First, coal: MMM covered this in his post:
And all of this is aside from the biggest benefit, which is the hidden one that you’re not burning fossil fuels. The US power grid is down to 30% coal and getting cleaner every day, and you can personally improve that number simply by buying renewable power from your local provider as I do here in Longmont.
So his car is not coal powered, even if Longmont itself is.
Not quite, he did not include specific information about Colorado but rather only a 30% coal for the nation as a whole statistic. I assume that's correct, but it is misleading when Colorado uses coal for twice the percentage of their total power generation. He also links to the local electric company which allows customers to purchase renewable energy (hydro and wind are mentioned). For $.0312/mo one can allegedly purchase only renewable energy.
I am dubious of how this claim of 100% renewable is measured or enforced. What if there is a drought and hydro generation is down to conserve water for drinking and other uses? What if the wind is not blowing very often or fast? Are some sort of smart electric meter used where power is cut off to buildings that sign up for 100% renewable at a higher rate? Is any usage over the amount of renewable generated billed at the lower rate? How is it decided who gets cut off or the lower rate first? I was unable to find anything online about how many kWh of electric are generated vs how many kWh are paid for at the higher renewable rate. I hope that such information is provided on the bill or at least in some sort of annual or periodic report, maybe someone else can dig up some information.
I think it's safe to say there's a best effort to ensure his car is not coal powered, but no guarantee. I also suspect it's safe to say the vast majority of electric cars in use in this country are coal powered.
This thread is specifically about Pete's electric car, not electric cars in general. The fact is, he's buying renewable energy from his utility. And this is something any EV owner can do. You theorize, based on simplistic hypothetical situations, that the utility cannot supply what it's selling without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Wind and hydro are not as simple as "it's not windy in Longmont" or "we are in drought" better stoke the coal power plant. Utilities can (and do) purchase renewable power from other areas where the wind is blowing or that are not in drought.
Also, there is the issue of efficiency. ICEs are fairly inefficient (~20%) because they must handle different driving conditions (acceleration from stop, cruising at highway speeds, in town driving, etc.). Whereas a power plant only generates power at scale on systems designed for constant and efficient generation. Coal plants are 40-50% efficient, and very little efficiency is lost over transmission. So to the extent that coal is still used for power generation, society is still better off compared to running a bunch of little and inefficient ICEs. As an added benefit, as utilities expand renewable energy sources (say they add a solar plant), then all EV vehicles automatically benefit from this upgrade.
Second, taxation is not theft (per your definition) because it's not a "criminal act". In fact, it's one of the powers granted to government in the US Constitution's Taxing and Spending clause.
You can say taxation is not theft all you want, but that doesn't make it so. If there is not consent, it is theft. A law making theft legal, does not change the fact that it is theft. Theft is a violation of one's property rights. A crime must involve a victim. If there is consent, an action cannot be a crime (i.e. you cannot steal an item if the owner gave it to you). If there is no consent during a transfer of property, then it is a crime as there is a victim.
the imposition of a federal income tax is more than just taking from those who work and earn and giving to those who don’t. And it is more than just a spigot to fill the federal trough. At its base, it is a terrifying presumption. It presumes that we don’t really own our property. It accepts the Marxist notion that the state owns all the property and the state permits us to keep and use whatever it needs us to have so we won’t riot in the streets. And then it steals and uses whatever it can politically get away with. Do you believe this?
There are only three ways to acquire wealth in a free society. The inheritance model occurs when someone gives you wealth. The economic model occurs when you trade a skill, a talent, an asset, knowledge, sweat, energy or creativity to a willing buyer. And the mafia model occurs when a guy with a gun says: “Give me your money or else.”
Which model does the government use? Why do we put up with this?
https://mises.org/blog/taxation-theft
Would you agree that 100% taxation is not theft? Would you agree that 100% taxation is not a crime?
LOL, and you can say taxation is theft all you want but that doesn't make it so. What kind of argument is that? The "taxation is theft" argument doesn't hold water because the government cannot single out individuals for taxation, whereas a thief takes from individuals rather than society collectively. This is why taxes which are too narrowly tailored do not hold up in the courts.
Again, per your definition, theft is a criminal act. That we have a legal framework allowing for taxation for the public good means, by definition, it's not a criminal act. Whereas failing to pay your taxes
is a criminal act.
When I was younger I was much more conservative and very much of the mindset that all taxes are bad. Then I spent some time working in countries where tax evasion is rife and it shows in the lack of infrastructure. My view on taxes and government changed quite a bit as a result. I don't like having to worry about the safety of water, even when staying in a luxury resort. Open sewers and stagnant water creating breeding grounds for disease vectors is not a pleasant thing to deal with on a day to day basis. Having to hire armed guards to protect hotels and office buildings along with actual fortress walls to keep those inside safe is rather unpleasant, a feeling of being imprisoned.
You are not an island unto yourself. You do not have total autonomy and our system of government was never intended as such. Our government can make you fight in wars, they can tax you, they can make you sell your property, and so on. There is a long legal precedent for this, going all the way to the SCOTUS. If you really believe strongly otherwise then by all means, make a public protest of not paying your taxes and accept the consequences as part of your principled protest. Don't just talk a big talk on anonymous internet forums.