22 Feb 2010

Taylor Conant Asks: Do We Live in a Movie?

All Posts 13 Comments

Here’s the rest of his email:

A bad one? Just saw this ad:

So, here’s the script– a government take-over of a major auto manufacturer, who happens to be dabbling in onboard vehicle “safety” technology that allows the company’s vehicles to be controlled from a central location, and the competition is being brought down by legislative and executive agency inquiries and hearings, and a police force that is increasing militarized and has been indoctrinated to see civilians as game to be hunted and dominated. A psychological thriller exploring the psychosis of the hunters and the fearful desperation of the hunted as they try to escape the fast-enclosing walls of a terrifying police state. oh, and they’re being RFIDed, too.

Submitizen, coming December 2010, tag line “Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.”

I mean seriously, any idiot should be able to see “Hmm, if the cops can get my stolen vehicle back that easily, I also can be easily detained, say if they suspect me of drunk driving, running drugs, etc. and then proceed to be harassed” but of course, they won’t.

13 Responses to “Taylor Conant Asks: Do We Live in a Movie?”

  1. downunder says:
    at

    Or how about, govt owns two motor companies and wants to increase market share. So it conducts a witch hunt against one of its rivals.

  2. Ben Oravetz says:
    at

    Good thing OnStar service is voluntary right now.

  3. Silas Barta says:
    at

    So, there was some crucial part of our freedoms that relied on us being able to outrun the police in a car chase?

    I don't mean to trivialize the takeover of carmakers, but seriously, if the police have decided to chase you, it's over anyway.

  4. Yancey Ward says:
    at

    Well, the GPS trackers are nice if your car is stolen, and the ability to disable a stolen car being pursued should actually save some lives, so I am loathe to criticize these innovations. Yes, the technology can be abused by government, and I expect that it will be abused over and over, but this is true with all innovations.

    Now, the abuse of Toyota is much more sinister, and was predicted by many people last year when we acquired GM. I am sure Honda is next in the queue.

  5. Silas Barta says:
    at

    Could someone explain what is meant by the abuse of Toyota? They f'd up the design so that the accelerator can jam and you don't have a way to shut off the engine in an emergency. Were they somehow treated *worse* than a company "deserves" to be treated in such a situation?

  6. Jim O'Connor says:
    at

    "Is there some crucial part of our freedoms that relied on us being able to outrun the police? … it's over anyway."

    "Is there some crucial part of our freedoms that relied on us being able to shoot back? … it's over anyway."

    As the cost of harassing us goes down the demand to harass us goes up.

  7. Yancey Ward says:
    at

    Silas,

    GM, Ford, and Chrysler have all had recalls in the millions of cars for the sorts of defects like, for example, the car catching on fire over the last 3 years, and yet you didn't have the Secretary of Transportation telling people to stop driving the cars, or Congress holding public hearings to flay them alive. Call me a cynic if you wish, but I don't think you would be seeing all the publicity if GM weren't owned by the government, or even if it were Ford with the exact same problem in today's environment. One good reason, all by itself, to have the government not own a car company.

  8. Deez Monets says:
    at

    @Yancey

    Silas is just mad because he still has an old Pinto in his garage and he's afraid to crank that sucker up.

    KA-BOOOOM!

  9. Anonymous says:
    at

    Shame on your Bob Murphy for trying to stay quiet about the recent revolution at CPAC.

  10. Matt says:
    at

    I agree with Yancey Ward, Toyota made a faulty design, but such things are extremely common. And way more common for GM. Toyota is being harassed way more then other faulty designs have been by other companies in the past. When a faulty design makes it's way through, it is always a fluke, and I'm pretty sure Toyota has had a lot less faulty designs, and never recalled any company being beat up so much for a design flaw. I think this whole situation is related to the government car bailouts.

  11. Bob Murphy says:
    at

    Anon said:

    Shame on your Bob Murphy for trying to stay quiet about the recent revolution at CPAC.

    And I would've gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!

  12. Bob Murphy says:
    at

    Silas wrote:

    I don't mean to trivialize the takeover of carmakers, but seriously, if the police have decided to chase you, it's over anyway.

    I get what you're saying, Silas, but I think it's all on a continuum. By the same token, when they introduce involuntary microchips, they're obviously going to do it on prisoners first, not on kids making their First Communion. At that point, some libertarians (and others) would flip out, and people could rightfully observe, "If you're already convicted of a crime, the government has you in its clutches. What's a microchip under those circumstances?"