Slashdot Mirror
Companies Are Using California Homes As Batteries To Power the Grid (qz.com)
"Companies like Tesla and SunRun are starting to bid on utility contracts that would allow them to string together dozens or hundreds of systems that act as an enormous reserve to balance the flow of electricity on the grid," reports Quartz. "Doing so would accelerate the grid's transformation from 20th century hub-and-spoke architecture to a transmission network moving electricity among thousands or millions of customers who generate and store their own power." From the report: In theory, networked home-solar-and-battery systems, acting in coordination over a single geographical area, could replace things like natural gas "peaker" plants need to help support the grid on a moment's notice. But it's an open question whether it makes financial sense. Kamath says renewable mandates could keep home solar-storage solutions for the grid going for a while, but the idea will have to prove itself on the market, perhaps by aggregating large areas, if it wants to seriously compete with existing energy assets.
SunRun told investors in 2017 that its pilot programs suggest it could competitively generate $2,000 worth of services by managing electricity flow back to the grid. The company has recently dropped its combative stance with utilities dragging their feet on accepting home solar. Instead, it's pursuing cooperation with the utilities now, in hopes of selling them home-based power. That would allow it grab a chunk of the billions being spent on modernizing the grid. "We don't want to be in a position of building two competing infrastructures," SunRun's Jurich said.
SunRun told investors in 2017 that its pilot programs suggest it could competitively generate $2,000 worth of services by managing electricity flow back to the grid. The company has recently dropped its combative stance with utilities dragging their feet on accepting home solar. Instead, it's pursuing cooperation with the utilities now, in hopes of selling them home-based power. That would allow it grab a chunk of the billions being spent on modernizing the grid. "We don't want to be in a position of building two competing infrastructures," SunRun's Jurich said.
please don't come here.
Won't be a problem.
You seem overly proud of this. What part did you play?
A big part of me is afraid this will simply game the market rather than add predictability to pricing, although that is arguably is inevitable. I would much prefer a rate sheet that is easier to understand the implications of use in order to better allow proactive demand-side management. Too many things are grossly inefficient with reactive load management.
But, I don’t know an easy solution to the current ramp-rate profile without batteries and punitive rate structures.
Admitted that was a dedicated system but peak charges can be orders of magnitude higher than bulk power so yes, it does make economic sense.
Once again, PopeRatzo shows he's a troll. The statement about California leading the way again is an attempt to incite conservative commenters who generally disagree with California's policies. Also, PopeRatzo has previously indicated that he lives in Houston. He is being dishonest when he implies that he lives in California. Even if he's recently moved to California, his statement imploring people not to go to California is then very hypocritical. To summarize, PopeRatzo is a troll and he's trolling yet again. His post should be moderated to -1 troll.
Also leading the the US in people being homeless with little attempt to do anything about it. Yea keep on leading.
I hate to bring it up, but there is only one reality. And it doesn't depend on your or my opinion at all, left alone on one's political or religious inclination.
You will probably have an occupation different from mine. Do you think that I could do a better job than you do in your field? Do you think it is likely that I can validly point out that you're wrong and I'm right? Personally I don't think so. Now, there is not just one expert but there are thousands of experts in all fields relating to climate change. And your opinion differs from their's. Do I think it is likely that you are right and they are wrong? It is exactly like creationists. They believe that scientists are off by a factor of about 2 million when it comes to the age of the universe. And they know that for sure (despite any evidence).
I think it is a moral imperative to be honest, and accept reality even if you don't like it.
Bert
They would have to compensate the home owners for the wear-and-tear on their batteries. And if you can make it work financially with small systems then you can do it cheaper per kwh on a large scale in a consolidated facility. Just do that.
Anything you can do, your utility can do cheaper.
FAKE, it's grammatically correct and making sense! Better luck next time.
Ezekiel 23:20
Don't stop there - it's to the tune of 50000 installations in one scheme and another 40000 installations in a second scheme.
South Australia leads the way for the rest of the world. You're welcome, and please DO come here.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
California... where people think mountains top out at 25 meters.
California... where Hollywood is a species.
California... they're "trying real hard".
California... not "technically" a virus.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
You always need to ask who it makes financial sense for. It certainly makes financial sense for Tesla and the politicians they lobby.
Don't you worry, the middle class is already leaving.
Go and sin no more.
BTW, there is life beyond social media. I tell myself that as I think of punting Facebook.
Fiat Lux.
According to TFA, I pay $1300 to $1800 (depending upon one-time shot or installments) and I have a guaranteed backup power for 10 years. I've lived in my current home for 5, down here in Ventura, and have lost power exactly once, for 2 hours, when SCE replaced/upgraded the transformer in our subdivision (and which the announced a dozen times the month before, so it was no surprise to anyone). So I guess what is being offered here is backup power for the amazingly affordable price of $650 to $900 per hour. Hurray, California!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Don't forget taxes! We're not number one in taxes yet, but we're working hard! And Second Amendment violations, we're also pushing hard to beat everyone else there, too (I think we're close to number one, trailing only DC).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Don't you worry, the middle class is already leaving.
They're not leaving, they're being destroyed. But that doesn't differentiate California from anywhere else. This is a big state, most of it is not inside LA county or the bay area. Most of the people are, though, which puts paid to the notion that they can't afford to live where it's expensive.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They're leaving too, check it out: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/1...
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No thank you.
#DeleteFacebook
This sounds like trying out outsource the cost of reliable power delivery to a subset of consumers. If you spend a lot of money to add batteries to a grid-tied solar system and you use those batteries to help balance the grid, you (the consumer) are paying to help the power company balance the grid. If it is just you (all of your neighbors don't also have battery systems), you end up paying more for the public power system then your neighbors do.
Most solar systems are grid-tied and don't have batteries. Grid-tied is popular (way less expensive) because with off-grid you need batteries to store power for cloudy days and dark nights and you need a much larger system to gather enough power when it is sunny to store in the batteries for when it is not.
Tesla, Enphase, and others are now offering battery systems that work in conjunction with grid-tied solar systems. These systems allow you to add some battery storage to your system. What is new with this model is that you can add just a portion of the battery storage you would otherwise need for a full off grid system.
There are three reasons to add batteries to a grid-tied system, only two of which are of value to the end consumer. 1) Store power for use during a power outage - a whole house UPS. 2) Store power for time of use and cost optimization - store solar or utility power when power rates are cheap (off peak times), use the stored power during expensive (peak) times. 3) Provide reserve grid power for grid balancing - what the article is talking about. Of these things the first two are things that it makes sense for a consumer to invest in - they provide a benefit to the consumer for their investment. The last thing is a cost to the consumer that is really benefiting the consumer's neighbors and power company. This cost is disproportionate to your neighbors if you neighbors are not also investing. In addition, if you do 3, you will potentially reduce the potential run time of 1 and the dollar savings of 2.
I suppose if the power companies offered significant discounts or other incentives to people who agreed to join their private batteries to the public grid it would be all good, but the cynical side of me thinks that it's an attempt to get a subset of customers to help pay for grid reliability that everyone should be paying for.
So - are you willing to pay $1300 to $1800 for a backup that may get used a few hours every decade? Really?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
10 to 15 per month? I pay more than that to backup my data. If this would ameliorate the dozen or so one-second blackouts I've gotten in the past year it'd be a win.
Hmmm... You can get a 1300W UPS for $330, and other than the heavy appliances (stove, refrigerator/freezer, clothes washer/dryer) it will supply 1300W for 6-7 minutes; that would run the typical US household (sans heavy appliances which are not disrupted by a few second blackout) for about 10 minutes. For a one to ten second blackout, this would be, potentially, overkill. Seems like a lower cost solution is available to you right now!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
By Jeremy Rifkin. It's all in there. New big companies seem to be following it step by step. https://www.thezeromarginalcos...
Since I've moved here, I'm really amused at how obsessed with California conservatives in other states seem to be.
Most of the people leaving California are low-income, not "middle-class". And since we've recently gone from the 7th largest economy in the world to the 5th largest economy in the world, losing a million residents over a 10 year period is not a bad thing. It means there will be less traffic when I have to drive down to LAX or up to Frisco to catch a plane when I go on one of my charity missions to bring shoes and toothbrushes to people in red states.
http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/A...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Taxes here in California are high, but they're worth it. Plus, states like Texas just make up the difference with fees, tolls, property taxes, etc. And after you pay all those fees, tolls, property taxes, etc, you're still in goddamn Texas.
You are welcome on my lawn.
From your link: "particularly lower-income residents".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Dude, go and look at a topo map of California. I'll wait.
*ROFLCOPTER*
Why are you telling me? I have lived in California for many years, and I'm not a conservative.
You seem to have moved here only recently. And I suppose from your socialist vantage point, everybody who doesn't toe the socialist party line is a "conservative".
If by "low income" you mean "people making less than $110000/year, then I suppose that's true. I call those people "middle class".
Really? What do Californians get for it? Bad roads, bad schools, traffic jams, urban sprawl, homelessness, massive social problems.
Data says otherwise
Isn't it great? It's a place where people like you just don't go.
"Panda bears are cute. They are my favourite kind of bear."
They drink too much, hence the black eyes.
BTW, why did the Lion lose at poker?
He was playing with a Cheetah.
Where have you been in California? There's none of that where I live.
"affordability" rankings are nonsense. Hamburger helper is more affordable than filet mignon, but you're eating packaged starch instead of a nice steak. I've lived in Houston and I live in California. When I count the fact that I save a lot of money on utilities (I don't have to heat or cool my house) and health care (my health insurance costs went way down) and food (groceries are about 30% cheaper in California than in Houston, plus I'm in a beautiful place instead of an ugly, polluted one, I figure it's a great deal.
I've lived in Texas. It's a shithole state. It's a place where their most famous military battle is one where the Texans got massacred and their state bird is a mosquito. It's terribly polluted and the state politicians in Texas are so corrupt it would make a Chicago alderman blush (I'm from Chicago, so I know).
You are welcome on my lawn.
No doubt California is wonderful to you; as a retired academic, you are the recipient of significant monetary transfers from the working population and you can pick yourself a nice little corner of California to live in. You have no ambition to create anything or contribute either, so California's stifling regulations don't matter to you. Your positions are perfectly rational from your point of you. What makes you such a jerk is that you try to tell other people that what's best for you is best for them, a bald faced lie. For those of us who actually have to work and pay the cost of your cushy retirement, the pyramid scheme that works so well for you makes little sense.
However, that is plug limited, and requires more maintenance. I'm no Tesla fanboy, but a whole home battery is worth 1500-1800, even for short run times, so long as it also deals with low voltage events (brownouts). I spend probably 60$ a year maintaining a trio of UPS's that size (replacing one set of batteries per year, doesn't include potential waste charges for SLA batteries), which only handles network gear and a pair of desktops.
So, presuming that it lasts the ten years of a powerwall warranty, I'm looking at 180$ a year, if I spread the cost out. Compared to the three Trip-lite units I have, at a purchase price of call it 200$ each (600$ total, which is around what I spend, since I bought two on sale and was given the third when someone moved), I have 120$ per year in costs. That starts looking much more attractive. Add in that many people will also get their load centers modernized, which can save a lot of cash, plus the maintenance is somebody else's problem. That's quite nice.
Yeah. Poor people are leaving, rich people are coming in. Net is that more people are leaving than coming.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I wasn't talking about your pension; I was talking about the infrastructure and services you enjoy in California.
Since you spent your life studying and teaching critical theory and postmodernism, it's obvious that it is actually you who doesn't have any experience with higher education; you just shamelessly pretended to be an academic and scholar for a few decades.
I'm a California taxpayer. I don't start collecting a pension for some years yet, thank you. I pay for what I use, and there's a little left over to send to the poor red states like South Carolina.
That's not what I spent my life studying. That's just my area of expertise. I was also a Director of Computing, a cameraman for sports television and a director of films for medical education. I put myself through school driving a cab and playing in a band. I now teach martial arts. I was already accomplished when I started pretending to be an academic and scholar. Currently, I surf.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yes, that is the general idea.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You implied earlier you had been an academic and were making your money from a pension, but I guess you're just a surfer. And unless you make more than $90k/year, other people are subsidizing you.
With a CV like that, California is indeed perfect for you.
And it's perfect for me. When I was younger, I undervalued the importance of living somewhere beautiful and what a tonic it can be for the soul. My sleepy little coastal town is as perfect a place as I've ever been, and that includes the coast of Montenegro. I get up in the morning and cannot believe I'm in such a perfect place.
Seriously, ooloorie, I really didn't mean to upset you. I understand that there are problems in California, especially in the two biggest metro areas. It's far from perfect, but unlike many other places in the US, there actually seems to be a will to try to fix these things. There's a budget surplus in Sacramento and people seep pretty happy about their state governance, except for a handful of inland cranks and right-wing talk radio hosts. At least California's not trying to balance its budget on the backs of the people teaching their kids.
You should also know that I really liked the people in Houston. Some of the best people I've ever met. Definitely some of the best taco trucks I've ever met. But the problems there seem so much more intractable than any I've seen in California. I will admit that my opinion may be skewed by the fact that my last memory of Houston was Hurricane Harvey, which was the first time I had ever experienced that kind of deadly natural disaster up close and personal. We were all ready to leave and the truck was supposed to come to pick up our belongings the day Harvey hit, and we had to postpone our trip for a week while we huddled in a room with water rising all around us and nothing but disaster porn on the TV. Rain pounded on the windows for five straight days and the sound was enough to make you insane. When we came over the hills into our little sleepy coastal town, there were real tears of joy on my wife's face, and that first glimpse of the Pacific as the sun started dipping made me feel like my heart was going to burst. Maybe I'll come to my senses someday and get tired of all this beauty, but not today.
Now you have a good Memorial Day weekend, ooloorie. If I said anything overly insulting or unnecessarily mean, I'm honestly sorry. If you come this way, I'll be happy to buy you an adult beverage of your choice.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If yiure nit a conservative what are you?
No really, thank you.
I know. What a shameful state of affairs to be such a big ecomomy and having to play follow the leader. Chin up cobber.
(thank you for reminding me about that picture that is - it's a funny pic)
Wow, I wish I didn't have to pay property taxes in CA. Or high sales taxes. Or toll roads (which there are several in the LA area - not to mention bridge tolls in the Bay). And our roads are pretty trashed, but it's OK we'll soon have High Speed Rail (at 100 MPH!) between Bakersfield and Fresno, so we have that going for us...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Martial Arts and Surfing is a good fit.
What MA are you practicing/teaching?
A few years ago an "experienced" stand up paddle board girl wanted to "teach me how to paddle" :D I think the first day I dropped into the water about 4 times ... and the next 2 weeks occasionally. I explained to her: it is like martial arts, you take a deep stance (on such a board a variation of Neko Dachi or Sanchin Dachi) bend your knees, it is super easy to hold balance (I do Aikido/Kenjutsu and Goju Ryu Karate)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And unless you make more than $90k/year, other people are subsidizing you.
What a nonsense. As long as he makes more money than he spends, no one is subsiding him.
I find his CV exciting enough, and you seem to have a bad day today?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
In the US, government spends about $21000/person/year on infrastructure, services, and other expenses and that money needs to come from somewhere. Just maintaining the California beach town he loves so much takes a lot of money. Given the US progressive tax system, you hit the balance where you pay more in taxes than you consume in services in about the 80th percentile, that is at around $95000.
Indeed, but an "exciting CV" doesn't pay the national bills. That is, the fact that he can hang out in a California beach town and surf is only possible because people in Silicon Valley, Boston, New York, etc. are working their asses off and paying massive amounts of taxes. And as many more people emulate him, namely having fun instead of working the stressful, dreary job that society spent large amounts raising and training him for, the country increasingly slides into insolvency.
A classical liberal. Meaning, I think you should be free to do whatever you want to, but nobody else should be forced to pay for the consequences of your choices.
I loved zipping from Shanghai to Nanjing in a little over an hour, or Brussels to Cologne in under 2 hours, riding trains rolling at 240 KPH or faster. Here in Southern California, I often find myself on my motorcycle, cruising down the 101 at 110 KPH, and watch as I pass the Amtrak train - itself "speeding" along at a brisk 90 KPH!
Yeah, we don't have High Speed Rail - but then again, we still don't know how we're going to get it to Los Angeles, and it's only going to cost $100 billion and not be ready until 2033. But hey, High Speed Rail! :(
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Given the US progressive tax system, you hit the balance where you pay more in taxes than you consume in services in about the 80th percentile, that is at around $95000.
Sorry, but that sounds absurd. You must have absurd prices for the things the government is doing if you need such an absurd income to be in equilibrium with your tax spendings and what the government is paying for you.
Or you must have plenty of jobs that pay minimum that wage (like minimum half the work force). Both sounds very doubtful.
That is, the fact that he can hang out in a California beach town and surf is only possible because people in Silicon Valley, Boston, New York, etc. are working their asses off and paying massive amounts of taxes.
He did not say he is "hanging out and only surfs"
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If that were true, California could lower some of its crushing tax burden. In reality, I think those are nice political fictions based on creative accounting and irrational assumptions; in reality, California is in for massive fiscal and economic problems.
Oh, it's great for you personally, but it's a selfish choice. Since you are below your pension age, these should be your peak earning years and the peak years in which you pay taxes. With the choice you are making, you will likely never pay back the money society invested in you. Of course, you don't care, and I don't blame you for that.
I will actually join you, in that I'm planning on retiring early to some nice place: I don't see why I should be working my ass off when other people are making choices like you do. However, I won't be retiring to a California beach town. As California's and America's welfare system invariably deteriorates, these beautiful communities will increasingly be filled with human misery. I have seen enough beach towns in the third world to know that I don't want to live in such a place.
However, I think you ought to reflect on your behavior against your political views. What's the leftist motto for a perfect society? From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Is your maximum ability to contribute to society that of a surfer? Do you have a need to live in a beach resort? Of course not. Your ability to contribute is that of working as an IT manager until you die from a heart attack, and your need is for a few hundred square feet close to work, in a dull gray city. You only have the freedom to make the choices you are making because the US does not implement your political views.
I'm an absolute noob on the surfboard, but you're right about the stance. I practice strictly Chinese MA (mainly the internal ones for the past 15 years - Xing Yi, Bagua Zhang and of course Tai Chi Chuan) and the flowing weight distribution (ying/yang) is also very applicable. On the paddleboard I made the mistake initially of trying to maintain an evenly-distributed "horse" style stance and got nowhere. I like to imagine the waves are like a push-hands partner.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ah, interesting. I'm a fan of Bagua, but never practiced it. It is super rare in Germany but funnily there is a great teacher about 45km away from me.
Well, horse stance sounds incredible exhausting for surfing :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
US government spending is indeed very wasteful, starting with the massive military budget and interest on the national debt, but also much higher spending on social welfare, education, retirement, and healthcare.
But the biggest difference is tax progressivity. Median household income (middle class) in the US is around $60000. Average federal income tax at that income is 3.8%, and about 12% with social security and Medicare/Medicaid. Nearly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes, and low income earners actually "pay" negative taxes (they get additional money from the government). In contrast, median household income in Germany is about $46000, and average taxes at that income level are around 22%, and about 40% with social security. That is, Europe taxes its middle class much more heavily than the US, while the US places a much larger burden on high income earners and redistributes the revenue.
I didn't say that he just "hangs out". He seems to work in fitness (surfing, martial arts); a typical annual income would be $40000 and he'd probably have no income tax liability at all.
Now you tell me.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Wow, and they don't pay other taxes around that income bracket?
Sounds quite absurd from an european point of view, especially when you hear all the whining of "middle class" americans about the high taxes.
In Germany about 7k income is tax free ... towards about 12k of income you get social aid ... above roughly 12k income you start paying taxes, it is a it absurd, because if you come into strange "brackets", you drop after taxes so low in income that you get social aid again, while still paying taxes. (Of course that all changes if married and if you have kids) There are plenty of tax reform suggestions including various UBI or flat rate tax systems plus minimum wage etc. but no one really has the guts to reform the system. Instead of that they simply continue to tweak the same old parameters by screwing a little screw here or there.
I mean if your situation was much more known, I know plenty of people who would love to have an easy living on 45k or 60k income. However in Germany you would not come far with that, as everything, housing, food etc. is much more expensive than in the US.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Not a lot. Average sales tax is around 7%. Gas taxes are small compared to Germany. Property taxes are around 1% per year, a little lower than in Germany.
It is indeed absurd. Keep in mind, however, that more than half of all American tax payers will make more than $100000/year for several years during their lifetime and people making $200000-500000/year would still consider themselves "middle class" in the US.
In any case, Americans recognize that there is a problem: America spends about as much per capita on social welfare as Sweden (on top of massive military spending), but doesn't collect enough in taxes to pay for it, leading to massive debt. But nobody knows how to fix it in a way that voters would vote for.
From wikipedia, for convenience: The view that modern liberalism is a continuation of classical liberalism is not universally shared.[50] James Kurth, Robert E. Lerner, John Micklethwait, Adrian Wooldridge and several other political scholars have argued that classical liberalism still exists today, but in the form of American conservatism.[51] According to Deepak Lal, only in the United States does classical liberalism—through American conservatives—continue to be a significant political force.[
I certainly don't share it. That's why I emphasize that I am a classical liberal. Modern American "liberalism" is an authoritarian leftist ideology.
So? Why would I care that some pompous "neo-liberal" British ass lumps together classical liberalism and American conservatism? They are not the same. As a classical liberal, I think you should be free to f*ck and marry whoever you want to, but you should have to accept responsibility for the consequences. The conservative American position is that the law should prohibit you from f*cking and marrying people social conservatives disapprove of, so that's not a classically liberal position. The modern "liberal" American position is that you should be free to f*ck and marry whoever you want to and the state should force others to pay for the consequences, again, not a classically liberal position either. That's why classical liberals are neither conservatives nor modern "liberals".
Classical liberalism is closer to conservatism only in the sense that classical liberals and conservatives can actually have rational discussions about issues and agree to disagree. Nobody can have a rational discussion with American "liberals" anymore: if you disagree with their party line, they will call you a Nazi and white supremacist and try to destroy your life.
Read the words. The first sentence is not about classical liberalism. You ignored several US opinions about liberalism to make a comment about nationality that is wholly irrelevant. I'm a "liberal" treat have not called you a Nazi and don't believe you are one. It is entirely possible to have a rational debate with some modern liberals just as with some classical liberals you just get called extreme left! I believe though when you say you are a classical liberal, but in the USA, and to some extent in the UK, this is associated with conservatism. I certainly don't see a particular distinction between your views and mainstream conservatism that also values individual liberty. My views fall closer to modern liberalism in many areas, and I value individual freedom and self-reliance, but also recognise value in collective action and social justice that it's unlikely to arise out of a free market. I also recognise that a free market is not always efficient, although technically that is also part of classical liberalism too.
I didn't "make a comment about nationality"; I refered to "American liberalism" because. as a political movement, it is distinct from contemporary European liberalism, neo-liberalism, and classical liberalism. "American liberalism" is a label for an ideology, not your nationality. Many Europeans are "American liberals", they just call themselves something different in Europe.
If you believe that social justice is a valid political objective and that the free market needs to be restrained, you are an authoritarian leftist. Saying that you "value individual freedom and self-reliance" is just a fig leaf. As a classical liberal, I strongly oppose social justice as a political objective because it is in fundamental conflict with a just society and equality under the law (in addition, social justice is also a harmful policy for government to pursue).
It is certainly not possible to have a rational debate with you at this point because you haven't even stated a rational, consistent political or moral position. That's characteristic of the modern American left, which has rejected rationality and instead embraces critical theory, identity, and postmodernism. You even illustrate this nicely:
For you, "association" with something is sufficient to identify me with that something, ignoring the clear explanation I gave of how conservatism and classical liberalism actually differ. That's what I was getting at with my hyperbolic statement "they will call you a Nazi and white supremacist": you don't reason and you ignore rational arguments, you just "associate".
So, yes, classical liberalism is "associated with" conservatism in the US, but they are still different ideologies. I am not a political conservative.
You exactly made a comment about nationality referencing the fact that a commentator was British. Do you not remember?
I didn't "make a comment about nationality"; I refered to "American liberalism" because. as a political movement, it is distinct from contemporary European liberalism, neo-liberalism, and classical liberalism. "American liberalism" is a label for an ideology, not your nationality. Many Europeans are "American liberals", they just call themselves something different in Europe.
If you believe that social justice is a valid political objective and that the free market needs to be restrained, you are an authoritarian leftist. Saying that you "value individual freedom and self-reliance" is just a fig leaf. As a classical liberal, I strongly oppose social justice as a political objective because it is in fundamental conflict with a just society and equality under the law (in addition, social justice is also a harmful policy for government to pursue).
It is certainly not possible to have a rational debate with you at this point because you haven't even stated a rational, consistent political or moral position. That's characteristic of the modern American left, which has rejected rationality and instead embraces critical theory, identity, and postmodernism. You even illustrate this nicely:
For you, "association" with something is sufficient to identify me with that something, ignoring the clear explanation I gave of how conservatism and classical liberalism actually differ. That's what I was getting at with my hyperbolic statement "they will call you a Nazi and white supremacist": you don't reason and you ignore rational arguments, you just "associate".
So, yes, classical liberalism is "associated with" conservatism in the US, but they are still different ideologies. I am not a political conservative.
it is very hard to have a rational debate with someone who has such a binary view of the world which is apparently either unfettered capitalism or authoritarianism. So it seems that "they will call you a left wing authoritarian" is something I could say. You've accused me of that (without foundation), yet I have not launched any such attack on you.
.
P.S. I can't demonstrate anything about the American left as I'm European.
You attempted an appeal to authority in support of your argument and quoted Deepak Lal. I'm saying that even if I considered your appeal to authority valid, I do not consider Deepak Lal an authority on the US; he is a British neo-liberal and expert on Asia, not a US policy wonk.
Well, yes it is, and that is your view. After all, you hold the view that everybody to the right of center is a conservative.
I contrast, I recognize that there are many political viewpoints: classical liberal, libertarians, conservatives, democratic socialists, communists, etc. All of those groups are capable of rational discourse, even if they vehemently disagree. And then there are American progressives and American liberals, who are different from all the aforementioned groups.
As I was saying Many Europeans are "American liberals", they just call themselves something different in Europe. Where do you think crap like critical theory and postmodernism comes from originally? From Europe (specifically, France and Germany), not from the US.
For your handy reference, here is a map of political orientations.
Here is another more detailed quiz determining where you fit on a 2D map
Actual political orientation is probably higher dimensional than that, but you might at least try to figure out where you fit on these 2D maps.
I've done these sort of tests before. They never categorise me as left authoritarian as you would pigeonhole me
Well, yes it is, and that is your view. After all, you hold the view that everybody to the right of center is a conservative.
I contrast, I recognize that there are many political viewpoints: classical liberal, libertarians, conservatives, democratic socialists, communists, etc. All of those groups are capable of rational discourse, even if they vehemently disagree. And then there are American progressives and American liberals, who are different from all the aforementioned groups.
No, I don't think everyone right-of-centre is a conservative. There are people who are part of the authoritarian right, and I have a right libertarian friend, and an American conservative friend. Your characterisation of the American left, though, seems very odd, especially given that it does not at all fit with American liberals that I know. Your view seems very close minded and partisan. And you also accused me of being left authoritarian, as that seems to fit your pre-conceived ideas, yet according to your own preferred test is not the case.
what I do believe is that American conservatism is currently the home of classical liberals. I would note that this it's not the same as saying the GOP, as to me it looks like Conservatism spans both major US parties, with some right libertarian and right authoritarians in the GOP, and modern liberals in the Democrats, and nuance half-a-dozen socialists, and even a few soft right authoritarians.
You're playing meaningless word games. The fact remains that I'm a classical liberal, not a conservative. I explained to you the difference, you simply refuse to even read the explanation.
It seems odd to you because both the American left and you do not actually have a logically consistent political position, you are merely engaging in empty political posturing. That's why you can simultaneously advocate authoritarian positions and policies, while at the same time stating and believing that you "value liberty".
I grew up in Europe and even voted there, became a registered Democrat after naturalization and then became an independent, so my political positions are rooted in ample experience and I have demonstrated my willingness to change my political positions based on rational arguments. How about you?
Now, about your charge of partisanship: the only position I have expressed is a criticism of the American left. So which group are you accusing me of being a partisan for? Surely not conservatives, since I reject many of their political views. What you are actually revealing is merely your own partisanship and narrowmindedness: it is you who divides the world into your tribe and "everybody else" and accuse people who criticize your tribe of "partisanship".
I merely gave those quizzes to get you to think about political orientations in a multidimensional way and, in particular, that conservatism is in a different place from libertarianism (which is closest to classical liberalism on that chart).
But the axes are mislabeled. You can see that the actual distribution of responses is roughly triangular, with the classical liberals concentrated in the bottom right corner; anything outside the bottom right quadrant is authoritarian. In other words, in a society with maximum individual liberty, there can't be any political left-right distinctions anymore.
Been there, done that on the multi-dimensional aspect. Two dimensions are a start, if limiting. Often the questions lack sufficient context, though.
If you want to define classical liberalism as libertarianism with some understanding of human nature and consequences, I might agree with you.
anything outside the bottom right quadrant is authoritarian
That's your opinion, not borne out by evidence, though. I mentioned your suggestion that you considered me to be authoritarian on this basis, and I now need to clean tea off the bed sheets. She's American, by the way.
You believe I am playing mindless word games, but to me it seems like you are also doing so. I am happy to agree to disagree, though.
I grew up in Europe and even voted there, became a registered Democrat after naturalization and then became an independent, so my political positions are rooted in ample experience and I have demonstrated my willingness to change my political positions based on rational arguments.
Yet you seem to have the close-minded views of a true believer, which baffles me. No matter what I say to say that I am not what you consider me to be, despite me indicating I am not, you are intransigent. I consider the authoritarian label to be as insulting as it is incorrect.
There are many political scientists and economists that have proven that point. Your ignorance of that work doesn't change the correctness of their arguments. While they make long argument, it's also pretty obvious: any political ideology that involves imposition of social norms, redistribution of income, government attempts to increase equality of outcome for different groups is necessarily authoritarian since it involves government taking of private property and interference in freedom of association, if necessary at gunpoint, hence authoritarian.
It's also quite obvious simply by looking at the economy: European conservatives, social democrats, and progressives have created systems in which the majority of economic activity is under state control; more than 50% of state control over economic interactions is reasonably considered authoritarian (with 100% being totalitarian).
And just like many privileged, American women, she gets into bed with authoritarians..
Well, and again you demonstrate that you are not interested in rational discussion. To wit: (1) This discussion started with you calling me a "conservative"; I responded "I'm not a conservative, I'm a classical liberal, here is why the two are not the same: ...". Your response? Nothing related to my points, instead more of an appeal to authority or intuition "you're a conservative because classical liberalism is associated with conservatism". (2) You view "authoritarian" as an insult and a label, instead of as a possibly valid description of your ideology. So your response is "you are closed minded", "you are insulting me", "you're a partisan", "nobody has shown that", etc. The proper response would be "why would you believe that?" and "who else made that argument?"
Your beliefs and style of reasoning are typical of the European intelligentsia and the American left. Like many classical liberals (as well as conservatives), I started out as a member of your tribe until I realized what those groups actually stand for and what their history actually is.
I'm a "true believer" only in one thing: a rejection of the American left and related ideologies. And that happened because I opened my mind to other ideologies, which is why I moved away from your political beliefs. The problem is your closed-mindedness, not mine.
There are many political scientists and economists that have proven that point.
You are confusing having opinions with evidence. It's not always backed by evidence.
Your ignorance of that work doesn't change the correctness of their arguments. While they make long argument, it's also pretty obvious: any political ideology that involves imposition of social norms, redistribution of income, government attempts to increase equality of outcome for different groups is necessarily authoritarian
There is some merit in this argument, however, I believe in the minimum amount of this to ensure people have reasonable lives, and the minimum interference of government in other areas of people's lives.
it involves government taking of private property
Private property would not exist in any meaningful way for an extended period without government backing it up, though. It would be nice if it didn't require this, but realistically it does.
and interference in freedom of association, if necessary at gunpoint, hence authoritarian.
Er, I don't see much interference of freedom of association from the libertarian left, so that seems to be inserting your prejudice and imposing it on what you believe to be the views of others, when it is not.
It's also quite obvious simply by looking at the economy: European conservatives, social democrats, and progressives have created systems in which the majority of economic activity is under state control; more than 50% of state control over economic interactions is reasonably considered authoritarian (with 100% being totalitarian).
If you think that, I don't think you know what authoritarian means, which is probably why we argue at cross-purposes.
And just like many privileged, American women
She grew up dirt poor.
Well, and again you demonstrate that you are not interested in rational discussion. To wit: (1) This discussion started with you calling me a "conservative"; I responded "I'm not a conservative, I'm a classical liberal, here is why the two are not the same: ...
My response was to indicate that many believe that conservatism and classical liberalism to be the same thing. That seems like rational debate to me.
"Many believe that..." is not a rational argument.
So does everybody, for some definition of "reasonable" and "minimum". Even the Nazis believed that, they simply thought that "minimum" meant carting Jews off to the gas chambers. Modern Europeans believe that it means taking more than half of people's productive labor (that's more than under slavery). It's the definition of "reasonable" and "minimum" where all the differences between political views are.
I know of no evidence for this. To the contrary, game theory and biology suggest the opposite. Nor is government required to create free markets.
More weasel words ("much interference", "from the libertarian left", "your prejudice", etc.). Do you have a specific point to make?
I gave my definition and criteria for authoritarianism. You're welcome to do the same, instead of refering to unnamed authorities. Specifically, why do you think that a form of government that forcibly takes around half of the labor of people and regulates pretty much every aspect of their public and private lives shouldn't be called "authoritarian"?
It is simply a short hand for having to dig through an present a larger boxy of evidence. It is not necessarily a logical fallacy unless the larger body of evidence does not exist. It's also a statement of fact in an of itself. This is seen informal internet forum so I'm not going to spend the effort to organise detailed citations as I would for an academic paper.
Comparison to the Nazis is extreme. To me, it is also painful as my wife's grandmother was a guest of that regime in Auschwitz. (My wife is very upset with this comparison) The game theory paper is essentially a review paper, and is only one example and would seem to be "a researcher believes", not even "researchers". In particular, it looks at animal studies but lacks human studies, rather appeals to political philosophers. If you seriously think that if you leave your front door open and dismantle the police you possessions will be respected, you are delusional. As for the word authoritarian, I like to use the dictionary term "favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom." as opposed to the definition "there are taxes". If you are just going to redefine words when it suits you then rational debate is impossible. Goodbye.
I didn't compare you to the Nazis, I made the point that every political ideology has its own definition of "reasonable" and "minimal", even the most deplorable ideologies.
I didn't call you a Nazi, so spare me the outrage. I made a point about the fact that your statement of what you believe, a statement that you seem to believe is moderate, is so wide ranging that it even encompasses the Nazis, precisely because I was assuming that you are not a Nazi. That is, your statement of your political ideology is meaningless, because it encompasses everything from liberal centrism to the most extreme and murderous ideologies.
Look, you made the claim that private property wouldn't exist without government, with no proof or evidence. I gave you one paper that explains to you why it is false (private property exists even in animals, without government). And as a "review paper", it has lots of references you can follow.
As the paper shows, private property is something that even animals are hardwired to respect, and it is something that game theoretically arises among interacting individuals without government. So, that contradicts your point that private property wouldn't exist without government. At this point, not only have you failed to provide any evidence for your point of view, you also haven't explained why a reasonable, mainstream, well-sourced review paper that contradicts you is wrong.
And you still haven't stated a clear political ideology, instead stating something so vague that it encompasses everything from liberal centrism to extreme totalitarianism, depending on your definitions of "minimal" and "required".
That's an excellent definition; I agree.
I didn't use "there are taxes" as a definition, I used it as an indicator. I'm sorry, I should have recognized that the connection isn't clear to you. Wouldn't you say that if government authorities force me at gunpoint to work 1000 hours for the government, that meets the definition of "enforcing strict obedience to the authority at the expense of personal freedom"?
Lucky then that I'm not "just redefining words" but actually telling you what I mean. I'm still waiting for a rational response from you.
You have provided neither evidence nor arguments for the idea that conservatism and classical liberalism are the same. I have provided both evidence and arguments against it.
Private property does not exist in animals in the sense that humans have it. It's a false equivalence. Animals defend territory I some instances, but generally on an individual basis with relatively evenly matched teeth and claws. Where there is not an even match (e.g. An individual versus a pack) then if there is competition for the same resource then the individual loses. Whilst the concept of private property can exist without government your ability to hold onto property is limited if there is an imbalance of power. Thus without structures to enforce the rule of law then much like a mugging in a park the unnamed individual loses to the gang with knives unless they are a particularly bloody mined yorkshireman in central park that convinces them via debate to leave him alone. When societal groups are small then family relationships can dominate,but in larger groups government of some form emerges to ensure rights.
I thought you had already told me what i believe, so went would i stage my views. Well, i have but you told me i couldn't it and was wrong, so went should i bother to restate it?
Your statement of your political beliefs seems to amount to "I value everything that's good and oppose everything that's bad, I am for moderation when moderation is called for, and strong action when strong action is called for." I merely pointed out that that's not a meaningful statement of political beliefs, it is simple empty posturing, which it obviously is. Based on that feedback, you could clarify a statement a statement of your political positions, but you haven't done so.
All you are revealing there is your total ignorance of animal behavior.
And what prevents the private park owner from hiring security guards to keep private park visitors from being safe? Whether in my home, at work, or most places where I go for recreation, it is private security, not government police, that protects me and my property. In fact, the police are pretty much completely useless when it comes to property crime: they rarely prevent it, rarely investigate it, and even more rarely recover it.
In larger groups mechanisms merge to ensure rights; those mechanisms are frequently non-governmental even today.