However, in Norway the population is, by and large, loyal to the government, believe it or not. In fact, that is how it is in most of Europe, AFAIK. Even if we don't agree with the government's policies, we still trust and respect them.
Yes, and what's the result? When Europeans get good rulers, they prosper. But when they get rules like Louis XIV, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, people suffer and die on a massive scale.
The American way is not the only way.
Americans know that; European history is a big part of the US curriculum. Unfortunately, the reverse is obviously not true: to Europeans, there is only the European way.
One doesn't need to be an "expert" in order to apply logic and statistics; wood burning stoves are a negligible contribution to particulate pollution in most locations.
Furthermore, the experts at the EPA need to make a compelling argument for their regulations; it is insufficient to say "we think this is best, and we don't have to make a clear and convincing argument to the people".
Also, it is still completely irrelevant to my original point, which still stands: "Why would devices that cause early deaths for people around them ([...]) only be outlawed in certain states?"
Because we do not have as a principle of government "government should make all things illegal that cause early deaths for people around them". Individuals and communities have a right to make their own tradeoffs between numbers of years lived and other factors. It is none of your or the federal government's bloody business how long we choose to live.
You're kidding, right? I don't see how it's funny, but you sure as hell can't be serious.
No, I'm not kidding at all. Show me a law that prohibits selling combinations of rat poison and baby formula, or even combinations of rat poison and any kind of food. Such combinations not only are legal, they are commonly sold. It's called "poisoned rat bait".
Like I said: you really suck at this.
At what? Bouncing arguments of an ideologically hardened, illogical person like you? You probably can't be convinced of anything. it's still good exercise to ferret out all the silly objections people like you come up with.
1. Any attack against a person is an ad hominem. Including name calling.
An "argumentum ad hominem" is not about attacks against persons; it means trying to invalidate arguments by questioning the motivations or authority of the person making the argument.
Your rhetorical question of "You're the expert on this, right?" is an ad hominem, "You're an idiot" is merely name calling.
Can you provide me with an example of a government that willingly handed back money and power back to the people on anything remotely close to this scale?
A number of nations had peaceful transitions from monarchy to democracy. Different nations have also undergone decentralization, devolution, and privatization (e.g., the UK).
Do you think that the government that is in place in the USA now is going to allow itself to be cut in half?
Despite the cynicism, it's all about the people we elect. Although the Tea Party got side-tracked and hijacked by conservatives, they managed to put quite a few candidates in place that have pushed for smaller government. That can happen again.
Air quality is one of those things that crosses local and state governments. What state 1 allows (burning of wood in high-particulate furnaces) affects state 2; so it's a job for the federal government.
It would be a job for the federal government if there were an actual problem. Is there an actual, demonstrable problem? Are two states in some irreconcilable conflict over emissions from wood burning stoves? If not, there isn't a problem that requires federal regulation to solve.
It's also all very much irrelevant to my original point, which still stands: "Why would devices that cause early deaths for people around them ([...]) only be outlawed in certain states?"
Outlawing things just because they have the potential of causing early deaths when used incorrectly is a bad principle, and not one that we generally use in government. Wood burning stoves clearly do not cause early deaths in most situations; they are only a risk when they actually increase particulate count significantly, and that only happens under pretty special conditions. And if you make that argument for wood burning stoves, you need to make it for burning yard wastes, fireplaces, and just about any other form of burning plant materials.
You know: why outlaw the addition of rat poison to baby milk in [state X], but not in [state Y]?
As far as I know, there are no laws outlawing the addition of rat poison to baby milk. I suspect that combinations of baby milk and rat poison are actually being sold.
Also one of the dumbest ad hominems (poisoning the well).
You don't understand what an ad hominem is either. An ad hominem is an attempt to win an argument by attacking the credibility of the person making the argument. I'm just telling you that you are an idiot, quite separately from any argument. Good riddance.
In 1929, government spending was around 7% of GDP, in 1970 it was at around 25%, today it's at nearly 40% of GDP. Regulations, federal law enforcement, and the number of agencies have also greatly increased. We could go easily turn back the clock by several decades without ill effect.
Stop thinking in these narrow party terms. Each party has a wide range of candidates to choose from during the primaries. Make better choices there. And with the changes in media, financing, and social networking, people have much more power than before to push for candidates that reflect their preferences.
In this case, the EPA is the lowest level of government that can make national environmental rules.... If you're against a lot of the things like this that the federal government does, then you lost that battle long ago. I tend to agree in many areas (education, why do we have a federal dept for that?), but the fact is, the courts have long ago ruled that our federal government can do all this.
We're not talking about what the federal government can do. In principle, the federal government could reinstitute slavery and outlaw abortion: all it takes is appointing the right supreme court justices and passing some amendments. The question is what the federal government should do and what it is that is beneficial for it to do.
If you don't like what the EPA is doing, tell your Congress person, he/she (and their friends in Congress) have the power to change it. Nothing the EPA does is set in stone, it can all be changed by an act of Congress.
Yes, but the more important part of the political process is to convince our fellow citizens that change is needed. And that's why we're talking. Telling me that the EPA has the power to impose these rules is irrelevant. The question is whether it is good government for it to do so and it is not, and by what principles we, as a people, should choose out government to act.
I'm telling you: elect federal representatives that fight for small government, low taxes, and decentralization.
That's utter bullshit. The huge expansion of federal rule making is a fairly recent phenomenon. We can certainly reverse it the same way it happened: gradually, by electing people who change it in the opposite direction. All it takes is for more people like you to get their heads out of their asses.
You don't need "massive campaigns", you just need to do something. In every primary and every election, there are candidates supporting lower taxes, cutting programs, and smaller government; vote for them.
Oh, and expect that anybody who advocates smaller government will be demonized, because both Republicans and Democrats see their money threatened.
But unless you want to turn the US into some kind of Amish paradise, the solution to this problem is not to prevent private corporations from using private data, the solution is to prohibit government from acquiring and using private data under most circumstances, and disclose when they do.
Both the governments of the United States of American and that of Great Britain have proven to be DISHONEST _and_ UNPRINCIPLED !
So have most of the other governments in Europe and elsewhere.
And btw, if you see the performance of John McCain, especially how he tried to blame Edward Snowden, you would understand how ludicrously pathetic American politicians have become...
US politicians have always been this pathetic. The difference is that they now run more than 40% of the economy (25% at the federal level) and control what you eat, drink, and do in the privacy of your own home. The solution is not to hope for less pathetic politicians, the solution is to reduce their power again to the levels they used to have.
Apple has chosen as its trademark a small, flat, long, and narrow rectangle with rounded corners. And Apple made a big deal over this. Apple made their bed, let them sleep in it.
Samsung ended up with the rounded smooth shapes. Samsung should patent the look and feel of phones with curved screens. They could file separate patents for different curvatures.
I'm not "cherry picking which rules I like". I'm saying that these rules don't meet the criteria for how or what the federal government should do. My objection has nothing to do with whether this rule is justified or useful. It may well be, but that's for counties and states to decide, not the federal government. And some of them may get it wrong, which is why there may be different rules for different places.
In fact, rules and laws that are demonstrably useful usually don't need to be passed at the federal level because the states already have them. Most criminal law and tort law is state level law. The EPA is making these rules at the federal level precisely because the evidence is weak. And instead of a couple of states getting it something wrong, when the federal government screws up and makes errors (and they do), the entire nation has to pay the price.
The problem is that some people will refuse to accept evidence because it goes against their prior assumptions or beliefs, regardless of how "true" it might be.
And the solution you propose is that unelected officials with no accountability determine things based on their gut feeling. That fails to be a democracy.
The problem is, based on your post, that you're waiting for evidence that *you* personally believe.
Not at all. What I insist on is that decisions that affect our lives are made by the lowest level of government that is able to do it (subsidiarity, decentralization), that decisions are based on reason and sound evidence, and that decision makers are responsible to the people. Those are classic American political values and principles. They also were a key issue in European revolutions. Read de Tocqueville, among others. And these principles and values are increasingly being eroded, and our democracy along with it.
You're vociforously spelling out everything except what I originally asked: how you think the ministry of truth relates to this.
Original post (by someone else): "'liberal' doesn't seem to mean 'liberal'"
Me: "'Ministry of Truth' didn't mean 'ministry of truth'"
Picking misleading names is a hallmark of totalitarian regimes.
Looks like my "bullshit" facts are right.
No, you simply (and predictably) picking and choosing numbers, and without understanding them. It's pointless to debate these issues with people like you; you are so religious and narrowminded that nothing will sway you.
And in your case, you seem to be particularly handicapped because you don't even understand a simple and obvious literary analogy.
Yes, but what happens when the person (or company or country) that is polluting isn't behaving like an adult?
Then you go up a level of government. I don't object to all federal regulations, I'm saying they should solve an actual problem, not a hypothetical future one.
Have wood-burning stoves been a major source of interstate environmental conflicts?
What you're saying is that outlawing anything is a bad idea if there are worse alternatives that aren't outlawed.
No, what I am saying is that federal regulations should be rational, consistent, limited, and justified.
Who the hell cares, man? Don't be so obtuse and pretend like it matters which fucking state I used as an example.
It matters because it shows that you don't know the fuck what you're talking about and obviously don't care. But maybe you care about abortion, or gay marriage, or strong cryptography, or being able to build electronics in your basement without being accused of being a terrorist. Then you will start mouthing off about how it is your right to do this or do that, and how dare people come in and restrict what you do!
You're no different from the people who argued that homosexuality and abortions should be illegal because it harms society, or who demand NSA spying and total Internet surveillance because of terrorism and pedophiles; you simply pick a different set of pet peeves.
Now lets say he is actually one state over, and everyone over there sees no reason to change, their whole economy loves having the income from the toxic chemicals. My state doesn't like it, but since my state doesn't control the laws over there, what do we do about it? Go up a level to the national government to get a solution.
I'm perfectly happy with that if such a problem actually demonstrably exist. Until it does, no federal regulation is needed or justified.
Is there clear, legally valid evidence that wood-burning stoves pose significant threats across state lines? Is there evidence that local and state governments refuse to address such a threat?
Why would devices that cause early deaths for people around them (let's not argue whether that is the case) only be outlawed in certain states?
Whether you get lung cancer depends on many factors; you can't just blame it on one source.
Furthermore, the result of this ban may simply be that people install fireplaces instead, together with some other heating system, resulting in worse pollution.
You're proposing a situation where it is perfectly okay to sell or manufacture these stoves in California, but not in Minnesota, because people in California generally don't use wood stoves.
WTF are you talking about? There are lots of people using wood stoves in California. They are very popular in ski areas.
That is absolutely retarded.
What's "absolutely retarded" is the simplistic chain of reasoning involved in this ban.
Tradeoffs between what and what, exactly?
There are many tradeoffs involved here: cost, different energy sources, acceptable pollution, character of the environment, etc. In theory, there might even be a tradeoff between money and human lives, and that too is a tradeoff we make daily, whether you like it or not.
Because there are few places in the United states where two communities are adjacent along a state or local border, such that wood burning in one would not affect the other? Surely you didn't just say that.
And counties and states actually can solve most local problems locally without knee-jerk EPA rules. Imagine that.
The dysfunction in washington exists because the system has been warped such that the participants aren't motivated to act like adults and actually solve problems.
Adults solve their problems through negotiation and cooperation. It's your thinking that is infantile, since you don't seem to be able to imagine that problems can be solved without some paternalistic authority.
That would just open them up to the tyranny of the majority.
"Tyranny of the majority" is what we have right now, where people in Washington don't give a f*ck about what people in rural America want or need.
If people in one of those towns decide they want to emit dangerous pollution, or maybe dump toxic chemicals in their backyards for profit, or do anything else that harms everyone just for their own benefit should they be allowed to do so?
They are already not allowed to do so; we don't need any new laws for that.
This affects people's right to live in a reasonably clean and healthy environment. Nothing can overrule that.
First, there is no evidence that this rule contributes to it. Second, there is no evidence that other, simpler measures wouldn't be as effective or more effective.
Third, if environmental concerns trumped everything, we wouldn't have cars or electricity or most other things that we rely on and that pollute. We always make tradeoffs,
At some point, the actions that you take as a person, which by themselves don't hurt anyone, added up by the millions, do...
And when you have clear evidence for that, then it's time for government to act, first at the local level and through the legal system, then moving up to the state and federal level and to legislation, if and only if the local solutions don't work.
Or do you expect everyone else to stop so you can continue?
I expect policies to be formulated in a reasonable and gradual way, based on sound scientific evidence and political need, instead for people to randomly impose federal regulations in a knee-jerk fashion and without much understanding of what's going on in the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and what's the result? When Europeans get good rulers, they prosper. But when they get rules like Louis XIV, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, people suffer and die on a massive scale.
Americans know that; European history is a big part of the US curriculum. Unfortunately, the reverse is obviously not true: to Europeans, there is only the European way.
One doesn't need to be an "expert" in order to apply logic and statistics; wood burning stoves are a negligible contribution to particulate pollution in most locations.
Furthermore, the experts at the EPA need to make a compelling argument for their regulations; it is insufficient to say "we think this is best, and we don't have to make a clear and convincing argument to the people".
Because we do not have as a principle of government "government should make all things illegal that cause early deaths for people around them". Individuals and communities have a right to make their own tradeoffs between numbers of years lived and other factors. It is none of your or the federal government's bloody business how long we choose to live.
No, I'm not kidding at all. Show me a law that prohibits selling combinations of rat poison and baby formula, or even combinations of rat poison and any kind of food. Such combinations not only are legal, they are commonly sold. It's called "poisoned rat bait".
At what? Bouncing arguments of an ideologically hardened, illogical person like you? You probably can't be convinced of anything. it's still good exercise to ferret out all the silly objections people like you come up with.
An "argumentum ad hominem" is not about attacks against persons; it means trying to invalidate arguments by questioning the motivations or authority of the person making the argument.
Your rhetorical question of "You're the expert on this, right?" is an ad hominem, "You're an idiot" is merely name calling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
A number of nations had peaceful transitions from monarchy to democracy. Different nations have also undergone decentralization, devolution, and privatization (e.g., the UK).
Despite the cynicism, it's all about the people we elect. Although the Tea Party got side-tracked and hijacked by conservatives, they managed to put quite a few candidates in place that have pushed for smaller government. That can happen again.
It would be a job for the federal government if there were an actual problem. Is there an actual, demonstrable problem? Are two states in some irreconcilable conflict over emissions from wood burning stoves? If not, there isn't a problem that requires federal regulation to solve.
Outlawing things just because they have the potential of causing early deaths when used incorrectly is a bad principle, and not one that we generally use in government. Wood burning stoves clearly do not cause early deaths in most situations; they are only a risk when they actually increase particulate count significantly, and that only happens under pretty special conditions. And if you make that argument for wood burning stoves, you need to make it for burning yard wastes, fireplaces, and just about any other form of burning plant materials.
As far as I know, there are no laws outlawing the addition of rat poison to baby milk. I suspect that combinations of baby milk and rat poison are actually being sold.
You don't understand what an ad hominem is either. An ad hominem is an attempt to win an argument by attacking the credibility of the person making the argument. I'm just telling you that you are an idiot, quite separately from any argument. Good riddance.
In 1929, government spending was around 7% of GDP, in 1970 it was at around 25%, today it's at nearly 40% of GDP. Regulations, federal law enforcement, and the number of agencies have also greatly increased. We could go easily turn back the clock by several decades without ill effect.
Stop thinking in these narrow party terms. Each party has a wide range of candidates to choose from during the primaries. Make better choices there. And with the changes in media, financing, and social networking, people have much more power than before to push for candidates that reflect their preferences.
We're not talking about what the federal government can do. In principle, the federal government could reinstitute slavery and outlaw abortion: all it takes is appointing the right supreme court justices and passing some amendments. The question is what the federal government should do and what it is that is beneficial for it to do.
Yes, but the more important part of the political process is to convince our fellow citizens that change is needed. And that's why we're talking. Telling me that the EPA has the power to impose these rules is irrelevant. The question is whether it is good government for it to do so and it is not, and by what principles we, as a people, should choose out government to act.
I'm telling you: elect federal representatives that fight for small government, low taxes, and decentralization.
That's utter bullshit. The huge expansion of federal rule making is a fairly recent phenomenon. We can certainly reverse it the same way it happened: gradually, by electing people who change it in the opposite direction. All it takes is for more people like you to get their heads out of their asses.
You don't need "massive campaigns", you just need to do something. In every primary and every election, there are candidates supporting lower taxes, cutting programs, and smaller government; vote for them.
Oh, and expect that anybody who advocates smaller government will be demonized, because both Republicans and Democrats see their money threatened.
But unless you want to turn the US into some kind of Amish paradise, the solution to this problem is not to prevent private corporations from using private data, the solution is to prohibit government from acquiring and using private data under most circumstances, and disclose when they do.
So have most of the other governments in Europe and elsewhere.
US politicians have always been this pathetic. The difference is that they now run more than 40% of the economy (25% at the federal level) and control what you eat, drink, and do in the privacy of your own home. The solution is not to hope for less pathetic politicians, the solution is to reduce their power again to the levels they used to have.
Apple has chosen as its trademark a small, flat, long, and narrow rectangle with rounded corners. And Apple made a big deal over this. Apple made their bed, let them sleep in it.
Samsung ended up with the rounded smooth shapes. Samsung should patent the look and feel of phones with curved screens. They could file separate patents for different curvatures.
I'm not "cherry picking which rules I like". I'm saying that these rules don't meet the criteria for how or what the federal government should do. My objection has nothing to do with whether this rule is justified or useful. It may well be, but that's for counties and states to decide, not the federal government. And some of them may get it wrong, which is why there may be different rules for different places.
In fact, rules and laws that are demonstrably useful usually don't need to be passed at the federal level because the states already have them. Most criminal law and tort law is state level law. The EPA is making these rules at the federal level precisely because the evidence is weak. And instead of a couple of states getting it something wrong, when the federal government screws up and makes errors (and they do), the entire nation has to pay the price.
And the solution you propose is that unelected officials with no accountability determine things based on their gut feeling. That fails to be a democracy.
Not at all. What I insist on is that decisions that affect our lives are made by the lowest level of government that is able to do it (subsidiarity, decentralization), that decisions are based on reason and sound evidence, and that decision makers are responsible to the people. Those are classic American political values and principles. They also were a key issue in European revolutions. Read de Tocqueville, among others. And these principles and values are increasingly being eroded, and our democracy along with it.
Original post (by someone else): "'liberal' doesn't seem to mean 'liberal'"
Me: "'Ministry of Truth' didn't mean 'ministry of truth'"
Picking misleading names is a hallmark of totalitarian regimes.
No, you simply (and predictably) picking and choosing numbers, and without understanding them. It's pointless to debate these issues with people like you; you are so religious and narrowminded that nothing will sway you.
And in your case, you seem to be particularly handicapped because you don't even understand a simple and obvious literary analogy.
Then you go up a level of government. I don't object to all federal regulations, I'm saying they should solve an actual problem, not a hypothetical future one.
Have wood-burning stoves been a major source of interstate environmental conflicts?
No, what I am saying is that federal regulations should be rational, consistent, limited, and justified.
It matters because it shows that you don't know the fuck what you're talking about and obviously don't care. But maybe you care about abortion, or gay marriage, or strong cryptography, or being able to build electronics in your basement without being accused of being a terrorist. Then you will start mouthing off about how it is your right to do this or do that, and how dare people come in and restrict what you do!
You're no different from the people who argued that homosexuality and abortions should be illegal because it harms society, or who demand NSA spying and total Internet surveillance because of terrorism and pedophiles; you simply pick a different set of pet peeves.
I'm perfectly happy with that if such a problem actually demonstrably exist. Until it does, no federal regulation is needed or justified.
Is there clear, legally valid evidence that wood-burning stoves pose significant threats across state lines? Is there evidence that local and state governments refuse to address such a threat?
Whether you get lung cancer depends on many factors; you can't just blame it on one source.
Furthermore, the result of this ban may simply be that people install fireplaces instead, together with some other heating system, resulting in worse pollution.
WTF are you talking about? There are lots of people using wood stoves in California. They are very popular in ski areas.
What's "absolutely retarded" is the simplistic chain of reasoning involved in this ban.
There are many tradeoffs involved here: cost, different energy sources, acceptable pollution, character of the environment, etc. In theory, there might even be a tradeoff between money and human lives, and that too is a tradeoff we make daily, whether you like it or not.
Geez, do you need to have it spelled out for you? US "liberalism" isn't "liberal".
You should verify your "facts", because you are spewing bullshit.
And counties and states actually can solve most local problems locally without knee-jerk EPA rules. Imagine that.
Adults solve their problems through negotiation and cooperation. It's your thinking that is infantile, since you don't seem to be able to imagine that problems can be solved without some paternalistic authority.
"Tyranny of the majority" is what we have right now, where people in Washington don't give a f*ck about what people in rural America want or need.
They are already not allowed to do so; we don't need any new laws for that.
First, there is no evidence that this rule contributes to it. Second, there is no evidence that other, simpler measures wouldn't be as effective or more effective.
Third, if environmental concerns trumped everything, we wouldn't have cars or electricity or most other things that we rely on and that pollute. We always make tradeoffs,
And when you have clear evidence for that, then it's time for government to act, first at the local level and through the legal system, then moving up to the state and federal level and to legislation, if and only if the local solutions don't work.
I expect policies to be formulated in a reasonable and gradual way, based on sound scientific evidence and political need, instead for people to randomly impose federal regulations in a knee-jerk fashion and without much understanding of what's going on in the country.
The fact that you don't get the reference and analogy is a sign of your poor education.
Wow, you really are completely out of touch with reality.