical and political implications, complications and consequences of our tech long after the fact.

We're mostly arguing here for example, about automated enforcement technologies. They're much more efficient.

What's the difference between a cop stopping me for speeding, and a robotic monitor sending me a ticket a week after the fact?

Is (electronically) fencing off a piece of public property a violation of my civil liberties?

 

For better or worse, this ain’t Europe. You have to use carrots here, not sticks. (And because it is America it better be dipped in ranch dressing too.)

• For the good of the planet you have to let us track your car and give us the ability to shut it off if we think it is for the best. Fuck you
• You could save X amount of dollars on gas and maintenance by switching to all-electric and stick to the Middle East. We’ve worked out the technology to make out of town trips practical and we’re going to help you with the cost of switching so it isn’t blowing up your budget. Gimmie

 

Anything you do to electronically disable a moving vehicle could have life-or-death consequences. Driving in a blizzard or around a tornado. The aforementioned medical emergency, etc. A bridge wayyyyy too far.

 

Not advocating at all. It's just an interesting philosophical argument to me.

EZ Pass is an example of us (willingly?) imposing electronic surveillance on ourselves. Our smartphones are another.

Why do our cars use unleaded gas? Why do they have catalytic converters? Government intrusion.

Presumably, because we vote for representative government, these things represent the will of a majority of voters.