Slashdot Mirror
New Wyoming Bill Penalizes Utilities Using Renewable Energy (csmonitor.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a Christian Science Monitor report on "a bill that would essentially ban large-scale renewable energy" in Wyoming.
The new Wyoming bill would forbid utilities from using solar or wind sources for their electricity by 2019, according to Inside Climate News... The bill would require utilities to use "eligible resources" to meet 95 percent of Wyoming's electricity needs in 2018, and all of its electricity needs in 2019. Those "eligible resources" are defined solely as coal, hydroelectric, natural gas, nuclear, oil, and individual net metering... Utility-scale wind and solar farms are not included in the bill's list of "eligible resources," making it illegal for Wyoming utilities to use them in any way if the legislation passes. The bill calls for a fine of $10 per megawatt-hour of electricity from a renewable source to be slapped on Wyoming utilities that provide power from unapproved sources to in-state customers.
The bill also prohibits utilities from raising rates to cover the cost of those penalties, though utilities wouldn't be penalized if they exported that energy to other states. But one local activist described it as 'talking-point' legislation, and even the bill's sponsor gives it only a 50% chance of passing.
The bill also prohibits utilities from raising rates to cover the cost of those penalties, though utilities wouldn't be penalized if they exported that energy to other states. But one local activist described it as 'talking-point' legislation, and even the bill's sponsor gives it only a 50% chance of passing.
Wind murders countless migratory birds every year, and the environmental impact of Chinese solar panels is similarly out of this world. There are no environmental regulations in China.
This is a good move by WY to help save the environment.
They just are trying to protect their coal industry so that it doesn't wind up the West Virginia of the western US.
The retards have really taken over, alright.
If we don't burn ourselves up, we're headed for a really nice repeat of the dark ages.
Surely, there is interstate commerce going on here, which would take the issue out of the hands of local politicians?
Also, it's anti-employment, anti-business. Renewable energy employs more people than coal. The only people to benefit are a small number of miners and a tiny special interest group (coal mine owners).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If this bill's author has had the temerity to claim to be in favor of 'freedom' or 'free markets'; and then pushes this nonsense, somebody needs to feed him to a wood chipper.
I know politicians are not very bright, and some, if not many, are corrupt, but how can they allow this to pass, especially when the alternative is coal powered power plants! Hopefully the governor has more intelligence and veto this bill if passed.
Time to close at least some of the coal mines and find alternative jobs for the workers, in alternative, more environmentally friendly energy.
Now if we could just get Wyoming to also pass a bill to put up a wall around the state, then send the bill Colorado. Then they could put a dome on the wall and send the bill for that to Utah.
No walls, no gates, no windows. Must contain the tard.
and even the bill's sponsor gives it only a 50% chance of passing
... and a 100% chance of being a completely retarded idea!
AC comments get piped to
So how does this work? Is a domestic consumer is given an electron which has passed through a wind generator, there is going to be hell to pay, but a different pool of electrons must be used to export power from the state.
And sure, with a mix of energy sources, local consumption can be less than generation from coal.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Or more accurately, a backlash against subsidies - $10 per megawatt hour.
Are we going to light our hair on fire now every time some random conservative state legislator anywhere in the country introduces a bill we don't like? Is this how the Trump years are going to be?
Basically every article about this seems to be from ecozealot websites, so I can't even find an unbiased presentation of the bill's sponsors' motivations to evaluate them. An article on the Wyoming Public Radio site says no one thinks the bill is going anywhere anyway.
as long as the CO2 from Wyoming is contained within Wyoming. They can build a dome and then suffocate if they like.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Wyoming is 'America's Smokestack' - a proud title to compete with India and Northern China for honors. Sure, tourism might take a hit, but the coal dollars will continue to roll in. Another slogan they like- Coal=Jobs; well how many jobs? You've seen those huge machines digging, transporting, processing the coal ... how many humans are actually working there? In almost every case, the employers bragging about jobs or potential jobs are lying and thinking about profits and potential profits for themselves.
...omphaloskepsis often...
It seems like paid shills are posting under every renewable energy article about renewables not being viable without government subsidies. Well here you go. It seems that coal is now the one in need of government hand outs.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Many decades ago, Groucho Marx posed the question "Why not Oming?". Finally we have an answer.
... and if you leave them with the "free market", they are subject to profiteering. In the US today, electricity (public utility) is much *more* reliable, and affordable than Internet connectivity (private) is. So, I'm sorry, but your ideas don't really hold up in reality.
I don't respond to AC's.
The currently profitable companies buy a legislature to outlaw competition.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If you transfer functions to government, they become subject to politics. So, public utilities may be forced to use coal, public schools may be forced to teach creationism, etc. You don't like that? Don't transfer these functions to the government.
Please read a high-school level Civics book, Tea Party troll.
Unless you have the time and skill to generate your own utilities (water, electricity, telephone, internet) – and to home-school your children, then you NEED to have a governing power of some kind. There is your traditional "Government," but alternatively also a private provider (profit-motivated), or a neighborhood association (AKA government). Unless you are the king and own everything, that is how it is everywhere on this planet.
Or more accurately, a backlash against subsidies - $10 per megawatt hour.
It's a middle finger to progressives.
This is the problem with the political right at the moment. They're not trying to correct the market or protect local jobs, they're trying to rile up their base by pissing off people concerned about global warming.
And the problem with the left is that they can't compromise and won't evolve.
I was just listening to Bill Maher from last night, and all the liberals encouraging the audience to fight, disrupt, oppose, insult(*), and combat everything the right wants to do.
Nowhere did anyone say "we have to become better". Nothing about making better policies, making more intelligent arguments, doing things voters want, making the country better, or anything that could be considered noble.
The fundamental difference between the left and the right, through the campaign and after, is that the right has tried to make themselves the better option, while the left tried to make the *other side* the worse option. Trump's speeches were warm and inclusive, saying essentially "we're in this together, we can win, we can do better". Clinton's speeches, delivered by others during campaign rallies, were essentially throwing insults at the other side.
I don't think anyone on the left has a clue how ineffective their campaign of crying, whining, and insulting is. Their actions are not turning minds and swaying the voters they will need if they want to win future elections.
I have no idea how they can continue with this ludicrous behaviour, but I'm sure the right will continue to laugh at them while they do it.
(*) One of the panel members was saying "always call racism".
President Col. Sanders, beloved mascot of KFC passes an ordinary bill mandating the purchase of KFC chicken once a week. People will rejoice at this yet another natural outcome of the amendment passed during the Trump administration that relinquished the vote of the common people to the companies that are responsible for them.
I'm not a fan of solar power. It's expensive, unreliable, and lacking any kind of storage or backup power it is pretty much useless. If given enough cheap storage then any energy source looks good. Which is one thing that boggles me about those that say, "Just you wait, when we get good batteries any day now then you'll love solar power." If we had this magical battery technology then why would we bother using solar power to charge it? Wind, nuclear, and even natural gas would be better choices. They are cheaper than solar, and with a battery for load balancing they'd meet every need for power without expensive and dirty peak power plants.
I'm okay with wind. It's generally cheap when put in the right places. The problem is that with government subsidies they are not put in the right places. The subsidies are made to subsidize capacity, not necessarily output. So what happens is that windmills are put close to natural gas lines, so that the backup generators have fuel and they don't have to run a power line that isn't carrying power.
Nuclear is good. It's the safest energy source we know of, based on deaths and injuries per MWh produced. It's got the lowest carbon output, if one believes that is even a problem. It's cheap, reliable, and domestically sourced. Any law that makes building nuclear power sounds good to me.
A big problem for me though is that this messes with the free market. People should be able to choose where their energy comes from on their own. That means that not only is this bill a bad idea but so is those laws that made this bill necessary in the first place. Had they taken a gentler hand on this, by merely cancelling out the federal subsidies on these energy sources, then I could probably support it. They took it a bit far with these punitive taxes. But then this makes nuclear power look good.
I'm torn on this one.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Because voter turnout is so high?
You can't dictate that a company can't sell a legal product.
Yes you can. It turns out that legislators can pretty much do whatever the hell they want. They could ban peanut butter tomorrow if they felt like it. They could even pass laws that violate the constitution and police can happily enforce those laws until a judge explicitly tells them to cut it out, with no punishment whatsoever.
This is one of the many, many reasons why the world's democracies often seem dysfunctional. And it's part of the reason why the emergency $700 billion bailout in 2008 included a tax break for a company that makes wooden archery arrows for kids (of the sort commonly used in summer camps or scouting groups.)[1]
It would be very interesting to create a constitution for a country or state/municipality that says you may only pass laws for XYZ reasons, you have to give the justification for every law you pass, and if the justification given for that law is ever found to be invalid then the courts can strike it down. And you aren't allowed to invent a new justification after the law has been passed. That is what "draining the swamp" would truly look like. That, plus figuring out a way for politicians to run campaigns that doesn't involve legalized bribery.
1. This is just too precious to not include:
"Kids' arrows costing 30 cents to make had an additional 43 cents tacked on through the federal excise tax. The extra cost proved too much for low-budget archery programs offered by schools, clubs and Boyâ(TM)s and Girl Scouts around the country, who quickly canceled orders," Dishion said.
Yeah, I'm sure the extra ~$3 per archery station for something that doesn't wear out quickly was the straw that broke the camel's back. It's definitely not the cost of the bows or target backstops or liability insurance or anything.
He's not that. He's an anarchist who goes as far as saying you should be able to break any contract so long as it's to your advantage. Government of any kind expects people to play by rules so is automatically his enemy so you are not going to convince him.
Typo should be "biased towards"
This is regulation of regular privately owned utilities. They're called "Public Utilities" because they provide utility services to the public, not because they're government owned.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Government run stuff is subject to voter interference, private stuff is only subject to rich white man interference.
Might try comparing say... California... to shitholes like Kansas, idiot. Red states are predominantly leeches on blue states, and they still rank the shittiest states on pretty much any quality of living/prepping for the future index. I do understand though, fucking idiots like you can't be bothered with reality.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Do let us know when wind mills are a prime source of CO2 emissions, or when solar panels start poisoning ground water while creating earthquakes.
The Wyoming State Legislature will soon make the acquaintance of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And after that, possibly the Justice Dept. Essentially all bulk energy transfers fall under federal, not state, jurisdiction.
sPh
Nonsense; rich white men can't afford to run private companies at a loss. What private companies do is primarily determined by customers, and that's far more democratic than voting.
That's not all: they are also heavily regulated even if there is some degree of private ownership.
What they are not is independent, private, for-profit companies, and that's the problem.
That "governing power" can be a simple private corporation or association. That means that the people making the decisions are the owners on the one hand, and the customers on the other.
When you open up governance to political processes and have the government grant monopolies, that is precisely when you get these problems, because then fossil fuel companies (or solar or whatever companies) will push through legislation by which they can enrich themselves.
Actually, I'm a minarchist.
No, I'm simply stating a fact: contracts define actions and consequences, and people behave accordingly.
Government is the enemy because it isn't bound by contracts but can instead take your property, your liberty, or your life with no recourse.
Of course, you, being a totalitarian, aren't bothered by that.
Let them do it, this will lead to higher prices for Wyoming consumers.
No, in a free market, competition keeps prices down. In fact, European countries have deregulated their electricity markets and simply give customers a choice between fossil fuel and renewable energy sources.
That statement is wrong in many ways. Seriously, do some background research.
Simply BANNING renewable energy?
DUMB!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I already exercised my "options" by coming to the US. And I don't want the US to turn into the kind of stagnant, oppressive system that I came from, where ending up "at the wrong end of a weapon" was an actual possibility.
I'm sorry if some pampered, privileged, ignorant Americans like you may not understand. Fortunately, as the election shows, not all Americans share in your delusions.
Non voters preferences literally don't count.
More power disruptions are caused by squirrels than any other entity. Website with mapped out known attacks: http://cybersquirrel1.com/
Supporting the idea of a Republic where people get to vote makes me that? Good to know.
Don't go writing any dictionaries.
They may not count, but that is not the same as without significance.
If you see any form of government as you enemy you are clearly not.
But neither are you from that long discussion earlier.
Trump America starts.
Not at all; minimal government is simply a "necessary evil".
You say that because you live under the delusion that the term "bound by a contract" has a meaning beyond the consequences of breaking the contract. There are no consequences to government for breaking a contract, and the consequences for you breaking a contract with the government can be arbitrarily dire.
You seem to believe that voters can impose whatever they like through voting. That makes you a totalitarian.
I believe in limited government with enumerated powers, where voters can only make decisions within those enumerated powers.
How not?
This post adds nothing to the conversation, it's simply a leftist vomiting insults at the other side....your group is just so toxic right now...
It's not just right now. It's been many years -- at least since 2010.
Stupid fucking games instead of trying to run something properly
Take a look at the moderation in this conversation. Screaming, swearing insults and personal attacks in support of the left are modded up to 4 and 5 as "insightful" or "interesting", those arguing on the right (without swearing or personal attacks) are modded down "offtopic" or or "overrated".
You shouldn't expect to be taken seriously if you don't behave like someone who should be taken seriously.
Nuclear has planned maintenance windows in general, and it's rarely the only baseload power supply.
I'm not a huge fan of renewables for large scale use but this seems kinda petulant to me.
Better to have no subsidies or penalties, either way, on any energy production method. The market will work it out; just don't put a hand on the scale.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
We all know what the next step is. If renewable energy is not a threat to coal powered energy, it would just die out, and we would be using coal.
But if you have to go out of your way to punish the users, you are just admitting that competing with them is not winning.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Calling everything "fake news" is now just a way for people to even further ignore reality. Lalalalala I'm not listening. Lalalalala.
It's sad and ironic that the people of Wyoming, which has amazingly beautiful nature and environment, wouldn't care more about preserving it.
Bills like this are actually pretty common. The James Taggart's and Orren Boyle's of the world have to feel important and look busy somehow. Fortunately enough, these types of bills are not often passed and if they do it's usually lacking support from the public. Meaning they don't tend to last long.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
In their view, the tax increase is more about politics — Wyoming lashing out at clean energy as payback for federal policy aimed at scaling back the coal industry on which the state has always relied.
Supporters of the tax increase say that the company is posturing — that Wyoming’s abundant winds are the renewable equivalent of its high-quality Powder River Basin coal. They point to studies showing that Wyoming eventually could provide half of the wind power in the nation, but they also emphasize that it likely will not provide anywhere near the jobs and other benefits fossil fuels have. Fully built out, the project called the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre would create fewer than 150 jobs.
They also say Wyoming doesn’t necessarily need clean energy, much less the turbines that harness it. Giant towers would line the horizon for decades to come, altering the state’s wide-open spaces more fundamentally than drilling rigs or even vast surface coal mines.
“The benefits of wind are disproportionately on the West Coast, and the costs of wind are disproportionately in Wyoming — and I mean the social costs,” said Cale Case, a state senator and economist who serves on the Legislature’s revenue committee. “This tiny reflection of the impacts back here, I think it’s just kind of a fair trade.”
Not long after it became clear that the robust winds that blow down from the Rocky Mountains and across the sea of sagebrush here could produce plenty of profit in a world that wants more renewable energy, some of the more expansive minds in the Wyoming Legislature began entertaining a lofty question:
Who owns all of that wind?
They concluded, quickly and conveniently, that Wyoming did.
Then, with great efficiency for a conservative state not traditionally tilted toward burdening the energy industry, they did something no other state has done, before or since: They taxed it.
I propose that Wyoming add "cats" to it's list of energy fuels along with nuke, oil, coal, wood and them libral east-coast democrats and californicatin commie pinko faggots. yee-ha.
Too bad about wind. It definitely blows up there. Really really blows.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
No, in a free market, competition keeps prices down.
Nope. Average price in Europe in 2015 was $0.20/KW. It was $0.12/KW in the US.
Seriously, do some background research.
I can't find any research that shows that Internet connectivity in the US is more reliable or relatively cheaper than electricity. If you have some research that you'd like to share.
I don't respond to AC's.
Oh, stupid AC never took a civics class....
The goal of a business is to make a PROFIT. The goal of a government is to make sure people have FAIR and EQUAL access.
Uneducated, uninformed people like are why our president is a moron.
I don't respond to AC's.
I'm sure Time is fake news too. As is the Washington Post, MSNBC, and the 124 various other sources that reported on the 2009 McConnell obstruction meeting
http://swampland.time.com/2012...
Are you so stupid that you think that's an argument?
So why are you making stupid claims about the relative reliability of Internet connectivity and electricity in the US?
Fact-checking should be a sport. Now, I'm not sure that this bill is benign. But I've done a little bit of fact-checking, and I think the story is incorrect. My understanding of the bill is that wind and solar will continue to remain eligible generating resources, as defined by the bill. Following links and looking around Wyoming's legislative website, I've found two documents: 1. A PDF of the bill in question. See page 3 for a definition of "Eligible generating resource": http://legisweb.state.wy.us/20... 2. Title 37: Public utilities: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/LS... (scroll down to find Title 37). Now, note that on page 3 in the bill, it lists coal, oil and those sorts of things. Okay, you won't find solar and wind in there... but, in (D), this is included "Net metering system, as defined by W.S.37-16-101(a)(viii)". Now, here's something for news hunters to realize. A lot of well-meaning reporters jump to conclusions like the rest of us. Even though that may seem like an intimidating thing, it's actually quite simple. Those numbers mean something. They're an address. They will help you find more information. Now, the 37 clearly means Title 37. So grab Title 37, which is distributed in .docx format, and see that at the top, you have the string "371101". Now, look for "3716101" (37-16-101 without dashes), it'll be called: "Definitions." - interesting, right?
You'll find (a) right below, which lists a bunch of things, so find (viii) as per the reference in the bill.
It'll say: "(viii)"Net metering system" means a facility for the production of electrical energy that:
(A)Uses as its fuel either solar, wind, biomass or hydropower;
(B)Has a generating capacity of not more than twentyfive (25) kilowatts;
(C)Is located on the customergenerator's premises;
(D)Operates in parallel with the electric utility's transmission and distribution facilities; and
(E)Is intended primarily to offset part or all of the customergenerator's requirements for electricity."
Note that (A) says: "Uses as its fuel either solar, wind, biomass or hydropower;"
Now, I don't know enough about the subject matter to really give an opinion on B-E, but it seems clear to me that solar and wind power, as defined in existing Wyoming law, IS INCLUDED in the definition of an eligible generating resource in this new bill which the story revolves around.
It's like trying to talk to a rock. Have a nice life, rock!
I don't respond to AC's.
I'm pretty sure we do. Wind farms aren't pretty to look at. Reclaimed coal mines don't look any different than the prairie did before they dug the coal out. I don't know about all the power plants in WY, but the one near us has pretty good scrubbers to help with pollution controls. The wind farm, however, is right next to town and we get to enjoy all the tower's red aviation warning lights on the horizon all the time.
And now there are *slightly* fewer.
We will examine whether the article is, beyond reasonable doubt, Fake News, to wit disinformation based either wholly on invented "facts" or upon facts which knowingly and deliberately have been constructed out of context so as to mislead or deceive the reasonable reader.
If anyone bothered to read the actual bill...
... they would find that it requires that by 2018 "each electric utility shall procure a minimum of ninety five percent (95%) of its sales of electricity in Wyoming from eligible generating resources." and that by 2019, "r 2019, each electric utility shall procure a minimum of one hundred percent (100%) of its sales of electricity in Wyoming from eligible generating resources." Eligible generating resources are defined to include (with limitation) : "Coal; Hydroelectric; Natural g
as; Net metering system, as defined by W.S. 37-16-101(a)(viii); Nuclear; [and]Oil.."
TFA claims by the headline that the Bill "forbids utilities from using renewables" which is incorrect both because hydroelectric power is properly classed as a "renewable" and because the inclusion of 'Net metering systems' does permit at least limited use of solar (and perhaps even wind) power. The text of the article below, however, makes clear that the actual claim being made is that utilities are prohibited from selling energy generated in utility-scale wind and solar farms in the state and face a $10/KWh fine should they do so.
The bill would require utilities to use "eligible resources" to meet 95 percent of Wyoming's electricity needs in 2018, and all of its electricity needs in 2019.
[I] ndividual net metering ... includes home solar or wind installations in which the owner feeds excess electricity back into the grid, and is paid a predetermined, fixed fee for the power. But these small-scale sources of renewable energy are meant for private use. They just happen to produce extra power that can be utilized by the grid.
Utility-scale wind and solar farms are not included in the bill's list of "eligible resources," making it illegal for Wyoming utilities to use them in any way if the legislation passes. [Emphasis added]
These claims accurately describe the content of the Bill
We find that the headline, taken by itself, was liable to mislead as concerns the limited use of personally generated renewable power returned to the grid. Though it is not necessary to consider the question here and despite this being a relatively minor factor, it remains possible that a charge of "clickbaityness" might be sustained against the subeditor responsible for the headline. It remains, we must note, far from what might justifiable attract the appellation of "fake news."
OTOH the journalist's text below provides a fair and accurate description of the effect of the Bill under discussion.
We find the accusation of "fake news" cannot be maintained against the article in question and would dismiss the action.
That "governing power" can be a simple private corporation or association. That means that the people making the decisions are the owners on the one hand, and the customers on the other.
HOA's have plenty of politics going on in them. . . to the point of some individuals trying to exert monopoly-like influence to their own personal ends. Strong President + weak res-of-board invites abuse. It happens all the time.
Give anyone or any sub-group power, and they will be in a position to abuse it – unless a system of checks and balances are put in place.
It is basic human nature. If you learn how to escape the effects of being an individual among a group of co-equals, then I and many philosophers, political scientists, and people in general will be delighted to hear it.
So? Did I claim anywhere that HOAs were apolitical or functioned perfectly? Private associations and corporations have most of the problems of regular government; but the one problem they eliminate is that people with no skin in the game enrich themselves through political ends.
I don't have an answer to that problem, but that's not the problem private associations answer. Private associations, rather, ensure that you are at least an individual among co-equals, as opposed to an individual subject to arbitrary outside force.
Because the reason the opinions matter in the first place is because it is the people matter, not the built-in limitations of the choices they've been given. By the logic as currently expressed, once the representative has been chosen, the people are no longer voting, and the preferences being expressed are no longer of the people and your original expression that the "your own" is of the People of Wyoming does not make sense. Two degrees of meaning have been removed from the conventional meaning of "the preferences of the people of Wyoming", first the people who did not vote for a representative, then the people who did vote for a representative, because then it is the preferences of the representative and not the people.
So your point is that representative government imperfectly represents the will of the people, even in a very small state like Wyoming. Ok, thanks for that.
Why would we think non-voters would prefer something different than voters?
I think the line was that snowfall in South England would be rare by 2010, and focusing on the claims in the popular press rather than the scientific evidence is not a wise idea. What exactly about the properties of CO2 has been fixed incorrectly? CO2-based warming was discredited entirely up until at least the mid-1950s, and the opinions of climate researchers shifted rather suddenly with better information about the upper atmosphere. Do you know what that evidence was, and do you have any reason to dispute it? I'll give you a hint, the answer has nothing to do with global climate models.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The way the bill is worded; it sounds like a politicians attempt to codify an engineer's take that "base load calculations should be made with controllable consistent generation mechanisms".
Wind and solar are geographically limited and intermittent sources of electrical power. I would not expect them to be included in "base load" calculations which justify a continued area monopoly to a public utilities commission. Nothing wrong with Wyoming wanting to require a utility company to certify 95% of their capacity is actually there when required. And nothing to say that when a solar or wind farm is actually producing they can idle a base load plant to save some bucks. Only that they have to have RELIABLE 95% load capability.
NRRPT/RCT
Comment removed based on user account deletion
See how long your California stays in the blue after productive people like me all leave for, say, Texas. I give it about 5-6 more years. After you have nobody left to tax, you'll just have one big circle-jerk of illegals/gangs abusing "disability" poets/dog-walkers.
I am not glad it will happen, but I frankly don't see a solution; I am just tired of paying for the single moms, the surfer bums that "just need a break, man," the community organizers, the social justice warriors... Hollywood might still be making money for a couple more years, so you can keep that.
LOL. In case you didn't know, California population has been on the increase for over 100 years: https://www.google.com/search?...
Brings back the heady days of when indy racing couldn't compete with turbine cars, so they outlawed them. Freedom!
Keep those post reality laws coming! I've heard that scientists have a big machine tht keeps humans fmor flying - but it only works if a few try, so if all deniers and anti-competitive true citizens just jump off a cliff at once, the machine will over load and we will reach our greatest potential. You will soar with the birds!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
*applause*
I don't have an answer to that problem, but that's not the problem private associations answer. Private associations, rather, ensure that you are at least an individual among co-equals, as opposed to an individual subject to arbitrary outside force.
Fair enough. You seem to be saying, effectively, that the US (for example) has strayed far from the "... all men having been created equal ..." part of the US Constitution. Yes. Yes we have.
The US is a (doubly) Representative Republic which is likely on the cusp of diving sharply into fascism, towards which we leaned anyway. All this "free market" and "the market is the most important thing" and "growth must be sustained" are all in essence statements used frequently to justify political actions – self-serving or segment-serving ones – which are at-root fascist in holding the markets as more important than the people.
Sounds like you are just as much of an "anti-fascist" as the guys who said this:
True; but by kicking both Hillary and Sanders to the curb, we have avoided that fate... for now.