Moo-cedes-Benz?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has mau-maued (moo-mooed?) the German automaker into offering a leather-free option on its S-class sedans, SL roadster, and CL coupe.

You know, the ones that cost more than your house. Ah, that feels better.

Comments

[tom vier]

the way i heard it, some customers just prefer other materials (for whatever reasons - non-animal, more durable).

[Rhywun]

Am I alone in finding cloth to be a far superior material for car seats? I know it's low-class and all, but... it doesn't burn your skin in the summer or freeze your ass off in the winter like leather does.

[pococurante]

...or like vinyl (even lower class) does. I prefer cloth too.

[s.m. koppelman]

Cloth is preferred by some people who don't want to slide around too much when they take sharp turns.

Regardless, when a company responds to demand from the market by offering the consumer more choices, isn't that supposed to be good in Reason-world?

[Franklin Harris]

I like cloth seats because they don't stick to my leather jacket.

[Stormy Dragon]

Cloth also wears better than leather. I made the mistake of getting a leather wrapped steering wheel on a care once. After a couple of years it looked like crap from the wear.

[Gary Gunnels]

We'll Make Great pets by Porno For Pyros:

Children are innocent
A teenager's fucked up in the head
Adults are even more fucked up
And elderlies are like children
Will there be another race
To come along and take over for us?
Maybe martians could do
Better than we've done
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
My friend says we're like the dinosaurs
Only we are doing ourselves in
Much faster than they
Ever did
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We will make great pets
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We will make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!

[Douglas Fletcher]

Leather is actually a superior material to it's man-made replacements in most ways. It softens with age and is more durable if taken care of than vinyl or cloth. I find it hot to sit on as compared to cloth, though not nearly as hot as vinyl.

I suppose you could say beef is superior to soy-burgers in most ways, also.

[Gary Gunnels]

Jeff A. Taylor,

Did you see that German Wal-Mart's have set up a "singles night" program on Friday nights? Meet your "soul mate" in produce. 🙂

[Twba]

Be careful saying, "Those are beautiful melons."

[Rex Rhino]

I don't see why this is worthy of sarcastic treatment on reason magazine.

Ok, so a private activist organization used consumer pressure to get a company to give the consumers more options.

Isn't this what rational free-market capitalism is all about?

[kwais]

I like my leather seats in my sweet ass Audi S4. But that is just me.

I am not going to hold cars to the same standard that I hold meals to. It is not a meal unless something had to die. A car can indeed be made in my opinion without killing whatever.

[agentalbert]

Rex: If there is actual consumer demand for the leather free option, yes.

[crimethink]

agentalbert,

Since there is no coercion involved, Mercedes must benefit in some way from this decision -- most likely by appearing more benevolent than their competitors, and thus gaining a market advantage.

And Rex is right; I think this is a case of guilt by association. It's all to easy to assume that if PETA or some similarly whacko organization approves of something, it must be bad.

[Pinky]

"...Mercedes must benefit in some way ..."

Look up. The Buzz Factor is happening.

[Shem]

Ok, so a private activist organization used consumer pressure to get a company to give the consumers more options.

I don't think the ridiculous thing was the fact that it was PETA, rather I think that the point being made was that PETA putting so much pressure and effort into changing something that most of us will never be able to afford to touch, let alone buy, is probably not going to further their stated goals. They would have been better off pushing a car company that actually produces cars that large numbers of people buy.

[Rick Barton]

This is another example of the beneficial dynamics of capitalism satisfying diverse, and even narrow, consumer demand. This is a good thing.

[joe]

"They would have been better off pushing a car company that actually produces cars that large numbers of people buy."

The cars tht large numbers of people buy already come with fabric seat options.

[J. Goard]

Except that, in the real world where most people are not committed a priori to libertarian principles and pursue their goals in a richly intertwined system of free market and coercive political mechanisms...

This is something for PETA to hang their hat on, to tout as an instance of "corporate responsibility", etc., and enough such (albeit libertarian-kosher) victories of shame could greatly strengthen an organization and movement that have proven themselves willing to use highly coercive means elsewhere. They're not going to listen to you for a frigging second with your praise and encouragement to pursue only market-based routes in the future.

[joe]

...and therefore, even expressing the opinion that an action is superior to some other action is to be decried, because somewhere, sometime, someone might attempt to base a government policy on such a judgement.

Oh, and by the way, libertarianism is absolutely not a nihilist libertinism that renounces all values or attempts to improve the state of the world.

[Rick Barton]

J. Goard,

Even if this leads zero PETA members to be convinced of the efficacy of market-based routes in the future, the message will surely not be lost on all the folks who don't want to buy leather out of concern for the cows. The vast majority of those folks are not PETA members and do not countenance their resort to coercive government means.

[J. Goard]

RB:

Your consideration is a good one. I never meant to suggest that *only* negative consequences could flow from this PETA victory, only to justify criticism of this and similar outcomes within the forum of a libertarian magazine.

Joe:

I didn't criticize anyone's pointing out that this avenue of PETA's is better than others. I just averred that they wouldn't listen to you, implying that the driving ideology is inherently disrespectful of such limits.

Nor do I see libertarianism in the way you seem to suggest that I do. Quite to the contrary, I believe that libertarianism should be rooted in a rich knowledge of psychological and sociological dynamics; I was criticizing those who think that it's about running an isolated event through the Non-initiation of Force Principle and calling it a day.

Of course I don't mean to suggest that the two are anywhere near each other in degree, but compare the segregationist policies of many business owners a few decades ago. Would they pass the screening of deontological libertarian principles? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they would. Yet, IMHO, a libertarian discussion at the time would not have deserved chastisement for letting its criticism of "Jim Crow" laws carry over into criticism of similarly motivated private decisions. In fact, it would have been the height of naivete, of fantasyland moral philosophizing, not to let it carry over. Why? Well, in large part, because many of the same people and groups supported the private, government, and murder-in-the-street manifestations of racism, and it was obvious that as this belief system grew or shrank, it was never going to respect some line drawn in the sand by a few market vs. state purists.

We have such a situation, on a much smaller scale, with the various arms of the Green movement. I may not advocate shutting down their voluntarist avenues of change, but I don't feel that one should lose one's libertarian credentials for viewing them negatively, or for mocking them in a forum such as this one.

[joe]

That's fair, Goard. Actually, it's rather refreshing to meet a libertoid who recognizes that his ideology actually is an ideology, rather than the only plausible outcome of intelligent thought.

[Eric the .5b]

Joe: or maybe folks' experience with groups like PETA is that they want to force their beliefs on us, and so we're suspicious and resentful of any victory they make, even ones we feel they have every right to.

[Dynamist]

I see the absurdity as similar to one who drives a smaller "fuel-efficient" SUV three blocks to the organic market for a pound of free-range veal. The principles are compromised as people draw their own "enlightened" lines at a comfortable distance away from significant sacrifice.

cars that large numbers of people buy already come with fabric seat options
is better stated as mass-market cars have optional leather. Those who can afford the initial cost, and prefer the benefit of leather, may choose it if their environmental conscience allows. Expect PETA to use all available tools against those middle-class hide lovers (red paint splashed on their beige Neons). The PETA agenda may have brought about more choice for luxury buyers, but it simultaneously seeks to remove choice for the masses. The cloth option is a step toward banning leather.

[smacky]

OMG, Gary Glitter quoted Porno 4 Pyros. You rule!

I see the absurdity as similar to one who drives a smaller "fuel-efficient" SUV three blocks to the organic market for a pound of free-range veal. The principles are compromised as people draw their own "enlightened" lines at a comfortable distance away from significant sacrifice.

So true. I think that "environmental consciousness" often arises in people who already have everything they could ever want materially, and then decide to "give back" in small ways, like getting cloth seats instead of leather.

If PETA really wants to make a difference, why don't they lobby the NFL to use cloth footballs? Pigs are people, too.

[Rick Barton]

joe,

I think intelligently, therefore I am a libertoid. My robot thinks intelligently and also she looks like a really cute real girl. Therefore, she's a libertoid android. (Kinda forced huh? But at least I got to say "libertoid android")

[joe]

"The cloth option is a step toward banning leather."

And mandatory enemas. Don't forget the mandatory enemas.

[Dynamist]

See, people! Collectivists like joe are eager to get further up your ass.

🙂

[Minor Threat]

I own a '98 SL600 and there's a helluva lot more leather in that car than just the seats. The entire dash is leather, the steering wheel, the steering column, even the A-pillars are leather. The doors' interior trim are 80% leather, the armrests are leather, the lid that covers the convertible top compartment is leather, even the ROLL BAR is completely wrapped in leather. Offhand I'd guess it took at least 2 or 3 cows to manufacture the interior of my car. Since the S class has twice as many seats and doors, I guess we can add another cow or two for that car. In order to offer a no-leather option Mercedes will have to do a complete rethink about the most prominient feature of the car's interior, so this is more of a concession to PETA than just wrapping the seats in cloth would be. That said, if they think they can sell more of 'em as a result I say more power to Mercedes. For my part, it's nice to add to the long list of things I love about my car that it also offends PETA types.

[joe]

Ian would be so proud.