But mandating that you may only purchase "efficient" light bulbs is. If they are efficient, safe, and environmentally friendly enough to be of enough benefit to be a greater value to the purchaser, that's the choice most will make.
That enough people won't make that choice with the current levels of value perceived by the purchasers without government mandate means the technology is not yet ready, and mandating their use will not change that.
It's the removing of choice that's the issue, which is tyranny by definition.
> No harm, no foul. I knew your heart was in the right place, so I didn't go *too* hard on you.
Kind of full of yourself, aren't you?
What? Because I chose to respond to the OOP with an explanation of my sig that he flamed instead of simply outright flaming him back, and then replying to his mea culpa with a good-natured and polite acknowledgement means I'm "full of myself"??
I do not think that phrase means what you think it does.
Yeah because their approval ratings are stellar at the moment and Bachmann is just steam rolling the other candidates.
But at this point, even Ahmadin-I'm-A-Nutjob would win over Obama in a landslide, so I'm not too worried. Heck, one of my old boots would win over Obama. If teleprompters weren't allowed, the boot would also win the debates as well.
Rather than having a legitimate debate about the roles of government, republicans are keen to just to point something they don't like and say " that's liberal".
First, I'm not a Republican. Second, it's the policies and proposed legislation themselves that determine if they are Liberal/Progressive/Socialist. Socialist is as Socialist does, rinse & repeat for Liberal/Progressive. It matters not if the people proposing such policies have a D or R after their name, or what label they attach to themselves. GWB is/was a Progressive, because of the policies he pursued.
Some ideas sucha s the individual mandate, I assume you are obliquely refering to, were strongly suported and even proposed by those that would then and even now call themselves "conservative".
Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist. Ergo, those that propose such policies/legislation are Socialist, despite any labels they may dress themselves in.
As a subset of working examples in the US, I'd say someone who doesn't think you can manage your own healthcare, choose your own light bulbs, choose to work for less than minimum wage rather than be totally unemployed, choose what toilet or shower-head you have, choose whether or not to smoke, or choose to responsibly carry a firearm.
To name but a few.
It seems from the republican side, those are names for anyone you disagree with, but don't want to explain why.
Oops, I think I poked a big hole in your straw man.
Yeah, you're right. Nobody showed up when they voted in Scott Brown to replace Chappaquiddick "I left her where?" Teddy in Massachusetts. It was a shoo-in.
When they start winning elections during the presidential cycles then they might get some credibility.
I have the distinct feeling you're going to be suffering severe depression after Nov. 2012.
...and then of course taking bribes from larger companies to fund the movement.
Which of the many hundreds (maybe thousands by now) of local, totally independent local TEA Party groups got that cash? Because all the local TP groups in this state that I know of run solely on member donations. They struggle to keep their hosting & bandwidth charges paid for their websites.
You do realize, I hope, that there is no one national official TEA Party, just hundreds and hundreds of little local orgs, each with their own favorite issues and candidates, and taking marching orders from no one, right?
Do some googling. It's not like this info is hard to find. Unless, of course, that info doesn't comport with your partisan biases and narrow views.
The Occupy movement needs to elect officials to political office like the Tea Party if they are going to make any meaningful difference. If the Tea Party (1%) can manage to *change the balance of US congress* than surely Occupy can if they represent 99% of the population.
Well, if the TEA Party is winning elections, they must by definition be a lot more than 1% of at least the subset of actual voters.
Thought experiment; If all the OWS protesters assembled in front of the Lincoln Memorial, do you think it would be easy or hard to tell the photos of that OWS crowd from the photos taken of the 9/12 crowd based on the number of people visible?
And yet, I'm the one modded "Troll" and "Flamebait" after presenting an on-topic and sincere opinion held by a large sector of the population, if not the majority.
I'm just wondering if the mods in question are paid or stupid, fanatical, and venal enough to abuse moderation for free.
"Moderated -1, Troll"
Well, I guess that pretty well proves my answer is the latter rather than the former.
There is no 'Government'. There are many groups with different goals and responsibilities that are part of the government.
Except for the common goals shared by most employed people as a result of simple human nature of making their jobs pay more, be more important, grow their little corner in size so as to employ more and more people, and increase their power so as to make their jobs easier as well as harder to eliminate and also to make the previously-mentioned goals easier to accomplish.
Seeing that these goals are pretty universal to all employed people, many wouldn't think them a problem...except for the fact that they work for the only employer that has a monopoly on the use of deadly force and imprisonment, may seize private wealth and property, can start wars, and write the regulations and laws they enforce and we must live under.
Government and fire should be treated much the same and for very similar reasons. Although I must admit that for most in government outside the military, I wouldn't piss in their ears if their brains were on fire.
Most all laws over the last few decades have been deeply flawed in some way. That's what you get when you elect idiots.
No, it's what you get when you let a bloated central government interfere with every aspect of your life.
Central planners almost always fsck up, even when they're acting with good intentions; when they get something right it's almost always by chance.
This.
It's sad and ironic that so many that are invested in the entitlement society suffer selective blindness when the all-too-predictable results of such central planning & control manifests, and call for even more central planning & control to "fix" the problem of too much central planning & control.
It is not "Crony Capitalism". The thing that is often referred to as "Crony Capitalism" is just the inevitable result of a centrally planned economy (whether that centrally planned economy is called fascism, socialism, communism, or something else is irrelevant). When you give certain people the power to plan the economy, the end result is that sooner or later, and usually sooner, those people will start to manipulate things to favor their friends and associates. I just came across an article this morning that talked about this and reviewed a book on the subject [americanthinker.com] titled "Throw Them All Out".
No argument here. We agree.
I use the "Crony Capitalism" term because it pretty much describes just what you defined (at least in the definitions of Crony Capitalism I'm familiar with) and communicates the idea in a short forum post with fewer words, and tends to attract less vitriol from the un- and ill-informed than calling it straight-out Fascism, Communism, or Socialism.
Can you even tell me what "high desert" area we are talking about?
How dare you! Of course he can't! And it's unfair that you even ask! Didn't you get the memo? Criticism or questioning regarding AGW claims in any manner or form is verboten! Just look at the moderation of my posts in this discussion for proof.
Don't worry, I'm sure the invisible hand of the free market will step in and all will be OK.
That would be true if there weren't actors like China distorting prices in the market by dumping government-subsidized-manufacturing-produced solar panels on the market at below-cost rates in order to destroy foreign competition.
Free markets only work where there is a fair market. When governments step in to "tip the scales" in order to influence the market, there is no "free market". Same thing applies with Capitalism. As can be seen with the US, when the government steps in to prop up certain businesses and tear down others in an effort to engineer certain outcomes and societal directions, the result is not Capitalism, it's "Crony Capitalism", and that hasn't worked out so well for US citizens.
Good Lord, could you possibly be a dumber piece of shit?
Oh, gosh! Now I'm convinced!
You're superior powers of debate and your masterful and fact-filled argument have totally destroyed the points I raised.
And yet, I'm the one modded "Troll" and "Flamebait" after presenting an on-topic and sincere opinion held by a large sector of the population, if not the majority.
I'm just wondering if the mods in question are paid or stupid, fanatical, and venal enough to abuse moderation for free.
Or, you know, stop over consumption and make do with a perfectly reasonable lifestyle based on energy saving technologies that have been around for decades.
So, Mr. Climate & Global Economy Expert, exactly what is "reasonable" and how do you plan to force China, India, and other countries to adhere to the restrictions on their development that would be necessary for any meaningful results? How do you determine how much is enough and what is too much? Please tell us because, so far, nobody has any clear and provable answers.
The problem isn't humanity, the problem is shortsighted, selfish little shits like yourself that were ready to crucify Carter for suggesting you put on a sweater during the winter.
OK, the Carter comment let's us all know you're a True Believer, and like cultists and other religious zealots, you're immune to logic and facts. Maybe you can see if Carter would be willing to ask his alien friends on the UFO he claimed to see for a solution.
Wrong in that they *underestimated* how bad the problem is. And for you, this is reason to further ignore them?
Yes. Yes, it is. What's to say that any so-called "solution" they propose is any more accurate? What if they overestimate the "cure" and toss the planet straight into an "ice-world" climate?
Exactly the point: we need to stop fucking with it.
Well, since the only way to accomplish that is to slaughter most of humanity and have the survivors return to hunter-gatherer existence or just have humans perform a self-extinction, that's not an acceptable option.
Although I'm sure most here would be fine with you volunteering to go first.
My fear is we won't listen to scientists until it is too late and we have killed off the majority of the organisms that help us counter the CO2 we are pumping into the air or the other effects, e.g. ocean acidification.
You mean listen to the scientists that were wrong in their predictions regarding this glacier melt in the first place?
Yeah, that sounds like it'll turn out well.
This just emphasizes how little we know about how the earth's systems will react to global warming.
If we, by your own admission, know so little about the Earth's climate system, why in $DEITY's name would anyone think it's a good idea to engage in attempting to modify the behavior of a system we don't understand and can't predict, particularly when such proposed attempts come at great cost, suffering, and death to huge numbers of people?
Slashdot Mirror
Making light bulbs more efficient is not tyranny.
But mandating that you may only purchase "efficient" light bulbs is. If they are efficient, safe, and environmentally friendly enough to be of enough benefit to be a greater value to the purchaser, that's the choice most will make.
That enough people won't make that choice with the current levels of value perceived by the purchasers without government mandate means the technology is not yet ready, and mandating their use will not change that.
It's the removing of choice that's the issue, which is tyranny by definition.
Strat
> No harm, no foul. I knew your heart was in the right place, so I didn't go *too* hard on you.
Kind of full of yourself, aren't you?
What? Because I chose to respond to the OOP with an explanation of my sig that he flamed instead of simply outright flaming him back, and then replying to his mea culpa with a good-natured and polite acknowledgement means I'm "full of myself"??
I do not think that phrase means what you think it does.
Strat
Yeah because their approval ratings are stellar at the moment and Bachmann is just steam rolling the other candidates.
But at this point, even Ahmadin-I'm-A-Nutjob would win over Obama in a landslide, so I'm not too worried. Heck, one of my old boots would win over Obama. If teleprompters weren't allowed, the boot would also win the debates as well.
Strat
Rather than having a legitimate debate about the roles of government, republicans are keen to just to point something they don't like and say " that's liberal".
First, I'm not a Republican. Second, it's the policies and proposed legislation themselves that determine if they are Liberal/Progressive/Socialist. Socialist is as Socialist does, rinse & repeat for Liberal/Progressive. It matters not if the people proposing such policies have a D or R after their name, or what label they attach to themselves. GWB is/was a Progressive, because of the policies he pursued.
Some ideas sucha s the individual mandate, I assume you are obliquely refering to, were strongly suported and even proposed by those that would then and even now call themselves "conservative".
Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist. Ergo, those that propose such policies/legislation are Socialist, despite any labels they may dress themselves in.
Strat
Whoa, dude!
Chill man. Take a deep breath.
You, too, can post legibly. I've *actually* seen Liberal/Progressives do it!
Once or twice...
But...don't give up! Hope 'n Change, remember?
We'll keep pullin' for ya!
Strat
My bad. You're right. My sarcasm detector must be down for the count.
Said WHOOSH is dually earned.
No harm, no foul. I knew your heart was in the right place, so I didn't go *too* hard on you.
Carry on, Sir!
Strat
What is a liberal or a socialist?
As a subset of working examples in the US, I'd say someone who doesn't think you can manage your own healthcare, choose your own light bulbs, choose to work for less than minimum wage rather than be totally unemployed, choose what toilet or shower-head you have, choose whether or not to smoke, or choose to responsibly carry a firearm.
To name but a few.
It seems from the republican side, those are names for anyone you disagree with, but don't want to explain why.
Oops, I think I poked a big hole in your straw man.
My bad.
Strat
Fixed that "fix" for you.
Strat
They win the elections where no one shows up.
Yeah, you're right. Nobody showed up when they voted in Scott Brown to replace Chappaquiddick "I left her where?" Teddy in Massachusetts. It was a shoo-in.
When they start winning elections during the presidential cycles then they might get some credibility.
I have the distinct feeling you're going to be suffering severe depression after Nov. 2012.
Strat
...and then of course taking bribes from larger companies to fund the movement.
Which of the many hundreds (maybe thousands by now) of local, totally independent local TEA Party groups got that cash? Because all the local TP groups in this state that I know of run solely on member donations. They struggle to keep their hosting & bandwidth charges paid for their websites.
You do realize, I hope, that there is no one national official TEA Party, just hundreds and hundreds of little local orgs, each with their own favorite issues and candidates, and taking marching orders from no one, right?
Do some googling. It's not like this info is hard to find. Unless, of course, that info doesn't comport with your partisan biases and narrow views.
Strat
I think your sarcasm detector is broken. If Progressive and Liberal ideas and policies were so great, they wouldn't *need* to be mandatory.
Their ideas and policies are so bad, nobody would pay them any attention unless government made them mandatory.
That was the whole point.
What's that thing they say here on /.?
Oh yeah.
WHOOSH!!
Strat
I think 99% means "activist" now, instead of the actual economic term.
I think you misspelled "moonbat". :D
Strat
The Occupy movement needs to elect officials to political office like the Tea Party if they are going to make any meaningful difference. If the Tea Party (1%) can manage to *change the balance of US congress* than surely Occupy can if they represent 99% of the population.
Well, if the TEA Party is winning elections, they must by definition be a lot more than 1% of at least the subset of actual voters.
Thought experiment; If all the OWS protesters assembled in front of the Lincoln Memorial, do you think it would be easy or hard to tell the photos of that OWS crowd from the photos taken of the 9/12 crowd based on the number of people visible?
Strat
Then they will be in the 1%.
They already are "the 1%".
Oh, you didn't mean as a percentage of US citizens?
My bad.
Strat
And yet, I'm the one modded "Troll" and "Flamebait" after presenting an on-topic and sincere opinion held by a large sector of the population, if not the majority.
I'm just wondering if the mods in question are paid or stupid, fanatical, and venal enough to abuse moderation for free.
"Moderated -1, Troll"
Well, I guess that pretty well proves my answer is the latter rather than the former.
Strat
There is no 'Government'. There are many groups with different goals and responsibilities that are part of the government.
Except for the common goals shared by most employed people as a result of simple human nature of making their jobs pay more, be more important, grow their little corner in size so as to employ more and more people, and increase their power so as to make their jobs easier as well as harder to eliminate and also to make the previously-mentioned goals easier to accomplish.
Seeing that these goals are pretty universal to all employed people, many wouldn't think them a problem...except for the fact that they work for the only employer that has a monopoly on the use of deadly force and imprisonment, may seize private wealth and property, can start wars, and write the regulations and laws they enforce and we must live under.
Government and fire should be treated much the same and for very similar reasons. Although I must admit that for most in government outside the military, I wouldn't piss in their ears if their brains were on fire.
Strat
That's OK. Neither my post nor my sig were meant for closed-minded partisan ideologues.
Carry on.
Strat
This.
It's sad and ironic that so many that are invested in the entitlement society suffer selective blindness when the all-too-predictable results of such central planning & control manifests, and call for even more central planning & control to "fix" the problem of too much central planning & control.
Strat
It is not "Crony Capitalism". The thing that is often referred to as "Crony Capitalism" is just the inevitable result of a centrally planned economy (whether that centrally planned economy is called fascism, socialism, communism, or something else is irrelevant). When you give certain people the power to plan the economy, the end result is that sooner or later, and usually sooner, those people will start to manipulate things to favor their friends and associates. I just came across an article this morning that talked about this and reviewed a book on the subject [americanthinker.com] titled "Throw Them All Out".
No argument here. We agree.
I use the "Crony Capitalism" term because it pretty much describes just what you defined (at least in the definitions of Crony Capitalism I'm familiar with) and communicates the idea in a short forum post with fewer words, and tends to attract less vitriol from the un- and ill-informed than calling it straight-out Fascism, Communism, or Socialism.
Strat
Can you even tell me what "high desert" area we are talking about?
How dare you! Of course he can't! And it's unfair that you even ask! Didn't you get the memo? Criticism or questioning regarding AGW claims in any manner or form is verboten! Just look at the moderation of my posts in this discussion for proof.
Heretic! Denier! :D
Strat
Don't worry, I'm sure the invisible hand of the free market will step in and all will be OK.
That would be true if there weren't actors like China distorting prices in the market by dumping government-subsidized-manufacturing-produced solar panels on the market at below-cost rates in order to destroy foreign competition.
Free markets only work where there is a fair market. When governments step in to "tip the scales" in order to influence the market, there is no "free market". Same thing applies with Capitalism. As can be seen with the US, when the government steps in to prop up certain businesses and tear down others in an effort to engineer certain outcomes and societal directions, the result is not Capitalism, it's "Crony Capitalism", and that hasn't worked out so well for US citizens.
Strat
Good Lord, could you possibly be a dumber piece of shit?
Oh, gosh! Now I'm convinced!
You're superior powers of debate and your masterful and fact-filled argument have totally destroyed the points I raised.
And yet, I'm the one modded "Troll" and "Flamebait" after presenting an on-topic and sincere opinion held by a large sector of the population, if not the majority.
I'm just wondering if the mods in question are paid or stupid, fanatical, and venal enough to abuse moderation for free.
Strat
Or, you know, stop over consumption and make do with a perfectly reasonable lifestyle based on energy saving technologies that have been around for decades.
So, Mr. Climate & Global Economy Expert, exactly what is "reasonable" and how do you plan to force China, India, and other countries to adhere to the restrictions on their development that would be necessary for any meaningful results? How do you determine how much is enough and what is too much? Please tell us because, so far, nobody has any clear and provable answers.
The problem isn't humanity, the problem is shortsighted, selfish little shits like yourself that were ready to crucify Carter for suggesting you put on a sweater during the winter.
OK, the Carter comment let's us all know you're a True Believer, and like cultists and other religious zealots, you're immune to logic and facts. Maybe you can see if Carter would be willing to ask his alien friends on the UFO he claimed to see for a solution.
Strat
Wrong in that they *underestimated* how bad the problem is. And for you, this is reason to further ignore them?
Yes. Yes, it is. What's to say that any so-called "solution" they propose is any more accurate? What if they overestimate the "cure" and toss the planet straight into an "ice-world" climate?
Exactly the point: we need to stop fucking with it.
Well, since the only way to accomplish that is to slaughter most of humanity and have the survivors return to hunter-gatherer existence or just have humans perform a self-extinction, that's not an acceptable option.
Although I'm sure most here would be fine with you volunteering to go first.
Strat
My fear is we won't listen to scientists until it is too late and we have killed off the majority of the organisms that help us counter the CO2 we are pumping into the air or the other effects, e.g. ocean acidification.
You mean listen to the scientists that were wrong in their predictions regarding this glacier melt in the first place?
Yeah, that sounds like it'll turn out well.
This just emphasizes how little we know about how the earth's systems will react to global warming.
If we, by your own admission, know so little about the Earth's climate system, why in $DEITY's name would anyone think it's a good idea to engage in attempting to modify the behavior of a system we don't understand and can't predict, particularly when such proposed attempts come at great cost, suffering, and death to huge numbers of people?
Strat