LF: What’s Wrong With Assistance?

There’s nothing wrong with a little assistance . . . if you need it. If you asked for it. Offering to help a little old lady cross the street, for instance. That’s sweet. Boy Scouts are taught this. Well, they were – before the Boy Scouts got kiboshed by being forced to admit girls.

Another rant, for another day.

But try to imagine a hand on your elbow that you didn’t ask for. When you’re not a little old lady – and don’t need any help.

It’s insulting – and tyrannical.

And it’s exactly that kind of “assistance” you’ll find in almost every new car. You can’t say no – without saying no to the car. And the car “assists” whether you asked it to or not – and whether you need it or not.

Control over our cars is being taken away from us under the ruse of assisting us. It’s a ruse precisely because it’s not “assistance.” It’s peremptory control, unasked for and largely unwanted. Note that “assistance” tech such as Lane Keep Assist, Steering Assist, Emergency Brake Assist and other such are not for the most part options that people can buy if they are interested but rather shoved down the buyer’s throat as part of the standard equipment package.

Very much the same as ASS – Automated Stop/Start “technology” (as it’s advertised) is fast becoming something you can avoid without avoiding a new car.

But this begs the question: If these “technologies” are so desirable then why aren’t they optional? Surely, if they were so very desirable, people would freely pay extra for them? Why not give them the opportunity to do so?

Some will say: But virtually all new cars now come standard with air conditioning and power windows; are you suggesting people are being forced to buy them, too?

Well, yes!

You used to be able to buy a car without AC or power windows – which meant paying significantly less for the car. It’s one of the reasons why cars used to be financed over three or so years rather than six, as is typical today.

You also paid less for gas – since less mechanical energy is needed to run an engine that doesn’t have to run an AC compressor; the car also weighed less – typically by more than 100 pounds, which is no small reduction. This also helped the car use less fuel. And of course, there’s one less thing to service, which saved you money that way.

Of course, this doesn’t make money – for the car company and the dealership. In fact, it costs them money to make a given model of car with – and without – AC. One-size-fits-all is cheaper to make, but they can charge you more for it.

Which is why they stopped making cars with AC optional – that came standard with very effective under-dash vents (and wing-vent windows) which kept you almost as cool as AC – but for free.

Without those underdash vents and wing-vent windows, a car gets insufferably hot – if it hasn’t got AC. Therefore, all cars now come standard with it. You’re kept cool. But your wallet is lightened.

Some will say that almost no one would skip AC, even if they could. Well, it’d be interesting to see whether they would, if they had the option not to . . . without roasting to death being standard equipment.

Airbags are perhaps a better example because they were offered as optional equipment before they became mandatory equipment. When buyers were able to skip them, most did.

Which explains why air bags were subsequently forced on them.There is little doubt many people would skip air bags, if they could – because they did. Especially now – because of general awareness of both the risks and the costs of air bags. One relatively minor, otherwise repairable accident and the car is totaled because of the disproportionate cost of replacing several air bags.

The same force-feeding is happening with “assistance” technology. Almost as soon as it was invented, it got foisted – probably because outside of a few neurotics morbidly fixated on your “safety” – what the youth refer to as “Karens” – not many normal people would freely pay to be controlled; to have their driving pre-empted and countermanded by software written by some geek unknown to them, who presumes them to be nearsighted, slow-witted morons unable to control a car competently themselves.

Which, of course, begs the most important question of all:

Why is anyone genuinely in need of “assistance” allowed anywhere near a car at all? In plain language, if you lack the competence or attention span or willingness to competently control a car yourself without “assistance” then you have no more business behind the wheel than a person unable to swim has in the deep end of a pool.

But competence – and sense – are becoming as rare in the Corona’d States of America as literacy and numeracy.

Which answers the questions begged.

. . .

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

I just bought an 03 Ranger pu with standard bed,standard cab,base upholstery,and the 4 cyl engine with auto overdrive AM-FM that I don't think is stereo,and air conditioning. That's it.

Truck has 156k on it and runs,drives,and rides like a new one. No smoke,no engine noise,no rattles anywhere,and no exhaust smoke. Has a couple of dings and one "dang",but I don't give a damn. I bought it for next to pocket change and it will probably last longer than I will.

Going to sell my 2016 Silverado that I have to take to the dealer at least once every 6 months to get the computer reprogrammed with updated software.

BTW,full disclosure demands I tell you I also have a 06 GMC turbo-diesel 4x4 3/4 ton extended cab pu with 130k miles sitting in the yard that is paid for that I drive locally occasionally,and ALWAYS when it is a road trip. I LOVE that truck,but it can be a real pain in the ass to try to park it anywhere because it is both longer and wider than most parking spaces today.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.