"RG" wrote in message
. ..

The thing is, I'm not suggesting government mandated anything. What I
*am* suggesting is that the government might be able to lose its
unwillingness to offend the auto industry, and present the public with
information would help them change their preferences. Why not? It's no
different than the advertising which makes people buy things, right?
People don't just buy based on their own preferences. They also do so
because humans are "clubby" - they want to be members of a group, no
matter how stupid the group may be. Sometimes they choose the wrong
group, sometimes not. But, effect one customer, and he/she may effect
others. Actually, that's a virtual certainty.

Wanting to belong is nothing more than a facet of personal preference.
The government can disseminate all the information it wants to, but it is
unlikely that it is telling anything to anyone that they don't already
know. Not terribly effective.

A good parallel here is the Surgeon's General warning on every pack of
cigarettes. Is there an American alive today that doesn't already know
the health risks of smoking? And yet it continues. But in reduced
numbers. However, I think the reduced numbers have much more to do with
the financial cost of a pack of cigs, versus any governmental educational
program. If you want to get an American's attention, speak to him through
his wallet.


Cool. Now I'll get Stalin-esque. Slap an enormous, annual tax on trucks,
unless an owner can show that he actually has a purpose for it, other than
"I just wanted a Dodge with a hemi so I could hang chrome accessories on
it". No trailer registered to the same owner, meaning he tows nothing? He
gets taxed. Not in a profession which actually requires a truck, like
carpenters & landscapers? He gets taxed. If a doctor decides to become a
plumber, there are ways of giving him back his surcharge in future years. No
more buying a huge truck just because every 4 years, you need to bring home
a bale of peat moss.