Just why do lefties hate cars?
Discussion
Anyone know?
Just the Australia charging Hamilton made me wonder why Leftie Govts seem to hate the car so much.
I could understand if only the elite few got to use them but surely in many countries these days (I don't mean Third World countries but those with "left wing Govts" which in the "developed" world) a large number of the populace own cars?
Just the Australia charging Hamilton made me wonder why Leftie Govts seem to hate the car so much.
I could understand if only the elite few got to use them but surely in many countries these days (I don't mean Third World countries but those with "left wing Govts" which in the "developed" world) a large number of the populace own cars?
I'm not sure but some left-wing South American states were quite procar.
But I do know what you mean, I'm old enough to have had experience of iron curtain times and I think it was a sort of reaction to America of the 40s with kids in cars and such like, the car was seen as part of the wests corruption of moral standards.
But I do know what you mean, I'm old enough to have had experience of iron curtain times and I think it was a sort of reaction to America of the 40s with kids in cars and such like, the car was seen as part of the wests corruption of moral standards.
Because they're a symbol of private, individual choice over state-sanctioned control.
At the very core of Marxism is this notion that greed and envy tears mankind apart, so owning something that another person desires is seen to be a bad thing unless absolutely everyone has the same thing. This is why, in the communist countries during the Cold War, you had to apply to the state for a car and they'd give you one depending on the size of your family, and they were all slow and ugly to avoid anyone being envious of it.
Nowadays, as the green movement has latched onto the authoritarianism of the left, car-hatred is now seen as a 'progressive' thing, with the ownership of something that runs on fossil-fuels being a sign of outdated, prehistoric ideals that are seen as dangerous to society's future.
However, one thing that people on this site always claim, possibly to make themselves feel better, but I'm afraid is far from true, is that it's jealousy masquerading as insecurity. It isn't. Lefties of this kind wouldn't want to be you or own your car in a million years.
The true difference is in the authoritarian and libertarian left. The authoritarian (Stalin, Hoenecker, Gordon Brown etc) believe in imposing their beliefs on the state and making it difficult to express your individuality. The Libertarian left might charge you a bit more for doing so, but would take a 'live and let live' approach to the whole thing.
At the very core of Marxism is this notion that greed and envy tears mankind apart, so owning something that another person desires is seen to be a bad thing unless absolutely everyone has the same thing. This is why, in the communist countries during the Cold War, you had to apply to the state for a car and they'd give you one depending on the size of your family, and they were all slow and ugly to avoid anyone being envious of it.
Nowadays, as the green movement has latched onto the authoritarianism of the left, car-hatred is now seen as a 'progressive' thing, with the ownership of something that runs on fossil-fuels being a sign of outdated, prehistoric ideals that are seen as dangerous to society's future.
However, one thing that people on this site always claim, possibly to make themselves feel better, but I'm afraid is far from true, is that it's jealousy masquerading as insecurity. It isn't. Lefties of this kind wouldn't want to be you or own your car in a million years.
The true difference is in the authoritarian and libertarian left. The authoritarian (Stalin, Hoenecker, Gordon Brown etc) believe in imposing their beliefs on the state and making it difficult to express your individuality. The Libertarian left might charge you a bit more for doing so, but would take a 'live and let live' approach to the whole thing.
Twincam16 said:
Because they're a symbol of private, individual choice over state-sanctioned control.
At the very core of Marxism is this notion that greed and envy tears mankind apart, so owning something that another person desires is seen to be a bad thing unless absolutely everyone has the same thing. This is why, in the communist countries during the Cold War, you had to apply to the state for a car and they'd give you one depending on the size of your family, and they were all slow and ugly to avoid anyone being envious of it.
Nowadays, as the green movement has latched onto the authoritarianism of the left, car-hatred is now seen as a 'progressive' thing, with the ownership of something that runs on fossil-fuels being a sign of outdated, prehistoric ideals that are seen as dangerous to society's future.
However, one thing that people on this site always claim, possibly to make themselves feel better, but I'm afraid is far from true, is that it's jealousy masquerading as insecurity. It isn't. Lefties of this kind wouldn't want to be you or own your car in a million years.
The true difference is in the authoritarian and libertarian left. The authoritarian (Stalin, Hoenecker, Gordon Brown etc) believe in imposing their beliefs on the state and making it difficult to express your individuality. The Libertarian left might charge you a bit more for doing so, but would take a 'live and let live' approach to the whole thing.
True, and in addition they are examples of a great success of global capitalism.At the very core of Marxism is this notion that greed and envy tears mankind apart, so owning something that another person desires is seen to be a bad thing unless absolutely everyone has the same thing. This is why, in the communist countries during the Cold War, you had to apply to the state for a car and they'd give you one depending on the size of your family, and they were all slow and ugly to avoid anyone being envious of it.
Nowadays, as the green movement has latched onto the authoritarianism of the left, car-hatred is now seen as a 'progressive' thing, with the ownership of something that runs on fossil-fuels being a sign of outdated, prehistoric ideals that are seen as dangerous to society's future.
However, one thing that people on this site always claim, possibly to make themselves feel better, but I'm afraid is far from true, is that it's jealousy masquerading as insecurity. It isn't. Lefties of this kind wouldn't want to be you or own your car in a million years.
The true difference is in the authoritarian and libertarian left. The authoritarian (Stalin, Hoenecker, Gordon Brown etc) believe in imposing their beliefs on the state and making it difficult to express your individuality. The Libertarian left might charge you a bit more for doing so, but would take a 'live and let live' approach to the whole thing.
About a decade ago - that is, before the recent economic maelstrom - Berkshire Hathaway's analysts calculated that the global passenger airline industry had, over its entire life (roughly 80 yrs, at that time), collectively generated profits of zero. The main problem had been the profusion of government-funded and -run operations that had distorted policies and prices.
Although under a cyclical cosh at the moment, the automobile industry has been far less dysfunctional, and far more successful, at offering something that people want and will pay the true price of.
essexplumber said:
Ferg said:
essexplumber said:
As Twincam said, the car is one of the ways people show how well they are doing in public. As people become better off they buy better cars they think impress their neighbours, houses etc.
EFA 
I truly don't give a phuk. Money in the bank beats new metal on the drive in my book. Maybe not in theirs. Good luck to them.
Twincam16 said:
Because they're a symbol of private, individual choice over state-sanctioned control.
At the very core of Marxism is this notion that greed and envy tears mankind apart, so owning something that another person desires is seen to be a bad thing unless absolutely everyone has the same thing. This is why, in the communist countries during the Cold War, you had to apply to the state for a car and they'd give you one depending on the size of your family, and they were all slow and ugly to avoid anyone being envious of it.
Nowadays, as the green movement has latched onto the authoritarianism of the left, car-hatred is now seen as a 'progressive' thing, with the ownership of something that runs on fossil-fuels being a sign of outdated, prehistoric ideals that are seen as dangerous to society's future.
However, one thing that people on this site always claim, possibly to make themselves feel better, but I'm afraid is far from true, is that it's jealousy masquerading as insecurity. It isn't. Lefties of this kind wouldn't want to be you or own your car in a million years.
The true difference is in the authoritarian and libertarian left. The authoritarian (Stalin, Hoenecker, Gordon Brown etc) believe in imposing their beliefs on the state and making it difficult to express your individuality. The Libertarian left might charge you a bit more for doing so, but would take a 'live and let live' approach to the whole thing.
At the very core of Marxism is this notion that greed and envy tears mankind apart, so owning something that another person desires is seen to be a bad thing unless absolutely everyone has the same thing. This is why, in the communist countries during the Cold War, you had to apply to the state for a car and they'd give you one depending on the size of your family, and they were all slow and ugly to avoid anyone being envious of it.
Nowadays, as the green movement has latched onto the authoritarianism of the left, car-hatred is now seen as a 'progressive' thing, with the ownership of something that runs on fossil-fuels being a sign of outdated, prehistoric ideals that are seen as dangerous to society's future.
However, one thing that people on this site always claim, possibly to make themselves feel better, but I'm afraid is far from true, is that it's jealousy masquerading as insecurity. It isn't. Lefties of this kind wouldn't want to be you or own your car in a million years.
The true difference is in the authoritarian and libertarian left. The authoritarian (Stalin, Hoenecker, Gordon Brown etc) believe in imposing their beliefs on the state and making it difficult to express your individuality. The Libertarian left might charge you a bit more for doing so, but would take a 'live and let live' approach to the whole thing.
I'd also add that many people, especially people that aren't car enthusiasts, see cars as a status symbol. For lefties, any form of link between status and wealth, or even worse, what they interpret as an attempt to link the two by someone owning a nice car, is against everything that they stand for.The truth, as the OP no doubt understands, is that the car is the best alternative for many of us. For example, it's cheaper for me to drive to my girlfriend's flat 70 miles away than it is to take public transport, and it's quicker too. That's despite us both living a ten minute walk from a train station. I'd still own a car if public transport was faster and cheaper, because I love cars, but I'm in a tiny minority. The vast majority of people own a car for its convenience, and at the risk of being slopey shouldered, that's the government's fault for not encouraging proper public transport rather than the overcrowded, expensive and slow embarrassment we have now in this country.
RobM77 said:
Twincam16 said:
Because they're a symbol of private, individual choice over state-sanctioned control.
At the very core of Marxism is this notion that greed and envy tears mankind apart, so owning something that another person desires is seen to be a bad thing unless absolutely everyone has the same thing. This is why, in the communist countries during the Cold War, you had to apply to the state for a car and they'd give you one depending on the size of your family, and they were all slow and ugly to avoid anyone being envious of it.
Nowadays, as the green movement has latched onto the authoritarianism of the left, car-hatred is now seen as a 'progressive' thing, with the ownership of something that runs on fossil-fuels being a sign of outdated, prehistoric ideals that are seen as dangerous to society's future.
However, one thing that people on this site always claim, possibly to make themselves feel better, but I'm afraid is far from true, is that it's jealousy masquerading as insecurity. It isn't. Lefties of this kind wouldn't want to be you or own your car in a million years.
The true difference is in the authoritarian and libertarian left. The authoritarian (Stalin, Hoenecker, Gordon Brown etc) believe in imposing their beliefs on the state and making it difficult to express your individuality. The Libertarian left might charge you a bit more for doing so, but would take a 'live and let live' approach to the whole thing.
At the very core of Marxism is this notion that greed and envy tears mankind apart, so owning something that another person desires is seen to be a bad thing unless absolutely everyone has the same thing. This is why, in the communist countries during the Cold War, you had to apply to the state for a car and they'd give you one depending on the size of your family, and they were all slow and ugly to avoid anyone being envious of it.
Nowadays, as the green movement has latched onto the authoritarianism of the left, car-hatred is now seen as a 'progressive' thing, with the ownership of something that runs on fossil-fuels being a sign of outdated, prehistoric ideals that are seen as dangerous to society's future.
However, one thing that people on this site always claim, possibly to make themselves feel better, but I'm afraid is far from true, is that it's jealousy masquerading as insecurity. It isn't. Lefties of this kind wouldn't want to be you or own your car in a million years.
The true difference is in the authoritarian and libertarian left. The authoritarian (Stalin, Hoenecker, Gordon Brown etc) believe in imposing their beliefs on the state and making it difficult to express your individuality. The Libertarian left might charge you a bit more for doing so, but would take a 'live and let live' approach to the whole thing.
I'd also add that many people, especially people that aren't car enthusiasts, see cars as a status symbol. For lefties, any form of link between status and wealth, or even worse, what they interpret as an attempt to link the two by someone owning a nice car, is against everything that they stand for.The truth, as the OP no doubt understands, is that the car is the best alternative for many of us. For example, it's cheaper for me to drive to my girlfriend's flat 70 miles away than it is to take public transport, and it's quicker too. That's despite us both living a ten minute walk from a train station. I'd still own a car if public transport was faster and cheaper, because I love cars, but I'm in a tiny minority. The vast majority of people own a car for its convenience, and at the risk of being slopey shouldered, that's the government's fault for not encouraging proper public transport rather than the overcrowded, expensive and slow embarrassment we have now in this country.
Jasandjules said:
Anyone know?
Just the Australia charging Hamilton made me wonder why Leftie Govts seem to hate the car so much.
I could understand if only the elite few got to use them but surely in many countries these days (I don't mean Third World countries but those with "left wing Govts" which in the "developed" world) a large number of the populace own cars?
The Aussies in charge seem to have turned into as big a wJust the Australia charging Hamilton made me wonder why Leftie Govts seem to hate the car so much.
I could understand if only the elite few got to use them but surely in many countries these days (I don't mean Third World countries but those with "left wing Govts" which in the "developed" world) a large number of the populace own cars?
kers as our own council type people. My personal theory is that letting all the soft PC types gain power without being bullied into their correct place at school has given permission to let the idiots with soft ideas out into the public forum. Legislation prevents normal people from beating some sense into these crawling dribblers who would have been drummed down in a normal society at school age. Thus we have reaped complete f
kwits with a completely fked moral sense and we have to live with it. Until we beat the little fkers up again. Edited by StuartGGray on Sunday 23 May 23:48
P9 said:
RobM77 said:
Twincam16 said:
Because they're a symbol of private, individual choice over state-sanctioned control.
At the very core of Marxism is this notion that greed and envy tears mankind apart, so owning something that another person desires is seen to be a bad thing unless absolutely everyone has the same thing. This is why, in the communist countries during the Cold War, you had to apply to the state for a car and they'd give you one depending on the size of your family, and they were all slow and ugly to avoid anyone being envious of it.
Nowadays, as the green movement has latched onto the authoritarianism of the left, car-hatred is now seen as a 'progressive' thing, with the ownership of something that runs on fossil-fuels being a sign of outdated, prehistoric ideals that are seen as dangerous to society's future.
However, one thing that people on this site always claim, possibly to make themselves feel better, but I'm afraid is far from true, is that it's jealousy masquerading as insecurity. It isn't. Lefties of this kind wouldn't want to be you or own your car in a million years.
The true difference is in the authoritarian and libertarian left. The authoritarian (Stalin, Hoenecker, Gordon Brown etc) believe in imposing their beliefs on the state and making it difficult to express your individuality. The Libertarian left might charge you a bit more for doing so, but would take a 'live and let live' approach to the whole thing.
At the very core of Marxism is this notion that greed and envy tears mankind apart, so owning something that another person desires is seen to be a bad thing unless absolutely everyone has the same thing. This is why, in the communist countries during the Cold War, you had to apply to the state for a car and they'd give you one depending on the size of your family, and they were all slow and ugly to avoid anyone being envious of it.
Nowadays, as the green movement has latched onto the authoritarianism of the left, car-hatred is now seen as a 'progressive' thing, with the ownership of something that runs on fossil-fuels being a sign of outdated, prehistoric ideals that are seen as dangerous to society's future.
However, one thing that people on this site always claim, possibly to make themselves feel better, but I'm afraid is far from true, is that it's jealousy masquerading as insecurity. It isn't. Lefties of this kind wouldn't want to be you or own your car in a million years.
The true difference is in the authoritarian and libertarian left. The authoritarian (Stalin, Hoenecker, Gordon Brown etc) believe in imposing their beliefs on the state and making it difficult to express your individuality. The Libertarian left might charge you a bit more for doing so, but would take a 'live and let live' approach to the whole thing.
I'd also add that many people, especially people that aren't car enthusiasts, see cars as a status symbol. For lefties, any form of link between status and wealth, or even worse, what they interpret as an attempt to link the two by someone owning a nice car, is against everything that they stand for.The truth, as the OP no doubt understands, is that the car is the best alternative for many of us. For example, it's cheaper for me to drive to my girlfriend's flat 70 miles away than it is to take public transport, and it's quicker too. That's despite us both living a ten minute walk from a train station. I'd still own a car if public transport was faster and cheaper, because I love cars, but I'm in a tiny minority. The vast majority of people own a car for its convenience, and at the risk of being slopey shouldered, that's the government's fault for not encouraging proper public transport rather than the overcrowded, expensive and slow embarrassment we have now in this country.
There's more to it too. Under Labour, there seems to have been this 'spread', through society, of a very narrow, single-minded notion as to what cars are about through a kind of collective chattering-class scorn.According to Blair and his ilk, a car is a box for going from A to B. That is the only thing you can 'justify' it for. As a result, to someone like my Mum who has fallen hook line and sinker for this attitude, a McLaren F1 is a very expensive, ostentations way of going to the shops, and the owner 'deserves' to have it vandalised because it's somehow a symbol of wastefulness. Track days, club racing and rallies, continental tours or even just an appreciation of style and engineering don't come into it. Nor - and I must keep pointing this out or else people on this site will continue to make fools of themselves - is it jealousy. As far as the authoritarian left is concerned, a supercar is a sign of money that 'should' be in the public purse being 'wasted' at a rate of 10mpg.
off_again said:
El Guapo said:
In Socialist heaven there are no cars, just buses.
Sounds like my vision of hell!!!I know it all sounds totally alien and illogical, but unfortunately the long-established theories of the authoritarian left genuinely see most aspects of cars, motoring and independence as negative things that are bad for society. In truth, it all depends on your view of what 'society' should be, rather than whether you like the smell of Castrol R or not.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff