October 8, 2015

Driverless Cars - Oh the Inhumanity

James Lileks takes to NRO to vent about idiot millennials who "want to ban human drivers ASAP." It is a steak and potato dinner dripping with awesome sauce that you should read start to end, but I'll give you an appetizer.

It is not enough to welcome the possibilities and opportunities of self-driving cars. The old order must be swept away, because go f*** a tailpipe. The pleasures of driving must be dumped in the dustbin with other pleasures of life that have fallen out of favor, like pie or a cigar, because go f*** a tailpipe. We need a BAN and we need Laws enforced by officers of the state with guns, and by the way, f*** the police and guns are bad, but we'll be fine with cops pulling black people over 24/7 because driving your own car is now probable cause, because go f*** a tailpipe.

And then tell me if you're still good with your car having a "Controls-that-I-can-use-ectomy."

Egalitarian Socialism Rant Posted by JohnGalt at October 8, 2015 4:59 PM

I'm with Lileks. Besides, I'm addicted as it is to the awe and wonder on the faces of people who see that my car has a clutch pedal and a manual shifter; if I'm not surrendering those controls, I'm sure as heck not surrendering my steering wheel.

And I can parallel park in one pass. There are only two other Californians I know who can say that.

Cold, dead hands, my friends. Cold, dead hands.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at October 8, 2015 5:19 PM

Joey Chitwood and ...?

Posted by: johngalt at October 9, 2015 11:41 AM

Well, my friends on the left love to discredit Liberty by quoting some goofball White supremacist.

This goofball anti-humanist can be as wrong as pants on a trout -- and is -- but I remain a huge fan of autonomous vehicles. We've been through it before, but this is a productivity boost on the order of women entering the workforce.

Keep the 'Cuda, practice your parking, I'm ready. One downside: without the 35,000 needless deaths, gun rights advocates will lose a convenient talking point.

Posted by: Jk at October 9, 2015 4:13 PM

I agree that a self-driving feature is good, but it is just that - a feature. Not a replacement for the sentient being in the driver's seat. We've been through this part before too... this is the first evidence I've seen of any intent to BAN human drivers.

I'm also pretty sure your overstating the productivity benefit. Likely that extra time will be used for leisure more often than "workin' for the man." And women in the workplace nearly doubled the workforce. That's a big productivity boost. But this is a tangent. The salient point is - "Wham! Down comes another tranche of glorious laws to forbid people from manipulating their own possessions in a manner that suits them."

Posted by: johngalt at October 9, 2015 5:55 PM

I of course object to "ban drivers;" it's the first I've heard it as well. Here's to keeping the choices to own and drive or not.

Brother jg, neo-Calvinist! Fearing the plebes will devote newly acquired productive time to leisure and not toil. I'd suggest that leisure can be economic activity and that anything is likely better than sitting in traffic, searching for parking.

The comparison to women is perhaps extended but not overwrought. Some were working already, some did not, and teh transition was gradual. I don't see a 50% overnight boost either in the rear-view mirror, or out teh windshield of my futuristic but emasculated Google-bug.

Posted by: jk at October 11, 2015 12:02 PM | What do you think? [5]