The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

with regard to businesses - government shouldn't prevent business owners from leaving, but it could & should in some cases prevent them from taking their corporate assets with them. it's a question of restricting business freedom, not personal freedom

Those assets are the private property of whomever owns them. Individual, stockholders, board of directors or whatever their structure is. If I start a business, and it grows into a successful enterprise, you're telling me that I can't move it out of the country if I so choose? So much for freedom.

you could make the same argument against minimum pay then - do you also oppose the concept of minimum wage?

Just as with any product or service, the value of a thing is what someone will pay for it. If a store operator will pay me 5 bucks an hour to do whatever, that's what the whatever is worth to him. That is what determines how much he will pay. If I don't want to earn 5 bucks an hour, it would behoove me to learn a skill that makes my labor worth more than 5 bucks an hour to an employer. Or maybe I could try to find another employer who values my current skill set at more than 5 bucks an hour.
If something like min. wage requirements push the cost of labor too high, business will just find a way to do without that particular task, or find another way to do it.
There is currently a push to make fast food workers min. wage 15 / hour.

Right now, where I live, the min. wage level is not the floor even for entry level fast food workers. competition in the labor market has pushed wage rates to slightly above minimum.

Right now, a Whopper costs roughly $4.50 around here. I won't buy them at that price. They aren't worth it. The only time I buy them is if I have a coupon, 2 for the price of 1 or similar. Double the wages of everyone in the store, and what do you think is going to happen to the price of that whopper? It's going to double. Or do you think the business operator is going to eat the labor cost increase? While possible, and no doubt it will happen in a very few cases, on the whole that isn't going to happen. So the price of the whopper goes to $9 bucks. I will give you an ironclad guarantee right now that I will never pay 9 bucks for a whopper. They aren't worth it to me. Neither will most people. So, guess what happens to half the people who make whoppers? They lose their jobs. Maybe the restaurant owner decides to just close up. Everyone loses their jobs.
Or do now want a law that says I have to buy X dollars worth of whoppers per week? Or do you want a law that says he must continue to operate his restaurant at a loss? Suppose you own that restaurant. Are you going to keep it open if you're losing money with every whopper you sell?
You can't simply adjust the value of things by legislative fiat. The money has to come from somewhere.

[SoulReaver]

Those assets are the private property of whomever owns them. Individual, stockholders, board of directors or whatever their structure is. If I start a business, and it grows into a successful enterprise, you're telling me that I can't move it out of the country if I so choose? So much for freedom.

hey your freedom is intact: you're free to move in & out of the country as you please ^_^

if you support full economic freedom so much then shouldn't you also abolish taxes?

Just as with any product or service, the value of a thing is what someone will pay for it. If a store operator will pay me 5 bucks an hour to do whatever, that's what the whatever is worth to him. That is what determines how much he will pay. If I don't want to earn 5 bucks an hour, it would behoove me to learn a skill that makes my labor worth more than 5 bucks an hour to an employer.

and yet there's a worldwide consistent trend in that factory workers tend to complain a lot about how they feel underpaid for the work they do, whereas directors & CEOs of large corporations never complain
strange isn't it?
sure CEOs get a golden parachute, but then workers get a golden kick in the rear so in the end it's all gold for everyone - so why complain? :/

Right now, a Whopper costs roughly $4.50 around here. I won't buy them at that price. They aren't worth it.

it'd be fine by me - as far as I'm concerned snack stands & fast food joints ain't worth it, I make my own snacks when I can't eat @ home

The only time I buy them is if I have a coupon, 2 for the price of 1 or similar. Double the wages of everyone in the store, and what do you think is going to happen to the price of that whopper? It's going to double.
Or do you think the business operator is going to eat the labor cost increase? While possible, and no doubt it will happen in a very few cases, on the whole that isn't going to happen.

then make it happen. legislate - for large corporations anyway. higher wages should not result in higher product cost, nor vice versa - the loss resulting from either should be reflected on the dividends (don't worry about the directors & main shareholders they'll still be able to afford their mansions & yachts)

So the price of the whopper goes to $9 bucks. I will give you an ironclad guarantee right now that I will never pay 9 bucks for a whopper. They aren't worth it to me. Neither will most people. So, guess what happens to half the people who make whoppers? They lose their jobs. Maybe the restaurant owner decides to just close up. Everyone loses their jobs.
Or do now want a law that says I have to buy X dollars worth of whoppers per week? Or do you want a law that says he must continue to operate his restaurant at a loss? Suppose you own that restaurant. Are you going to keep it open if you're losing money with every whopper you sell?

low wages never stopped corporations from finding excuses to lay off their workers

You can't simply adjust the value of things by legislative fiat. The money has to come from somewhere.

too bad this doesn't apply to fining eh? when the SS stop you for a traffic offence, try asking them if they can adjust the amount of the fine to your income. lol
that's why the elites can afford to break the law with more impunity, their wallets feel it less than yours

[mad_gater]

Again, I disagree. You can do anything that you can do with a cell phone without one, it's just not as convenient. If you want the convenience, save your pennies after you get a job and buy whatever you want. But as a convenience/luxury item, the government should not be providing them.

As far as Google and others trying to provide free wifi, I don't care. If they think they can find a way to make money with it, and are doing it without government / taxpayer money, it's none of my business. But I wonder how their advertisers will react when they realize that many of the people using the service simply can't afford to buy the advertised products. That's going to be a rather expensive project for them, I wonder if they're willing to do it at a loss.



And how do you propose to pay for that pipe dream AND maintain the country's status as a free country?
You refer to "vast changes in taxation". If you tax a business or person too heavily, they will simply pack up and move elsewhere. Or do plan on banning people from moving out of the country?

Wanting something is one thing. Paying for it in a workable manner is quite another. "The Rich", whom you no doubt are expecting to pay taxes for all this will move, or otherwise protect themselves; they always have been able to do so, and always will be able to do so. They write the laws, remember? 45% of the congresscritters in this country are lawyers, typically a well to do group. Business people make up a large percentage also, 20%. So right off the bat, you're expecting 65% of lawmakers to enact laws harmful to their own interests. That's not going to happen. If you want proof, consider all of the "free trade" agreements that our leaders have negotiated to the detriment of the middle class and this nation as a whole over the past 3 decades or so. They benefit the ruling classes a great deal, at the expense of the middle class.

So, you're not going to hit the rich. Who is going to pay for this? The middle class, whom you say (and I agree) is going to be (actually already is, and has been for a while) getting killed as it is?

How would you pay for this "guaranteed base income" and other nice ideas?



I don't think that's gonna be as successful as you think. I don't care how good your computer is, it cannot take the place of a living, thinking mind. The highway environment and the hazards it presents are far too varied, unique and unpredictable for a computer to handle safely.

and besides that no computer could ever mimic the healing touch of a properly trained and licensed massage therapist (which is what I will be once I pass the NYS board exams in August)

[Annoyed]

hey your freedom is intact: you're free to move in & out of the country as you please ^_^

if you support full economic freedom so much then shouldn't you also abolish taxes?

and yet there's a worldwide consistent trend in that factory workers tend to complain a lot about how they feel underpaid for the work they do, whereas directors & CEOs of large corporations never complain
strange isn't it?
sure CEOs get a golden parachute, but then workers get a golden kick in the rear so in the end it's all gold for everyone - so why complain? :/

it'd be fine by me - as far as I'm concerned snack stands & fast food joints ain't worth it, I make my own snacks when I can't eat @ home

then make it happen. legislate - for large corporations anyway. higher wages should not result in higher product cost, nor vice versa - the loss resulting from either should be reflected on the dividends (don't worry about the directors & main shareholders they'll still be able to afford their mansions & yachts)

low wages never stopped corporations from finding excuses to lay off their workers

too bad this doesn't apply to fining eh? when the SS stop you for a traffic offence, try asking them if they can adjust the amount of the fine to your income. lol
that's why the elites can afford to break the law with more impunity, their wallets feel it less than yours

In a free country, wealth is the property of those who created it in the first place. Your entire post reads like it was written by someone who believes that wealth is inherently the property of the state, and is to be doled out according to the state's wishes.
Call that Communism, Socialism, or any other kind of ism you want, but it's not a free country.

[SoulReaver]

Your entire post reads like it was written by someone who believes that wealth is inherently the property of the state

then it's been read the wrong way

lemme show you the right way:

the commoners' wealth - by your own admission - is already the property of the state
and - also by your own admission - that ain't changing anytime soon

therefore, might as well make the wealth of the elites also the property of the state
u know, for the sake of equity (pun intended)

better?

[Annoyed]

then it's been read the wrong way

lemme show you the right way:

the commoners' wealth - by your own admission - is already the property of the state
and - also by your own admission - that ain't changing anytime soon

therefore, might as well make the wealth of the elites also the property of the state
u know, for the sake of equity (pun intended)

better?

Where did I say that was acceptable? It is not.
You seem to operate from a communist/socialist viewpoint; that is apparently what you consider ideal or normal.

with regard to businesses - government shouldn't prevent business owners from leaving, but it could & should in some cases prevent them from taking their corporate assets with them. it's a question of restricting business freedom, not personal freedom

then make it happen. legislate - for large corporations anyway. higher wages should not result in higher product cost, nor vice versa - the loss resulting from either should be reflected on the dividends (don't worry about the directors & main shareholders they'll still be able to afford their mansions & yachts)

Clearly, you are taking a position where the state owns wealth and the means of production. In a free society, such as the U.S., that simply isn't acceptable.

The U.S. doesn't own these businesses any more than it owns my property, home, cars or any other item I own. Private ownership of property is essential to the existence of a free society.

Ideally, it does not have the authority to tell me or a business owner what to do with that property or business. Granted, there are far too many cases of government overreach, against both business and individuals, but those are problems to be resolved by returning to the limits placed upon our government by the Constitution.

So, I'll qualify the questions.

How do you propose to pay for fantasy schemes like a minimum guaranteed income, without destroying the society or making it into something it isn't?

How do you plan on ensuring that the added cost of doubling the minimum wage is taken from the profits of a company rather than being passed on to consumers as price increases? Remember, you do not have the authority to dictate to a business how it should operate itself because the government doesn't own it.

And here's another fact to consider. Who do you think will bear the brunt of the taxes needed to support pie in the sky pipe dreams? Or bear the worst impact of inflation caused by doubling the minimum wage? It won''t be the "rich" whom you would like to target.

It will be the middle and lower classes that pay the lion's share of the tax increases, and their budgets will be far more affected by the increased prices than those of the rich.

I am what is considered to be lower middle class. So, you guessed it, those added costs will be mostly borne by me and others like me.

Did you see what I wrote above about "Tax Freedom Day" ? Every dime I make from January to May 4th is already taken from me in the form of taxes of one sort or another.

The lower and middle classes in this country are already hurting, and the changes you want would only make things worse for those classes. They (me) will be the one that ends up paying for them.

To do things the way you want would require that the U.S. cease being a free society, and convert to a communist/socialist state, and very shortly after that, into an authoritarian state.

That, to me, is unacceptable. The solution in my mind is for the government to exercise control of things it already has authority over with an eye towards improving our economy to the benefit of all of our citizens.

Over the past 30 years, numerous trade agreements that have been very detrimental to our middle and lower class workers have been enacted. There is another one coming down the pipe as we speak. The TPP will weaken our economy even further.

We have a large number of illegal immigrants, and even legal immigrants who are undercutting the labor market by flooding it with cheap labor.

The primary beneficiary of these polices are the large corporations, and the other countries we have the trade agreements with.

The primary beneficiary of the illegal and open immigration policies are again, business interests, who want to maintain a large pool of low-cost labor in order to apply downward pressure on wages.

As an example, Microsoft, hardly a small business has (successfully) pressed very hard for an increase in H1B visas for tech workers, despite there being a glut of tech workers in the US labor pool already. Their sole interest is to apply downward pressure on wages.

The Democratic party also hopes to provide a "path to citizenship", in the hopes that the immigrants will vote primarily democratic once they have the right to vote, giving them a permanent lock on elective offices.

I think the solution to our labor market problems would be to scrap all of these trade agreements and immigration policies which are so harmful to our labor market and let market forces set wage rates. Without artificial forces deliberately undercutting the wage rates at the bottom and middle of the socioeconomic ladder, wages will rise as companies find they have to offer better compensation packages in order to do work that they can no longer outsource or import cheap labor for.

Our government already has the authority to regulate trade and immigration policies, it does not have to expand it's authority beyond that which is granted to it in the Constitution to do these things, either. What we need to do is elect people who will actually do these things.

But in order to do that, we need to take money and favors out of the political process, at both ends of the scale. Prohibiting any sort of contributions to any officeholder or candidate by anybody, and requiring licensed broadcast stations to carry ads for legitimate candidates in order to get their message out ought to do it for top end, and requiring a citizen to be self-supporting in order to vote ought to take care of people who just vote for whomever promises to give them the most free stuff.

[SoulReaver]

Where did I say that was acceptable? It is not.
You seem to operate from a communist/socialist viewpoint; that is apparently what you consider ideal or normal.

nope I only consider it better than the other system where only the wealth of the commoner is property of the state and the elites control their own wealth (ie. US capitalism)

Clearly, you are taking a position where the state owns wealth and the means of production. In a free society, such as the U.S., that simply isn't acceptable.[/QUOTE]you didn't say it was acceptable but you did say that's how it is & you seemd quite fatalistic about it

[Annoyed]

you didn't say it was acceptable but you did say that's how it is & you seemd quite fatalistic about it

Well, as I see it, the US is going down the wrong path.
But I don't think there is much chance of the US changing its path. So eventually, something has to give, and the society crashes.

[Falcon Horus]

The idea of minimum wage, as far as Belgium is concerned, is that the one earning it has to be able to not go hungry at the end of the month after having paid for the essentials to survive (ie rent, food, bills) - it currently stands at 1500€/month (before taxes take away about half of it, so it's probably around 900€/month).

[SoulReaver]

The idea of minimum wage, as far as Belgium is concerned, is that the one earning it has to be able to not go hungry at the end of the month after having paid for the essentials to survive (ie rent, food, bills) - it currently stands at 1500€/month (before taxes take away about half of it, so it's probably around 900€/month).

plus it also helps with not being too demotivated
and not being tempted to, say, surreptitiously sabotage be slack in one's work hehe...

[Coco Pops]

Rand Paul thinks the republicans who like war are behind ISIS

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...for-isis/?_r=0

[mad_gater]

Rand Paul thinks the republicans who like war are behind ISIS

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...for-isis/?_r=0

evidently nuttiness is a hereditary trait in the Paul family

[Womble]

Again, I disagree. You can do anything that you can do with a cell phone without one, it's just not as convenient. If you want the convenience, save your pennies after you get a job and buy whatever you want. But as a convenience/luxury item, the government should not be providing them.

You can do anything without a cell phone, it'll just be more expensive and reduce your chances of success. Damn hard to get a job when no one can call you back.

Your argument is especially ridiculous here in light of the fact that a basic unlocked smartphone can be had for $60 or less. If it helps a person find a job they can hold for a month, the government will already recoup that money and then some from the taxes. It's smart investment.

As far as Google and others trying to provide free wifi, I don't care. If they think they can find a way to make money with it, and are doing it without government / taxpayer money, it's none of my business. But I wonder how their advertisers will react when they realize that many of the people using the service simply can't afford to buy the advertised products. That's going to be a rather expensive project for them, I wonder if they're willing to do it at a loss.

My apologies, but you are so far behind the times my mind boggles. Google does TONS of things at a loss.

You see, one of the leading business strategies these days - especially in the information technology world - is the concept of "loss leader". A loss leader is something offered at a price below it's actual cost or for free, at a short-term loss to the company that's selling it. Google, for example, invests massive money into the development and maintenance of the Android operating system, then goes on to distribute licenses free of charge to phone manufacturers. Then they make crazy money from app sales through Play Store, advertisements and paid services offered through Android apps. App makers oftentimes invest millions of dollars at a loss for years offering impressive free services in order to build up customer base before they begin to offer optional paid services. The ultimate example that comes to my mind is Viber - one of the world's most popular instant messaging and VOIP applications. It was founded in 2010 and did not generate a cent of revenue for 3 years during which $20 million were invested into it. A crazy self-defeating strategy on its face... except once they built a 300 million people customer base by 2013, they began offering paid calls in addition to free ones and instantly came to be Skype's main rival for mobile telephony market. Japan's Rakuten bought them for $900 million as soon as they were for sale - that's 45 times the money invested.

And how do you propose to pay for that pipe dream AND maintain the country's status as a free country?

That's obvious. The idea of what constitutes a free country will have to evolve, the way it always did once squeezed by the changes in the nature of the world.

You refer to "vast changes in taxation". If you tax a business or person too heavily, they will simply pack up and move elsewhere. Or do plan on banning people from moving out of the country?

That is always a dilemma. The solution, usually, is creating conditions in which businesses want to remain in the country despite heavier taxes. The country needs to be able to offer long-term advantage, something beyond just profit margins. China is finding that out as we speak, as manufacturing businesses move to South Asia where labor costs are cheaper than even in China.

US actually has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world, 35%. It's not a matter of tax rate so much as de-facto tax collection, which is 12%. You don't need higher taxes, you need LOWER taxes BUT fewer tax breaks and waivers.

Wanting something is one thing. Paying for it in a workable manner is quite another. "The Rich", whom you no doubt are expecting to pay taxes for all this will move, or otherwise protect themselves; they always have been able to do so, and always will be able to do so. They write the laws, remember? 45% of the congresscritters in this country are lawyers, typically a well to do group. Business people make up a large percentage also, 20%. So right off the bat, you're expecting 65% of lawmakers to enact laws harmful to their own interests. That's not going to happen. If you want proof, consider all of the "free trade" agreements that our leaders have negotiated to the detriment of the middle class and this nation as a whole over the past 3 decades or so. They benefit the ruling classes a great deal, at the expense of the middle class.

So, you're not going to hit the rich. Who is going to pay for this? The middle class, whom you say (and I agree) is going to be (actually already is, and has been for a while) getting killed as it is?

Actually, the congresscritters are quite capable of passing laws increasing taxes. The demographics of US congressmen aren't meaningfully different from those of any other country's congressmen. It's always the wealthy and the influential who seat in the governing bodies. The real question is why, despite that, the laws being passed are so different.

How would you pay for this "guaranteed base income" and other nice ideas?

Same way Germany pays for its advanced social welfare system. Although hopefully in a smarter way, having learned from Europe's experience what works and what doesn't.

I don't think that's gonna be as successful as you think. I don't care how good your computer is, it cannot take the place of a living, thinking mind. The highway environment and the hazards it presents are far too varied, unique and unpredictable for a computer to handle safely.

Computers can't completely replace people, but they can vastly reduce the need for human input and oversight in most industries, thereby generating tremendous unemployment. Moreover, the remaining jobs will require an increasing amount of technological savvy, and as a consequence more and costlier education as a prerequisite.

Speaking of which, free education will also become a must. The US, with all my sympathy to it, seriously lags behind the rest of the developed world in understanding the role of higher education in the economy. They run American education as its own for-profit industry and it's an absolute disaster.

As for highways specifically, as more driverless cars proliferate and more infrastructure emerges to accommodate them, the unpredictability will go down fast. On a properly striped highway, the driverless car's main danger is errors made by human drivers, which will stimulate replacement of human drivers by robots and a general reduction in car ownership.

[Annoyed]

You can do anything without a cell phone, it'll just be more expensive and reduce your chances of success. Damn hard to get a job when no one can call you back.

Your argument is especially ridiculous here in light of the fact that a basic unlocked smartphone can be had for $60 or less. If it helps a person find a job they can hold for a month, the government will already recoup that money and then some from the taxes. It's smart investment.

Not when you have legions of people who never intend to get a job, they are permanent riders on the cart. They don't want to get off and help pull.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't care how you dress it up, cell phones, let alone smartphones are luxury items that the government has no business providing.

My apologies, but you are so far behind the times my mind boggles. Google does TONS of things at a loss. [SNIP]

As long as my taxes aren't paying for it, Google can do whatever it wants.

That's obvious. The idea of what constitutes a free country will have to evolve, the way it always did once squeezed by the changes in the nature of the world.

Well, agree to disagree again, I guess. I am not willing to redefine our status as a free country. For any reason.

US actually has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world, 35%. It's not a matter of tax rate so much as de-facto tax collection, which is 12%. You don't need higher taxes, you need LOWER taxes BUT fewer tax breaks and waivers.

Here we can agree. There are far too many tax breaks for businesses who have bent the ears of our lawmakers. It's the equivalent of welfare for corporations, and I think you know I feel about welfare. For anyone.

Actually, the congresscritters are quite capable of passing laws increasing taxes. The demographics of US congressmen aren't meaningfully different from those of any other country's congressmen. It's always the wealthy and the influential who seat in the governing bodies. The real question is why, despite that, the laws being passed are so different.

Note what you said there. I don't care what the form of government is, you always have the rich at the top, and they make the laws so that they continue to rule the roost, and get richer along the way. In the US, it's successful entrepreneurs that are at the top. In a communist/socialist society, wealth is measured by connections to the ruling party. Those who are well connected will do better than those who are not. There will always be winners and losers in the lottery of life, and no one can change that.

Computers can't completely replace people, but they can vastly reduce the need for human input and oversight in most industries, thereby generating tremendous unemployment. Moreover, the remaining jobs will require an increasing amount of technological savvy, and as a consequence more and costlier education as a prerequisite.

Speaking of which, free education will also become a must. The US, with all my sympathy to it, seriously lags behind the rest of the developed world in understanding the role of higher education in the economy. They run American education as its own for-profit industry and it's an absolute disaster.

Our education system is an over priced disaster. This is a result of two things.

It is owned lock, stock & barrel by the educator's unions, and it's purpose as a tool to educate the people has been subverted into a leftist indoctrination system.

As for highways specifically, as more driverless cars proliferate and more infrastructure emerges to accommodate them, the unpredictability will go down fast. On a properly striped highway, the driverless car's main danger is errors made by human drivers, which will stimulate replacement of human drivers by robots and a general reduction in car ownership.

So, you sound like you eventually want to ban human drivers, or maybe even private ownership of cars.
That will NEVER fly in the U.S.

[aretood2]

Not when you have legions of people who never intend to get a job, they are permanent riders on the cart. They don't want to get off and help pull.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't care how you dress it up, cell phones, let alone smartphones are luxury items that the government has no business providing.

But statistically, that's not happening as much as you lead on others to think. It does happen and a lot of people are in favor of regulatory restrictions such as drug testing. It's no different than banning guns because sane people tend to lose it at the heat of the moment and kill someone with it. Now, that's what many liberals are arguing and they are using the same logic. They also make it seem like it happens a lot more than it actually does. In essence, phrase two sides of the same coin seems to apply here.

And phones were once called luxuries, now they are not. This isn't the 1950's anymore. Employers and the realities of life require mobile communication and quick efficient access to the internet that doesn't require proximity to a library or a multi-hundred dollar machine whose mobility is severely limited. A $60 second or third rate smart phone with a pay card is cheaper by orders of a magnitude than being tied down to a public Library with specific operating hours or an extremely expensive computer/lap top limited in mobility. It allows the poor a chance to keep up until that big promotion so that they can stop being poor. You cannot be successful in the 21st century with 20th century tools anymore than you can in the 20th century with 19th century tools.

Well, agree to disagree again, I guess. I am not willing to redefine our status as a free country. For any reason.

But it was redefined multiple times in history. Take voting rights for example, a Free country was defined as only land owning white men voting with the allowance for a religious qualifier among Americans. Then in 1810 the definition changed so that having a religious qualifier wasn't considered true freedom and thus that requirement was removed. Then what it means to be a free country changed once more in 1850 when having a land ownership requirement wasn't considered freedom. And again in 1870 when racial restrictions weren't considered a characteristic of a free country. Then in 1920 barring women from voting was considered being the opposite of what it means to be a free country. If we never changed what that means, then today a great deal of Americans wouldn't be able to vote.

Then the issue of personal freedom also changed. It used to be that a free country was defined as a nation where members of only a certain race had personal freedom, then the 1860's came and brought about a change in that definition. It used to be that segregation was a characteristic of a free nation, and that too changed a hundred years later.

So, you sound like you eventually want to ban human drivers, or maybe even private ownership of cars.
That will NEVER fly in the U.S.

Why not? Driving isn't a right. Governments in the US regularly forbid many people from driving for a variety of reasons from the lack of insurance to lack of obedience to traffic regulations or age restrictions. Besides, economic factors might lead to that as opposed to government action.

Insurance companies may charge higher premiums for cars that can't self drive and it is not far fetched to believe that they would monitor the use of autodrive and charge premiums for that (That's what health insurance companies do). A simple cost benefit analysis would lead most to desire autodrive beyond insurance premiums. Taxi companies would much rather pay one tech person to care for cabs than a dozen accident prone drivers (And bus companies).

Texting, being drunk, applying make-up, catching up on reading, catching up on needed sleep or a pre-work nap, doing homework etc... are things that people could do while the car drives itself. Those are the benefits of autodrive and they don't even begin to scratch the surface (Ever heard of parents stopping the car because the baby pooped?). The costs are....driving for the sake of driving.

How many people would really not want to set their cars on autodrive? Car enthusiasts aren't a majority.

One thing the government can do is have citizens use special licenses to drive "dumb" cars given the popularity of "smart" cars. It'd be much more cost efficient when it comes to accidents, that means that the state has a vested interest. For example, what if a car enthusiast is driving and gets distracted thus crashes into your car and causes a severe injury. Had he used autodrive, that would not have happened. It would be an avoidable injury (or death) and the state has an obligation to protect the public from needless harm. By making people take an extra step to be able to drive "dumb" cars would help lower the number of "dumb" car drivers.

That said, if everyone still follows the same rules as today in thirty or fifty years...traffic jams would be a constant followed by hourly accidents in every city. It could potentially bring everything to a stand still. If we don't adapt to accommodate the was population is concentrated and the way people transit, we are heading towards a big disaster. That's a vested interest that the public and the state have and I am sure both would work out something different and new. And if some extent of mandatory autodrive is a solution to those real mathematically based problems, then I doubt there would be much opposition to it outside of Luddite circles.