To Delete or Not to Delete… That is the Question! (Part Two)
As stated in part one, for all those who may participate in the “underground highway” (manipulating or deleting emission controlling equipment), without a principle based, educated and articulated defense of tampering, what you are doing will probably be viewed as simple lawlessness rather than righteous civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience may well be a “crime” (complete with consequences equal to or greater than lawlessness) but it may also be one of the most moral and ethical actions a human can engage in (remember slavery’s underground railway and hiding “political dissidents” in WW2 Germany). Deleting may not be a direct act of saving a life, but it may well be an act of financial self-preservation.
The financial impact of malfunctioning (and functioning) pollution devices is catastrophic (increased maintenance/downtime costs and fuel consumption respectively). The extent of impact is so great that in some cases entire families can be decimated in less than a year (the average in 2-4 years). Any financial threat to a family’s income must be taken seriously with “taken” meaning “…understood, defended, and aggressively/proactively managed…”. This means some form of proactive activity.
Civil disobedience requires some form of active participation and confrontation with lawmakers otherwise it’s simple lawlessness (an exception would be those who belonged to the underground rail road). Publicly defying bounty hunters (who had the law on their side) would not have been advisable. Simple deception would have been the best route to protect the integrity of the railroad and the oppressed. However, there were still many other open forms of political action against slavery laws and its respective legal enforcement system.
Know the Canadian players
When a new truck comes off the line the federal laws govern all emission standards. However, once the truck is sold into private hands it has been made clear that the federal government is NOT responsible for further enforcement and therefore allows purchasers to retain personal property freedom (at least initially). Since the fed will not push enforcement any further than the end of the assembly line those who delete should view the Conservative Party as more of an ally (a non-sympathizer of my enemy is my friend).
Manufacturers and dealerships have been very clear that tampering will void warranty and should not be done. Practically, however, tampering is usually only considered once warranty has expired. Dealerships however do battle with public perception of a conflict of interest due to lost maintenance revenue when someone deletes their system. I doubt whether the industry will hear any other message from them (other than maybe token sympathy or minor compensation).
Trucking Associations may well present one of the biggest problems for those who wish to exercise their freedom over personal property. The Canadian Trucking Alliance has actually publicly pressured Provinces to enforce emission compliance standards according to original specs.
This is actually a confusing position on several fronts. It conflicts with their principled stand against the Biodiesel mandate. CTA understands the bad science on Biodiesel, exposes it, and keeps pressure up against the mandate. If they understand the bad science on Biodiesel, why wouldn’t they stand against the horrible assumptions and inferences in “climate science”?
Standing AGAINST tampering, on the grounds of “leveling the playing field”, is also a twisted form of logic, implying equal suffering produces justice. It totally ignores the injustice of the law itself. Applying that kind of extreme “logic” in Samolia would require every citizen’s hand to be chopped off in mutual support of the child who was caught for petty theft. The position totally ignores confronting the extreme law.
CTA’s logic would have abandoned the abolitionist movement against slavery and promoted a more expansive and inclusive field of victims, maybe Orientals, Native Americans or gays/lesbians (all to support “a more level playing field”).
It ignores the lies and accepts defeat in the presence of tyrannical laws. In short it is a cowardly position. It doesn’t defend an industry, it embraces its abuser.
Enforcement will be left to individual Provinces. Which Province will enforce and which will ignore? The national outcome (at least initially) will become rather schizophrenic. For those who would like to see a history of Canada’s schizophrenic enforcement policies simply research prohibition laws in the 1930”s (Ve Villa Bronfman Family).
Supply and demand will dictate that safeties on tampered equipment will be conducted by the closest and least offending Province. Owners of tampered vehicles will become much more “educated” as to where and how to maintain and operate their unique equipment. Never underestimate the sophistication that a couple thousand dollars a month will bring the underground highway. Each Province will have to weigh the financial and political costs of enforcement (let the lobbying begin).
Politics may change enforcement (and maybe even laws).
The radical environmentalists can be pushed back. They don’t have nearly as strong a foothold as many think. Without radical immediate enforcement operators may be able to divert exposure or wait out the political environment till prudent minds prevail. Every day more ”real science” is exposing “climate science” fallacies and radicals are loosing steam.
The United States political environment may also be critical to surviving this encroachment. If the U.S. swings back to the center right (as they historically have done every decade or two) the EPA onslaught may be halted (or even overturned) depending on media exposure.
Canada can never stand completely alone. It will almost always follows U.S. direction. The question is to what length. We must thankfully acknowledge our federal conservative government has only submitted to U.S. pressure to a point. Other political parties could have devastated our situation even more. We must not distance ourselves from any party that mitigates our damages.
A brief look at History can provide a range of responses, some wise some not. Consider two highly successful responses that created meaningful change. Abolition of slavery and the British rule of India, both situations fought unjust laws with education, boldness and clarity. The US needed rivers of blood to eventually purge the land of injustice, India not nearly as much. But both reactions required a stern resolve for success.
Each participant must be armed not with guns and swords but with knowledge, respect and care. If those who delete wish to prevail they need to stand on science and principles. Make sure every level of government knows your position in the conflict and they know that all organizations and associations who support abusive laws do not represent you.
Politicians must know that you truly wish to be a law abiding citizen but will stand firm to feed your family and pay your taxes first. Without a clean moral stand on truth, those who delete will only be perceived as selfish hooligans.
