Third Party & Independents Archives

Red Green

No, this article is not about The Red Green Show, a great comedy show that ran from 1991 to 2006 unfortunately. Instead, this is about how many in the Green movement are little more than socialists seeking to obtain authoritarian control of every aspect of our lives.

Normally I don't write articles that do little more than point to another's work, but recently I came across an article that puts together, in one place, so many aspects of the issue that I had to share it. Control By Carbon is a great example of how freedom becomes a bad word in the World of the Green.

From links about attempts to tax procreation, to detalis about how raising CAFE standards actually kills over 7000 Americans for each gallon of gas saved, to California's attempts to have your thermostats controlled by a central agency, the author has done a good job of making painfully clear the point I have been making for quite a while, that government is about force and control.

Some of the more scary 'solutions' detailed:

Every person in Britain would be given a "carbon limit" under radical government plans to limit emissions, it was announced today.

Everybody could be issued with a "carbon credit card" which they would swipe when buying petrol, paying their utility bills, purchasing food, or travelling.

People with lifestyles that are damaging to the environment - such as frequent fliers, motorists who drive gas-guzzling vehicles or people who live in large homes with poor insulation - would have to buy more carbon credits from greener individuals.

Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.
We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.

- Hillary Clinton

I'm not sure how you get more socialist than that.

But, how can they get away with such a thing? I mean, most people I imagine would stand up and fight such attempts at totalitarian control over their lives, even the English, right?

Aparently not.

Eighty-three percent of people polled in 21 countries said a change in lifestyle and behavior for their countrymen would be necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to the poll from BBC World Service.

You notice, it was not about how a change in their OWN lifestyle would be necessary, something that they have control over now. No, it was how their fellow countrymen would have change THEIR lifestyle, something that only an authoritarian environment would be able to do.

Our environment is a precious thing and there are a lot of things we can do to help protect it. I've been a conservationist for decades and am building a house that will be (hopefully) completely green and off of the grid. But this new breed of political animal that wants to use this issue as a way of controlling people just doesn't fly with me.

However, as I've shown in a previous poll, I am moving slowly into the minority as a defender of our individual rights. They just aren't as important to people as they should be. Well, at least until the rubber meets the road and they are personally prevented from living their lives because of it. THEN you'll see them howl. Of course, by then it will be too late...

Posted by Rhinehold at January 23, 2008 2:28 PM
Comments
Comment #243618

The Hillary Clinton quote has to do with tax policy. Your post has nothing to do with tax policy.

Is this stuff really happening or is it just think tanks funded by oil doing their best to slow the green movement? I think it’s the latter and in your case - it is working.

Posted by: Schwamp at January 23, 2008 3:32 PM
Comment #243622
Your post has nothing to do with tax policy

Are you saying that Green’s don’t think that ‘saving the environment’ is ‘the common good’? Does Mrs. Clinton not think that?

If so, she makes it clear that she intends to take money from people to pay for the environmental protection plans, much like was described in the original article…

Is this stuff really happening or is it just think tanks funded by oil doing their best to slow the green movement? I think it’s the latter

So, you are making that basis on something that is easily researched and linked to in the original article that you won’t do the work on? Instead you trump up a conspiracy theory that neatly allows you to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you…

You’re free to do that but don’t be surprised if others put little to no ‘stock’ in your assessment.

For Example, from the IHT:

Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.

The proposed rules are contained in a document circulated by the California Energy Commission, which for more than three decades has set state energy efficiency standards for home appliances, like water heaters, air conditioners and refrigerators.

The changes would allow utilities to adjust customers’ preset temperatures when the price of electricity is soaring. Customers could override the utilities’ suggested temperatures. But in emergencies, the utilities could override customers’ wishes.

Final approval is expected next month.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 23, 2008 3:51 PM
Comment #243623

My broken record response is CARBON TAX. It does the job while allowing people to choose the best techniques and technologies to do it.

I agree with you about the nature of some greens. They like to set up rules that limit freedom. That is why many do not favor a simple carbon tax. In fact, that is how you can tell someone who really wants to improve the environment from a green/red. A real environmentalist supports a pure carbon tax. The false ones insist on lots of caveats and exceptions.

Posted by: Jack at January 23, 2008 3:54 PM
Comment #243628

Jack,

Agreed, when they see that they can achieve other objectives as well, as with the carbon ‘card’ that would help distribute wealth, you find that they shift away from simply doing something about the environment to doing something for society at the expense of individual freedoms.

Of course, carbon taxes wouldn’t affect me by the time they get implemented, but only if the money from the tax goes to furthering energy independence and green technologies would I support that. Keep it out of the general fund and let’s try not to run our government on behavior we want to eliminate (like funding SCHIP with smoking taxes, great idea!)

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 23, 2008 4:00 PM
Comment #243630

Rhinehold,

Are you saying that Green’s don’t think that ‘saving the environment’ is ‘the common good’? Does Mrs. Clinton not think that?

That’s completely irrelevant. You claimed to have been providing examples of Greens imposing an idea regarding the environment. As one of your “examples”, you quote someone not a Green talking about something other than the environment.

That you think her quote could have been something that someone else might have said about something else is completely irrelevant to the goal of providing examples to support your claim.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 23, 2008 4:07 PM
Comment #243636
My broken record response is CARBON TAX. It does the job while allowing people to choose the best techniques and technologies to do it.
I guess my Libertarian leanings cause my disdain for more taxes.

We have too many taxes already.

Is that what government is supposed to be for?

To tax us to shape our behavior?

Do the ends justify the means?

I don’t like the idea. Especially when it is VERY doubtful that those taxes would be spent to reduce our energy vulnerability.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 23, 2008 4:36 PM
Comment #243637

The Red Green Show was brilliant… never be another like it…

Rhinehold, you and I both agree that the main job of government is to protect the rights of it citizens, and certainly there are reasonable actions for government to take in this arena to help accomplish that.

Being the fan of many of your posts as I am, I assume that you probably feel the same way… the obvious question is, at what point do the greens become red? At what point does the government protecting its citizens’ rights to breathe clean air become just another form of authoritarianism?

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at January 23, 2008 4:38 PM
Comment #243644

I bet that this so called ‘socialism’ and ‘authoritarianism’ will seem pretty nice compared to the alternative; little things like global warming, rising oceans, radical climate shifts, millions of deaths (not to mention a subsequent ice age).

I sure wish my government would let me commit mass murder in the name of my SUV and latte. But wait, I live in the mid west. Arn’t these rising oceans going to swallow mass urban core cities like NY and LA, hence bringing MILLIONS of refugees to my doorstep. Think Katrina, but with the entire eastern and western seaboards. I don’t think Huston is going to be so nice the second time around.

Just consider: Horse and buggy vs. Billions of people world wide dead? The world as we know it is over, move on and change the paradigm. Think purple, not red or blue

Posted by: Purple at January 23, 2008 5:47 PM
Comment #243646

Rhinehold Boy what a letdown after your last 2 articles.
The case for the additional deaths due to the CAFE standards is… well as lame as the Clinton comment. In light of our energy problems the discussion should be about getting the death causing heavier vehicles off of the road. Afterall your right to drive a heavier vehicle ends way before the bumper of my lighter vehicle.
I guess its all in the way you frame it. Obviously education and voluntary compliance doesnt work so I guess as a libertarian the answer would be to do nothing and fight oil wars in the middle east. To me thats not to smart.

IMHO Its this kind of lame manuvering by the corporatist/libertarians that forces the government into passing laws in the first place. California has growth and energy problems and it appears voluntary compliance doesnt work. Your right to run your air conditioner as high as you want affects others, just because you can afford to run the air conditioner as high as you want doesnt mean it is your right to do so unfortunately. Anyway what specifically do you suggest that California do to solve this problem.
I noticed Bohdi1 on the blog you linked to just had accusations and well a certain amount of foil hat thinking but no answers. I can see why libertarians dont seem to get into public office its all whine and let it be cause the free market will solve it. Or its “problem what problem” its all a damned progressive liberal conspiracy. Well that doesnt seem to solve the problem.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 23, 2008 5:57 PM
Comment #243658
I bet that this so called ‘socialism’ and ‘authoritarianism’ will seem pretty nice compared to the alternative; little things like global warming, rising oceans, radical climate shifts, millions of deaths (not to mention a subsequent ice age).

Oh, I see. SO basically I should feel good about giving up my freedoms and rights because of the fear that we all might die?

How is that ANY different than the Bush administration saying we should feel good about giving up our freedoms and rights because of the fear that we all might die from terrorists?

The idiocy of this argument still resonates with some people though, I guess. I mean, there are still people who are religious because they might go to hell if they aren’t…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 23, 2008 7:18 PM
Comment #243659
Rhinehold Boy what a letdown after your last 2 articles.

I’ll take that as a compliment… I think…

Obviously education and voluntary compliance doesnt work so I guess as a libertarian the answer would be to do nothing and fight oil wars in the middle east. To me thats not to smart.

Where is education and volunatry compliance not working? The federal government controls the auto industry and regulates tarriffs to the point that we have little or no say in what they provide. Do you know the new $2500 car that is being offered in India? Do you wonder why that car isn’t being offered in the US? In a free market, there would be little reason not to introduce a $2500 clean-ish car in the US, it would sell quickly.

We saved the automakers when they refused to respond to market forces. Because of this they continue to march to their own beat, slowly figuring things out at a higher price (we have to keep those union paychecks up above market value, you know). And while there are businesses trying desperately to provide alternative fuel or more efficient cars, we protect the monopolies of the big three so that they can keep selling us what THEY want to, not investing and developing what WE want them to.

So don’t try to sit there and say ‘the free market’ is causing the problem, it just shows that you don’t really know what a free market is about…

California has growth and energy problems and it appears voluntary compliance doesnt work.

Quit propping up monopolies and let’s see how a real free market works…

Your right to run your air conditioner as high as you want affects others, just because you can afford to run the air conditioner as high as you want doesnt mean it is your right to do so unfortunately.

Yup, and you are telling ME that I’m on the wrong path in describing green as red…

I think that the point I was trying to make has been made.

Anyway what specifically do you suggest that California do to solve this problem.

Eliminate government support for monopolies, for one.

But more importantly, which problem? The lack of energy (by propping up the unnatural condition of putting that many people in one location so that resources are overextended) or the environmental?

I noticed Bohdi1 on the blog you linked to just had accusations and well a certain amount of foil hat thinking but no answers.

Sounds like most progressive sites I visit…

I can see why libertarians dont seem to get into public office its all whine and let it be cause the free market will solve it. Or its “problem what problem” its all a damned progressive liberal conspiracy. Well that doesnt seem to solve the problem.

Yeah, that’s accurate. Please, keep commenting, your grasp on what is going on is ‘interesting’…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 23, 2008 7:36 PM
Comment #243661
the obvious question is, at what point do the greens become red? At what point does the government protecting its citizens’ rights to breathe clean air become just another form of authoritarianism?

When they attempt to offer solutions, through policy, that limits individual rights, then you have to consider them moving towards authoritarianism. There are many things that can be done and solutions that we could seek that are either ignored or not tried because the easier way of just ‘controlling the behavior through force’ is available. We should welcome limits like this that cause us to think a little mroe about issues to find solutions that solve the problems AND respect individual rights.

BTW, even the Dems have to agree that we have been cutting emissions in the US instead of increasing them. That has not come because of great leadership or republican policies, it has come because the market is moving people towards wanting to be more environmentally aware and find alternatives to what we have now. Once that occurs, where is the need for authoritarian policies if the market is starting to turn the right way? That is why you are seeing comments like Purple’s, because the reds see that the overall market is moving before they can get in to office to take credit for it and want to instill FEAR into everyone, just as the Republicans are trying to do with terrorism…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 23, 2008 7:45 PM
Comment #243665

“I’ll take that as a compliment… I think…”

Yes Rhinehold I was complementing your last 2 articles and wondering why this one isnt up to the same level as those.

“Where is education and volunatry compliance not working?”
I would say here-
“We saved the automakers when they refused to respond to market forces. Because of this they continue to march to their own beat, slowly figuring things out at a higher price”



“The federal government controls the auto industry and regulates tarriffs to the point that we have little or no say in what they provide.”

So its the poor poor car companies being mistreated by the feds. Its all the governments fault because the big 3 have rules to follow. they are little babies that cant stand up for themselves. Or its because they make more money on the bigger cars and through their own greed and arrogance they can not see the future.


Your right to run your air conditioner as high as you want affects others, just because you can afford to run the air conditioner as high as you want doesnt mean it is your right to do so unfortunately.
“Yup, and you are telling ME that I’m on the wrong path in describing green as red…” Rhinehold cute but what is the liberterian plan to actually solve the problem?
“Eliminate government support for monopolies, for one.” And then what? all Californians turn the AC down because their are no more monopolies?

“But more importantly, which problem?
The lack of energy (by propping up the unnatural condition of putting that many people in one location so that resources are overextended) or the environmental?”

Both problems.

“Yeah, that’s accurate. Please, keep commenting, your grasp on what is going on is ‘interesting’…”
Wow another stinger from Rhinehold. Actually Rhinehold Im trying to understand the libertarian solution to these problems that you refer to in your post. It seems to be “Quit propping up monopolies and let’s see how a real free market works…” Its an easy comment to make but you forget these people in CA are trying to do something now and in the real world of today. So my question to you is in the here and now with conditions being what they are what is the libertarian solution to the California problem noted in your post? Understand Rhinehold Im not in favor of authoritarian solutions to anything, especially after the Bush Administration , but without creating a long list of other problems what can they do in CA? Denying there is Global warming, pollution, and a growing energy problem for a few more decades doesnt appeal to me either.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 23, 2008 8:36 PM
Comment #243690


Rhinehold,

it has come [US CO2 emission reduction] because the market is moving people towards wanting to be more environmentally aware and find alternatives to what we have now.

I think it’s more people wanting to be more environmentally aware and find alternatives to what they have now who push the “market”, aka supply side, to increase their offer.

Without demand, supply is pointless.
The “market” didn’t created a new environmental friendly demand. The global environmental issue did.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 24, 2008 6:44 AM
Comment #243696

Rhinehold,
I have no reason to doubt the california initiative.

But I did not see any evidence that it is intended for anything other than when enough power is not available.

They can lay a blackout on you now if they don’t have the juice. How is thermostat control worse than that?

Posted by: Schwamp at January 24, 2008 7:33 AM
Comment #243698

Rhinehold,

I was thinking the same thing as Schwamp. According to your source, they can only turn down the thermostat in an “emergency”. Presumably, the alternative would be rolling blackouts. Then you can control your thermostat all you want but there’s no juice. Kind of emblematic of unregulated capitalism — the consumer thinks he or she is in control, until the system fails completely.

Larger cars are not necessarily safer. SUVs can be difficult to control, so you are actually more likely to get in a crash. Then you are safer in the SUV but the other cars get crushed.

If you want to save lives AND save energy, we can bring back the 55 mph speed limit.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 24, 2008 7:57 AM
Comment #243702

We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.
- Hillary Clinton


I’m not sure how you get more socialist than that.

So I’m to take it that you are against the courts and police enforcement of law?

I think they call that anarchy.

Can’t get much more anarchist than that.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 24, 2008 10:45 AM
Comment #243705

Rhinehold,

I know Schwamp already jumped on this, but sheesh, talk about taking someones words out of context. Hillary’s words, which BTW were spoken in 2004 at a fund raiser in California for Barbara Boxer, were:

“We’re not coming to you, many of whom are well enough off that actually the tax cuts may have helped you, and say ‘we’re going to give you more.’ We’re saying, ‘you know what, for America to get back on track and be fiscally responsible, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Since when is honesty a bad thing? Was Reagan’s policy of touting tax cuts while raising Social Security withholding better?

Back to the “Green” issue, in your reply to Jack:

“Of course, carbon taxes wouldn’t affect me by the time they get implemented, but only if the money from the tax goes to furthering energy independence and green technologies would I support that. Keep it out of the general fund”,

Hmmmm, when has anything been kept out of the general fund? Where is the Social Security trust fund? When I last mentioned SS and medicare being “off budget” items you suggested that I saw those funds as “pixie dust”. So will the carbon tax be paid with pixie dust?

How, specifically, would the free market address our rising energy demands? Are you proposing that we should just pull out all the stops, maybe start by doing away with the EPA? Do you really believe that big oil and big coal are going to self regulate in a manner that will protect the planet for future generations?

The following article: http://tinyurl.com/2u4qwl shows just how dependent we are on our natural resources. To quote:

“Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate.”

“Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn’t result in blackouts. But they could lead to shockingly higher electric bills for millions of Southerners, because the region’s utilities may be forced to buy expensive replacement power from other energy companies.”

So, doesn’t it make sense to protect our natural resources? Or should we just let the markets sort it out by precluding the poor from being able to afford the energy needed to prevent death or illness due to the heat or cold?

Maybe some of the “Green” solutions are too “socialist”, some propositions will undoubtedly never become law while others might, but offer a specific alternative to those propositions. Then we voters can play multiple choice at the polls and decide which proposition best addresses societies needs. Maybe we’ll get it wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time, but that’s democracy at work.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 24, 2008 11:31 AM
Comment #243708

Interesting how speaking against socialism always means you support “anarchy,” and how speaking of free market ideas always means you want absolutely no govt involvement at all.

The posts with such grossly overstated exaggerations only highlight just how fearful and obiedient the people have become.
They now fear the rights and freedoms which were bestowed upon them by the founders of this once great nation and now lazily accept the “govt should do it for me” line they have been sold by politicians and special interest groups.

Face it Rhinehold, we have long past the time of individual freedoms, personal responsibility and limited government. We have become a people who no longer wish to be free. We have become a people whose lives are now dependent on their govt. We have become just like any other country.
We have lost.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2008 12:14 PM
Comment #243725

kctim and Rhinehold… you guys are on record on this site many times over as being nothing more than heartless supporters of anarchy… heck, Rhinehold has even been outed as both an anarchist and Nazi in the same thread (not sure how that’s even possible, but I digress)… everyone knows that the only acceptable definition of capitalism is the one that includes corporate welfare, bail outs, and protectionism and, that the only acceptable definition of environmentalism is blindly adhering to Al Gore doing what he wants while telling the rest of us we can’t… once you two accept these basic tenents of how the world should be run you will then be able to join the mindless fold and do what you are told… get with it, guys!

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at January 24, 2008 3:10 PM
Comment #243731

The problem, kctim, your liberty ends when it impinges on mine.

What I was pointing out to Rhinehold, as others have here, is that this isn’t about socialism anymore than it is about anarchy. Sorry, if it went over your head.

If you want absolute freedom, move to a remote corner of the world, where you are dependant on no one and you impact no one else. Otherwise, don’t call me a communist for wanting you to bear the cost of your pollution.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 24, 2008 4:39 PM
Comment #243734

googlumpagus,

I would not mind a bit paying my “share” of the pollution I cause in some way. However, who is going to determine my “share”? The government? An appointed commitee? Greenpeace? Ralph Nader? Al Gore? The power companies?

To be perfectly honest about this whole mess, I wouldn’t trust any of the above any farher than I can see them. As has been demonstrated time and time again, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Anyone who has the power to determine my “share” of pollution costs has the power to over or under state the amount depending on my situation vis-a-vis the commite, or what ever. Sorry, I won’t buy, and I sure won’t go along with it in any form. It will make our tax code look like the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Posted by: Old Grouch at January 24, 2008 5:13 PM
Comment #243737

So Old Grouch does that mean do you will just sit there and do nothing because you dont trust anyone to determine your share? Doesnt seem to solve the problem does it?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 24, 2008 5:22 PM
Comment #243741

Rhinehold “That is why you are seeing comments like Purple’s, because the reds see that the overall market is moving before they can get in to office to take credit for it and want to instill FEAR into everyone, just as the Republicans are trying to do with terrorism…’

Wow you anarchist types are amazing Rhinehold. Its been over 30 years since the first energy crisis, yet the market is now jumping on board barely yet you make a statement like this.

No wonder you actually beleive that raising CAFE standards actually kills over 7000 Americans for each gallon of gas saved, 7000 deaths per gallon saved. Lets just do the math real quick, lets just say every year there was 1,000 gallons saved nationwide. So 7000 deaths X 1000 gals = 7,000,000 dead in auto accidents per year due to just the lighter weight vehicle. Am I missing something here? Its my understanding that the traffic death toll per year is around 43,000.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 24, 2008 5:48 PM
Comment #243744

Aw, googlum, you see, forcefully taking from one for the “common good” or dictating how people live, really is socialism and suggesting that those who dare question it are also against the courts and law which would lead to anarchy is one of those “grossly overstated exaggerations” I was refering too.
Sorry if that went over your head.

Tell me, who and what am I dependent on and who does my lifestyle impact? Hmmm?

And nobody said you were a communist. But the idea of controlling other peoples lives for the “common good” was called socialist.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2008 6:03 PM
Comment #243755

j2t2,

No, it doesn’t mean that I am not doing anything to reduce my personal contribution to pollution. We have an exceptionally green house that we designed and built to be extremely energy efficient. We are changing over to CFL’s(although I have some issues with the fact that these things are hazardous waste when they are dead.) My wife and I drive relatively fuel efficient cars and keep them tuned properly.

In other words, we have heard the information that is available and are acting on it. But, we are doing on our own volition. This is the crux of the argument here. Do we, as free Americans, lose our fredoms in the name of “environmental correctness”, or “the war on terror”, or the “war on drugs”, or any other “war” that the government decides to declare. If you believe this way, let me clue you in to the facts. We have lost all the wars I mentioned above. Lyndon Johnson delared war on poverty in the 1960’s. 40 plus years later, we still have poverty(relatively speaking). We have lost the war on drugs. We spend billions every year, we lock up people for possession and use of small amounts of recreational drugs, and we are still drowning in drugs. Here in Kentucky, the local stores are very strict on enforcing the law about buying meth precursors. Ever read the list of common items that are considered meth precursors? Anyway, the local Wal-Mart is one of the strictest on this, and last year there was a drug bust in the parking lot! There was a meth lab in a van parked while some of the other passengers wee in buying supplies. We’ve lost. We lost the war on terror when we gave up the the first freedom in the name of security.

Thiscountry was founded on the principle of individual responsibility and freedom. How much we have given away!

Posted by: Old Grouch at January 24, 2008 8:41 PM
Comment #243759

“The posts with such grossly overstated exaggerations only highlight just how fearful and obiedient the people have become.
They now fear the rights and freedoms which were bestowed upon them by the founders of this once great nation and now lazily accept the “govt should do it for me” line they have been sold by politicians and special interest groups.”

kctim,

I hardly know where to start in on that diatribe. While it’s rude to do so I’ll start with a question, did Rhinehold’s article contain “grossly overstated exaggerations”?

Then where the hell does this come from, “They now fear the rights and freedoms which were bestowed upon them by the founders of this once great nation”? What part of the Constitution granted the authority to pollute the earth as we see fit?

For that matter, when did we stop being “this once great nation”? As I recall you voted for W, and he continually professed that we are the worlds ONLY superpower! When did that change? And why? Did the “Green’s” ruin it? If so, how?

And just what are our “rights and freedoms”? I don’t recall the right to rape the planet or the freedom to piss on the next generations future! But that’s just what we’re doing, and this is not a new phenomenon. Look at the effects of hydraulic mining or just google “Superfund Site”.

Why is there such a thing as a “Superfund Site”? My answer is lack of oversight! And your’s is what? Please tell me how we can magically trust the free market to do what it’s always failed to do. Bottom line is the marketeers are just as likely to abuse the public trust as any imaginary “welfare queen”.

Now, when you said, “we have long past the time of individual freedoms, personal responsibility and limited government”, you are at least partly right. First of all WE are the government whether you accept that or not. I’ve not been happy about George Bush being my President for 7 years but this is a democracy and I MUST accept it, or advocate his impeachment, which I continue to do.

Honestly though where you libertarians (lower case L meant to include Rhinehold) define liberty, freedom, responsibility, etc. is key to the argument. The founding fathers knew nothing about pollution at the level we’re dealing with now, but since they or their ancestors had spent fortunes on moving to this “new” world I suspect they’d have respected her from dirt to fruit!

Posted by: KansasDem at January 24, 2008 9:50 PM
Comment #243761

Doug Langworthy,

Great job with the “straw men”, at least you presented “straw men” from both sides. What happened to the libertarian principle of “personal freedom as long as that freedom doesn’t interfere with another persons freedoms”?

Now, that’s not a quote, but am I wrong?

It seems obvious that we must change some behaviors to at least conserve energy until we’re able to develop new and cleaner technologies. What the hell is socialist about that?

Our planet is getting more and more crowded, unless we adapt we’ll all perish. Is that hard to understand? I swear it’s like trying to prove the Earth’s not flat.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 24, 2008 10:29 PM
Comment #243762
So its the poor poor car companies being mistreated by the feds. Its all the governments fault because the big 3 have rules to follow. they are little babies that cant stand up for themselves. Or its because they make more money on the bigger cars and through their own greed and arrogance they can not see the future.

Wow, how you completely screw that up is amazing… I think you’re been skulking around the two party politics for too long and can’t see one thing being said without seeing another…

The Big 3 should have eaten themselves alive decades ago because they can’t see market trends or effectively deal with true competition. No where was I defending them in any way. Yet I don’t leave the government off of the hook either… Since they not stepped in and ‘saved’ them short-sightedly, we lost the change to have newer car companies enter the market to take their place and be responsive to the desires of the car buying public.

It was clear that reason they were failing was because US Citizens wanted the cheaper, higher gas mileage cars that Japans was providing. Imagine if you will what our Global Warming situation would be NOW if in the 1970s the big 3 were forced through market forces to make higher mileage cars to stay in business?

Your right to run your air conditioner as high as you want affects others, just because you can afford to run the air conditioner as high as you want doesnt mean it is your right to do so unfortunately.

Unless I am violating the rights of others, yes it does. At least, it does in the US. At least, it USE to in the US, when people cared about rights.

The part you are missing is that there OTHER ways to solve issues like this that does NOT require violating individual rights. Of course, since you don’t care about that, the easier way is to go the totalitarian route…

But, then I don’t understand why you would be upset with the term and position of the article, since it seems to be exactly what you are suggesting…

And then what? all Californians turn the AC down because their are no more monopolies?

There wouldn’t be the outages and need to turn down the air conditioners because through competition the competing companies would find cheaper, more efficient, and more plentiful ways to provide power to run those air conditioners.

And if the market wanted greener ways as well, the market would provide them.

Actually Rhinehold Im trying to understand the libertarian solution to these problems that you refer to in your post. It seems to be “Quit propping up monopolies and let’s see how a real free market works…”

That’s part of it, yes.

Its an easy comment to make but you forget these people in CA are trying to do something now and in the real world of today.

Oh, you mean the non-free market? Instead of fixing the problem we just perpetuate the cause and continue on a totalitarian path? Good idea, I guess…

So my question to you is in the here and now with conditions being what they are what is the libertarian solution to the California problem noted in your post?

Easy. Rescind the law that blocks importing energy from fuel based sources while the energy problems are corrected and open the energy market to companies, giving tax breaks for those that also provide green sources.

Understand Rhinehold Im not in favor of authoritarian solutions to anything, especially after the Bush Administration , but without creating a long list of other problems what can they do in CA? Denying there is Global warming, pollution, and a growing energy problem for a few more decades doesnt appeal to me either.

And trying to solve the problems without addressing the main one will not solve anything at all. Accept that two or three more years of importing coal based energy is not going to be the stepping over point and is a necessary evil to solve the lack of forsight and leadership that California has been displaying for the past few decades while defending their citizen’s basic rights as well.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 24, 2008 10:31 PM
Comment #243763
I think it’s more people wanting to be more environmentally aware and find alternatives to what they have now who push the “market”, aka supply side, to increase their offer.

Without demand, supply is pointless.
The “market” didn’t created a new environmental friendly demand. The global environmental issue did.

Erm, that’s what I said. The market is not only greed, you realize? The people wanting cars want them to be more efficient because they can then save money on gas. If they are cheaper as well, then the better. We were on that path in the 70s until the government got involved…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 24, 2008 10:37 PM
Comment #243764
But I did not see any evidence that it is intended for anything other than when enough power is not available.

They can lay a blackout on you now if they don’t have the juice. How is thermostat control worse than that?

To be honest, if the company were a non-governmentally-backed monopoly, I think it wouldn’t be an issue. I mean, you would be freely accepting those terms if you purchased energy from them.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way it is, is it? But, perhaps the government shouldn’t be limiting the options of the company to provide that energy without demanding that they provide the energy that is necessary to meet needs?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 24, 2008 10:40 PM
Comment #243765
So I’m to take it that you are against the courts and police enforcement of law?

I think they call that anarchy.

Can’t get much more anarchist than that.

Um, what ‘nether region’ did you pull this gem out of? Straw men are defensless to such inane statements…

I am neither against the courts (the only way that we can effectively defend individual rights) and the law enforcement (the only way to enforce those court’s rulings).

In fact, it shows a complete and total lack of understanding of what libertarianism is…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 24, 2008 10:43 PM
Comment #243767
Hmmmm, when has anything been kept out of the general fund? Where is the Social Security trust fund? When I last mentioned SS and medicare being “off budget” items you suggested that I saw those funds as “pixie dust”. So will the carbon tax be paid with pixie dust?

Disconnect.

First, the SS was SUPPOSED to be a separate fund. FDR set it up that way for that specific purpose. It was raided years later, but that doesn’t make it right.

Second, you were saying that since they were ‘off budget’ they didn’t count as money we spend. I am not saying anything of the like, I only say that it should not be used to pay for other things, like healthcare, since that was not it was collected for.

that’s democracy at work.

Yeah, mob rule, ignoring the minority’s rights. That’s democracy at work.

There are ways to solve problems and not violate individual rights. That I may not have the solution at hand at the moment doesn’t mean that no one else has it. However, because no one cares about individual minority rights anymore, why bother looking for it, right?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 24, 2008 10:49 PM
Comment #243768
What I was pointing out to Rhinehold, as others have here, is that this isn’t about socialism anymore than it is about anarchy. Sorry, if it went over your head.

It didn’t go over his head, it was fired from far too low of an altitude to make it that high.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 24, 2008 10:52 PM
Comment #243769
Otherwise, don’t call me a communist for wanting you to bear the cost of your pollution.

That’s not why we are calling you a communist. It is because your solution ignores individual freedom as much as you say pollution violates yours.

The funny thing is, if the progressives in this country hasn’t spent so much time undermining private propery rights (another right guaranteed by the constitution in Amendment 9 but to make progressive ideals pass muster must be ignored) then the solution would be pretty simple.

If you pollute my property, you pay. Simple court case. If you dump pollution in a stream that then flows into my property or water supply, you pay. It’s a violation of rights that is taken care of with existing laws and no one has to be subjected to totalitarianism.

But, since the idea of ‘property’ is an anethma to progressive sensibilities…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 24, 2008 10:56 PM
Comment #243770
Wow you anarchist types are amazing Rhinehold. Its been over 30 years since the first energy crisis, yet the market is now jumping on board barely yet you make a statement like this.

Had the government not intervened, we would have been there 30 years ago. Ah, the power of government…

No wonder you actually beleive that raising CAFE standards actually kills over 7000 Americans for each gallon of gas saved, 7000 deaths per gallon saved. Lets just do the math real quick, lets just say every year there was 1,000 gallons saved nationwide. So 7000 deaths X 1000 gals = 7,000,000 dead in auto accidents per year due to just the lighter weight vehicle. Am I missing something here? Its my understanding that the traffic death toll per year is around 43,000.

Wow, another amazing use of logic…

The 1 gallon saved was in the form of CAFE standards… Not individual gallons of gas saved…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 24, 2008 10:58 PM
Comment #243776

Rhinehold,

Let me get this straight …………….

I said, “that’s democracy at work”.

And your reply is, “Yeah, mob rule, ignoring the minority’s rights. That’s democracy at work.”

WTF?

We’re talking about government involvement in saving the environment. or maybe just governments involvement in anything, including Social Security, and you somehow see that as an infringement on some imaginary “minority rights” that you believe are afforded to you by WHAT?

Your comments amaze me. What should we do with our Democracy? What should we replace it with?

PS: I won’t even ask what minority you’re a part of, just out of being PC.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 24, 2008 11:39 PM
Comment #243777

Rhinehold, “Wow, another amazing use of logic…

The 1 gallon saved was in the form of CAFE standards… Not individual gallons of gas saved…”

Well thats not what you said Rhinehold.What you said was “to detalis about how raising CAFE standards actually kills over 7000 Americans for each gallon of gas saved, “.
That being said your current comment is just as absurd. Which is why when you go to libertarian sites for information its suspect. For a think tank to run this prattle and for it to be repeated as a significent arguement against CAFE standards is well… another amazing use of logic wouldn’t you say. Surely you can do better than repeat this crap. To think that CAFE standards raised mpg standards by 10 mpg and then add up deaths that could have, maybe, sorta kinda been caused by heavier vehicles and use the 10 mpg as the means to say 7000 deaths per is meaningless at best, in fact it borders on Rovian misinformation IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 24, 2008 11:45 PM
Comment #243778

“Had the government not intervened, we would have been there 30 years ago. Ah, the power of government…”

Yeah right the free market was all over it and then the feds said here are some minimums and then the free market said oh not now. Surely you jest.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 24, 2008 11:48 PM
Comment #243779
What should we do with our Democracy? What should we replace it with?

Nothing, we don’t have a Democracy. We have a Representative Republic. We have individual protections so that the majority can’t exploit the minority. So, for example, 75% of the people can’t vote to force a gender change on the other 25% of the people. In a straight up Democracy, that would be possible.

HTH

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 24, 2008 11:49 PM
Comment #243780
Yeah right the free market was all over it and then the feds said here are some minimums and then the free market said oh not now. Surely you jest.

You’re mixing up the comments. This was about how bailing out the big 3 prevented the market from responding to the desires of the purchasers who wanted cheaper, more efficient cars that Japan was selling.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 24, 2008 11:51 PM
Comment #243781
That being said your current comment is just as absurd.

No, it’s just not a nice thought.

In my view though, the CAFE standards are just a governmental fix to fix a governmental problem of preventing the free market from working towards this goal to begin with. The problem is NOT that no one wants cheaper higher mileage cars, they. The problem is that the car makers refuse to respond to that market because they no longer have to, the government is protecting them. So then the government has to come in and start dictating rules.

And, while I’m not against CAFE standards per se, it seems silly to ignore the REAL problem, that we created the situation we have now because of short-sighted policies to protect large business because of handshake agreements between business and unions, just as we are trying to do now with the current relief package.

Bribing us to spend money by giving us some of our own money back as a loan (which is what it is since we are going to be increasing the deficit to pay for it) is IMO insulting.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 24, 2008 11:57 PM
Comment #243786

Rhinehold,

I asked, “What should we do with our Democracy? What should we replace it with?”

And you answer, “Nothing, we don’t have a Democracy. We have a Representative Republic. We have individual protections so that the majority can’t exploit the minority. So, for example, 75% of the people can’t vote to force a gender change on the other 25% of the people. In a straight up Democracy, that would be possible.”

So WTF happens to our right to elect our representative government?

Our Republic is a Democratic Republic. What would you replace that with since you find a democratic election to amount to “mob rule”?

Just for once don’t evade the question and give a straight answer!

Either we can or can not elect those who represent us!

Posted by: KansasDem at January 25, 2008 12:49 AM
Comment #243788

KansasDem,

You are missing the point. A full democracy allows for the majority to rule, with no limits. As my point explained, rights are not inalienable in a democracy.

There is a difference between a Democratic Republic and a Representative Republic. We do not directly elect our President or Supreme Court members and there is nothing preventing states to go back to choosing our representatives either as they once did, though it is unlikely to happen.

That we directly elect our congressional representatives, one branch of three, does not make us a Democracy.

But to your point, although I have been very clear and not evasive at all, I will attempt once again to explain.

If the majority is free to do whatever it wants, then it will be free to oppress those with minority views. Think you should be free to part your hair on the right side? Not if the majority of citizens disagree! Think you should be free to speak any language in public? Not if the majority of citizens disagree! (This actually happened in Canada, in the recent past, btw). Think you should be free to have an abortion? Well, in a Democracy, if that is the minority view then you are out of luck. Think you should be free to not worship a Christian god? If this country were a Democracy, it most likely would not be the case, you’d be required to attend a christian church on Sundays.

That is the danger of a Democracy. Now, while I take ‘liberties’ with making these cases, my point is to make sure we understand the dangers of saying ‘if the majority of people want something, we should do it’. We have to be concerned, as a society, of protecting the minority view. In fact, there would be no need for a Bill of Rights under a Democracy, would there? They would just be outlawed if a simple majority were needed. No, the REAL purpose of our government is to protect the minority individual view from abuses at the hands of the (sometimes well-meaning) majority. If we don’t, we are just passing time until it does occur that we no longer have any individual rights against the power of the state, democratic or not.

BTW, I am offended at being told ‘for once don’t evade the question’. I answer every question answered of me as best as I can. If I don’t do a good job of explanation in terms that you understand, that is simply a failing on my part, not an attempt to evade.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2008 1:13 AM
Comment #243790

Perhaps this explains my position best:

Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens in the US are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law. Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. Thomas Jefferson stated that majority rights cannot exist if individual rights do not. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote or government having power to deny any inalienable right. Moreover, the power of elected representatives is also checked by prohibitions against any single individual having legislative, judicial, and executive powers so that basic constitutional law is extremely difficult to change. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as “a government of laws, and not of men.”

The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers, and a layered federal structure. Inalienable rights refers to a set of human rights that are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered. The Constitution of the United States was written to protect the inalienable rights of citizens from potential excesses of government, even if taken by majority rule. Inalienable rights are not granted by government, but by nature.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2008 1:25 AM
Comment #243793

“BTW, I am offended at being told ‘for once don’t evade the question’.”

Rhinehold,

As abrasive as your comments to others often are I find that kind of funny, but so be it.

Maybe you just forgot to answer this question from comment #243705:

“How, specifically, would the free market address our rising energy demands? Are you proposing that we should just pull out all the stops, maybe start by doing away with the EPA? Do you really believe that big oil and big coal are going to self regulate in a manner that will protect the planet for future generations?”

And I closed by asking:

“Maybe some of the “Green” solutions are too “socialist”, some propositions will undoubtedly never become law while others might, but offer a specific alternative to those propositions. Then we voters can play multiple choice at the polls and decide which proposition best addresses societies needs. Maybe we’ll get it wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time, but that’s democracy at work.”

Then you somehow create a straw man argument about minorities rights to pollute or some damn thing, and then you seem to suggest that the publics right to vote is less important than these imaginary minority rights to poop in some future generation-neighbors soup.

If that offends I’m sorry but that’s how I see it. We have a responsibility to future generations and we’re NOT meeting that responsibility!

Posted by: KansasDem at January 25, 2008 1:54 AM
Comment #243794

“Inalienable rights are not granted by government, but by nature.”

And where exactly does that appear in our laws?

And ………….. if it did, then should we not be expected to preserve NATURE for future generations?

Posted by: KansasDem at January 25, 2008 1:59 AM
Comment #243797

KCtim,

I see, you live in an urban enviroment and yet you don’t use electricity or garbage collection. You don’t drive on a community built road or use a community built sewer system. You’re totally indepedent. You don’t rely on trucked in food either. Note: the preceeding was sarcasm.

If you live isolated and indepedent of society, why do you care about carbon credits? It won’t affect you one iota. If you don’t participate in commerce, taxes don’t affect you, and you pollution is largely your own problem. Otherwise, stop mooching off of everyone else, deadbeat.

The overstatement was Rhinehold’s, not to mention missuse of a quote.

I don’t know who called anyone a commie, but then there is the title Red Green. I wonder what that implies? The irony was mine, but of course, you took it literally.

I’m guessing your one of those folks who doesn’t believe he pollutes, or as my mamma used to say, you believe your sh** don’t stink.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 25, 2008 2:14 AM
Comment #243799

Rhinehold,

In case you haven’t read a paper in a few years, We are drowning in a sea of pollution that is changing global climates, and killing thousands.

This is where your liberty ends. Sorry but the “I don’t hurt anyone else” dog just wont hunt.

You don’t just pollute your property. You pollute our world. Stop it. Pay for it. and stop whining.


As to where I got the Anarchy rant from: You.

Sorry Irony is so difficult for you to fathom.

Perhaps as KCtim cannot smell his own stink, metaphorically, neither can you see your own fallacies.

That is the exact same logic you used to paint Hillary’s completely unrelated quote as Socialism.

Death on your own pitard probably hurts a little.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 25, 2008 2:30 AM
Comment #243815

KDem
Where did it come from? From the people who are justifying govt control of lives in order to “save” the world from what they personally fear.
Rhinehold isn’t saying the global warming issue is a hoax nor is he saying no govt help whatsoever, but those are the leaps people take everytime someone dares question the idea of a nanny state.

“For that matter, when did we stop being “this once great nation”?”

When we threw away the Constitution and became a socialized democracy.

“As I recall you voted for W”

I am afraid you recall wrong thing old friend. I voted 3rd party.

“and he continually professed that we are the worlds ONLY superpower! When did that change? And why? Did the “Green’s” ruin it? If so, how?”

No, that did not change, we are the worlds only superpower, but we also are not the country we were founded as. The “Greens” did not ruin it, but their idea of using govt to force everybody to comply to their ideas sure has had an affect.

You are right, it is not our right to “rape the planet,” but I am afraid that I place my right to live as I wish, ahead of your ideas of what raping the planet are.

“The founding fathers knew nothing about pollution at the level we’re dealing with now, but since they or their ancestors had spent fortunes on moving to this “new” world I suspect they’d have respected her from dirt to fruit!”

And you think they would have approved of using govt to monitor and force people to live a certain way? Do you believe they envisioned govt coming into the peoples homes and dictating what is right and wrong? Wow!
You know, the founders also did not know a thing about telephones either. Think they would have approved of govt coming into homes under that guise in order to protect people from terrorism? Why is it ok for govt to violate rights and freedoms to protect us from pollution, but wrong in order to protect us from terrorism?

You see KDem, that is the difference. Some of you believe govt should violate individual rights and freedoms IF, and only if, it is in support of the leftist platform.
And some of us, well, we believe it is wrong for govt to do that and do not support govt doing that.

Posted by: kctim at January 25, 2008 9:27 AM
Comment #243818

googlum
I never said I was totally independent. You said you wanted me to bear the cost of my pollution and I wanted to know how you know what that cost is. Maybe I go above and beyond and my cost is minimal? Maybe my cost is in line with the average? Maybe my cost is more? The point is, you do not know how or why I live my life the way that I do, so quit trying to dictate how I live it.

“If you live isolated and indepedent of society, why do you care about carbon credits? It won’t affect you one iota.”

I don’t recall saying I was for or against carbon credits. I was talking about people willfully giving up their individual rights and wanting govt to control their lives, in order to “save the world” from what they personally fear.
You know, gay marriage doesn’t affect me one iota either, but yet, I am a strong supporter of allowing it. Why? Because individual rights and freedoms are more important than my own beliefs.

“Otherwise, stop mooching off of everyone else, deadbeat.”

Man, you really dislike it when people don’t believe the same as you huh. Lighten up some. Accept it, don’t take it so personal.

“I’m guessing your one of those folks who doesn’t believe he pollutes, or as my mamma used to say, you believe your sh** don’t stink.”

Yes, you are guessing alright and you come up with a negative guess simply because I do not share your beliefs. Sigh!
I do pollute. I know I pollute. I am no better than anybody else.
I just happen to believe that govt controlling individual lives is not freedom and it is not what this country was founded on.

Posted by: kctim at January 25, 2008 10:04 AM
Comment #243821

KCtim,

I kill babies and stack them in my yard. Their my babies and they don’t affect anybody else. You don’t know how many babies I killed or anything about me, how can the government tell me what to do?

This is the same empty logic of Old Grouch who doesn’t trust anyone to evaluate his pollution.

It’s relatively straight foward and simple to evaluate your carbon footprint, and like killing babies, it has consequences outside of your property.

I’m sorry you don’t like the police regulating your baby killing or the epa your pollution output, but that is the cost of living in society.


Don’t like it? Move to your remote island and become totally self sufficient. You can then stack up babies or pollutants to your hearts content, until someone invades you. Then I guess your army of one will have to defend you.

The premise of this post is as ridiculous and absurd as the argument I just made. The defenders of this point out clearly the pejorative nature of this as some sort of Libertarian issue. It isn’t. Liberty isn’t this easy or this narcissistic. This kind of argument may have mad sense in 19th century America. It’s just whining today.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 25, 2008 10:36 AM
Comment #243830

googlum
Of course its just whining today, people no longer believe in individual rights and freedoms unless they are rights and freedoms they personally believe in. People having to use extremes to prove their point show that quite clearly.

The “premise” of this post, is to show how special interest groups are “seeking to obtain authoritarian control of every aspect of our lives” and how some are willing to sacrifice their own liberty’s if its for something they believe in.
Do you believe authoritarian control should be used to enforce what you believe? Well guess what, someone else also believes it but for something they believe in. Should govt force you to accept their beliefs? Them to accept your beliefs? Where does it stop?
Rather than giving up our rights and freedoms for some things and not others, we should be fighting to keep them all. I don’t want govt coming into my living room and monitoring my phone calls and I don’t want them coming into my living room and monitoring my thermostat.

Rhinehold did not say for us to do nothing or that govt has no job whatsoever in the solution.

Contrary to the prevailing thought of todays left, it is possible to respect individual rights and freedoms and STILL reach the desired outcome.

Posted by: kctim at January 25, 2008 11:26 AM
Comment #243831
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Damn Founders. What a bunch of Red Socialists!!!
:D
Unfortunately for Libertarians, Plutocrats Without Conscience, and other Anarchists, allowing everyone to pollute at will endangers our domestic tranquility and general welfare collectively. If this continues unchecked, it will also become an issue of the common defence, since wars will undoubtedly be fought over the results of Global Climate Change.

Our “socialist” government has the right to head off such an outcome at the pass:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Specifially:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Congress is allowed to define for themselves exactly what crimes are “an offense against the law of nations”. It is a duty cast upon every government to prevent a wrong being done within its own territory to another nation with which it is at peace, or to that nations people.
Carbon emissions that increase Global Climate Change fall neatly into this category.

In my view, the above article doesn’t have a single leg to stand on.

Posted by: veritas vincit at January 25, 2008 11:44 AM
Comment #243834

veritas: “…and other anarchists…”

When you make inflammatory statements such as these, it hardly encourages the reader to go on through the rest of your post… I mean, what are you? A totalitarian commie?

“…allowing everyone to pollute at will…”

I’ve yet to read anyone advocate this. That said…

I agree there need to be intelligent, measured (read: not knee-jerk, treating-only-the-symptoms) laws on the books protecting individuals’ rights to breathe clean air and to be free from polluted rivers.

CAFE standards… some people say it is not near enough, some say it goes to far… fine, whatever… either way one looks at it we would not be in this big a mess if, as Rhinehold points out, our government did not artificially prop up our big three and instead made them compete in a competitive marketplace. But hey, voters live in Detroit so we better make them happy even if it’s the wrong thing to do…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at January 25, 2008 12:44 PM
Comment #243844

kctim “The “premise” of this post, is to show how special interest groups are “seeking to obtain authoritarian control of every aspect of our lives” and how some are willing to sacrifice their own liberty’s if its for something they believe in.”
Well kc it sure didnt come off that way. I didnt notice special interest group mentioned, however I did notice socialist and red mentioned. Yet when anarchist is mentioned it seems to upset you. I did notice Clinton taken out of context and misrepresented in the link. I did notice the think tank nonsense on CAFE caused deaths.

“Rhinehold did not say for us to do nothing or that govt has no job whatsoever in the solution.
Contrary to the prevailing thought of todays left, it is possible to respect individual rights and freedoms and STILL reach the desired outcome.”

And that is what I have been asking for but all I get is “Had the government not intervened, we would have been there 30 years ago. Ah, the power of government…” and of course “The part you are missing is that there OTHER ways to solve issues like this that does NOT require violating individual rights. Of course, since you don’t care about that, the easier way is to go the totalitarian route…)

So in the here and now how does CA solve the problem in a libertarian way? Put it on the table.

I dont think any liberal or libertarian favors totalitarianism. Nor do I like being called a socialist any more than you like to be called an anarchist. We both read the same constitution we just interpret it differently, which proves the wisdom of the founders IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 25, 2008 2:33 PM
Comment #243852

J2
“I didnt notice special interest group mentioned”

- this is about how many in the Green movement

That is in the first paragraph. The “green movement” is nothing more than a special interest group.

Anarchist does not upset me. Being labeled as an anarchist because one believes in individual rights and freedoms, does.

I do not know the libertarian answer to fixing CA, I only know what I think should be done and you will not like it, but I will put it on the table for you.
- I would quit hindering energy development.
- I would build new and more efficient facilities.
- I would require ALL customers to provide proof of citizenship before they were supplied with energy, services, aid and employment.

I would NOT have govt going into homes and controlling their thermostat, phone or what they eat.

“We both read the same constitution we just interpret it differently”

Very true, but my interpretation of it does not step on your rights, freedoms or liberties. Your interpretation of it does.

Posted by: kctim at January 25, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment #243863

kctim,

Your assertion is that because we don’t agree with your extremist view of individual freedom, is that we are Red.

What I am saying, quite clearly, is that your point is absurd and extreme. I only used extreme examples to point out the extremety of your and Rhinehold’s position.

When you don’t like a particular reality of modern living in an Urban society, you scream about Liberty.

Having standards set on pollution amd using carbon credits as a means to reduce pollution only restricts your liberty to continue to diminish my liberty to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and not live in a catasrophic result of global warming.

Jefferson’s ideas of liberty were not meant to destroy civility and allow rampant treading upon others rights. Government can and should intervene to mediate.

You diminish the meaning of Liberty, in my opinion, with these kinds of Narcissistic rants about how you have the right to pollute the world.

You offer no solutions, but only cry. “don’t tase my liberty, bro!!! It may get attention, but ultimately makes Libertarians look like a joke.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 25, 2008 6:16 PM
Comment #243872
Maybe you just forgot to answer this question from comment #243705:

Quite possibly, I had a lot of responding to do and I must have missed that one. Not in an attempt to evade, but as a human failing.

“How, specifically, would the free market address our rising energy demands?

By supplying energy to those who demand it. Sorry, but if you look closely you will see the biggest problem that California has with energy shortage is because the government is preventing the importation of energy from coal sources, even clean coal. This of course has economic effects in both California AND those states that have abundant energy sources that they were selling to California. Many people are now out of work, most of them middle class. It makes it VERY hard to try to find alternative energy sources when you are depriving people of the energy they need to achieve that goal.

But, the market is already responding if people would quit looking to government for the solution. We now have available to us this year solar panels that cost less than $1 per watt to make. They are going to be sold at $2 per watt, over half of what they currently cost, and are greener to make.

There are demands for newer clean and CHEAP energy sources. There are no better sources than solar and wind, and over the years we have seen great strides in these areas. Large areas of the midwest are putting windmills in their farms, allowing them to use them for both farming AND energy production, that energy can then be sold to overpopulated (urg) areas like LA and NY.

Are you proposing that we should just pull out all the stops, maybe start by doing away with the EPA?

I don’t think I’ve proposed anything like that, all I’ve stated is that we should find solutions that SOLVE the problems without resorting to violating individual rights. It is interesting that people just can’t seem to get their head around the notion that that is actually possible. It’s a telling commentary on our educational system…

Do you really believe that big oil and big coal are going to self regulate in a manner that will protect the planet for future generations?

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘self-regulate’, if these companies are polluting private property, they will end up being sued by those private property owners to the point where they will either stop it or go out of business. In addition, as cheaper and cleaner energy sources become available, these companies will either adapt (as I believe many of them are attempting to do, using their distribution mechanisms already in place to start delivering these sources when they are available) or they will go out of business.

Unless we bail them out, as we did the Big 3. Then all bets are off. And it wouldn’t surprise me either, most politicians are ignorant weasels.

“Maybe some of the “Green” solutions are too “socialist”

yup, some of them definately are

some propositions will undoubtedly never become law while others might, but offer a specific alternative to those propositions.

Well, sure, since I’m the all knowing, I’ll just solve all of the world’s problems.

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with not having all of the answers, you know. But there is also nothing wrong with demanding that we solve this problems *AND* retain our individual rights and freedoms. We’re a smart group of people in this country and I think we could do it if we really wanted to. The problem is most people are either 1) lazy 2) purposely looking for power 3) uninformed or 4) susceptible to the ‘fear’ politics that the left and right in this country use to their advantage every 2 years…

Then we voters can play multiple choice at the polls and decide which proposition best addresses societies needs. Maybe we’ll get it wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time, but that’s democracy at work.

Oh yeah, democracy… The exploitation of The Forgotten Man.

Remember, we elected, through democracy, a president who thinks it is ok to spy on citizens. By your rationale, he did the right thing, since he was elected, no one told him no and he was then RE-elected. Why would he think he should stop when he thinks he needs to do it because he believes he has societies needs at heart?

Don’t you think we should find a way to counter terrorism that doesn’t violate our civil rights? Do you have the way to do that all figured out yet? Shouldn’t we try a little harder than to take the easy way out and just monitor and spy on everyone?

Then you somehow create a straw man argument about minorities rights to pollute or some damn thing

I did no such think, no one has a ‘right to pollute’. We have a right not to lose our freedoms in the pursuit of noble goals.

and then you seem to suggest that the publics right to vote is less important than these imaginary minority rights to poop in some future generation-neighbors soup.

Wow, you really just don’t understand what I’m saying at all, do you?

If that offends I’m sorry but that’s how I see it.

Well, if you think that I’m defending poluting, when I’ve been a staunch environmentalist/conservationalist for over 30 years, you really aren’t seeing what I’m saying at all…

We have a responsibility to future generations and we’re NOT meeting that responsibility!

No, we aren’t, because part of that responsibility is defending thier freedoms as well as their environment so that they have both available to them. You know, really work hard. Neither side of the argument seems to see that at all. If we fail on either count, we have failed completely and totally.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2008 7:47 PM
Comment #243873
And where exactly does that appear in our laws?

Declaration of Independance and 9th amendment to the Constitution…

And ………….. if it did, then should we not be expected to preserve NATURE for future generations?

Yes, we should. I’m still baffled why you think I am not for preserving our environment. I don’t think it should be done in the same manner as the Republicans want to save us from terrorism, but that does not mean I don’t support conservation policies, I’ve been doing that for decades. My new house will be 100%+ green (I hope to sell power back to the energy company) and many would call me and my wife hippies…

Heh, I even remember when us hippies were considered so because we believed, *gasp* in civil rights and personal liberties!

It’s funny to see how things change…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2008 7:51 PM
Comment #243876
In case you haven’t read a paper in a few years, We are drowning in a sea of pollution that is changing global climates, and killing thousands.

I’ve been a conservationist for decades, I think I have grasped the idea…

This is where your liberty ends.

Erm, no it doesn’t. My liberty exists because I am a human being. The day I am no longer a sentient human, perhaps I will lose those liberties. Untill then, I still have them and I have the means to defend them.

You don’t just pollute your property. You pollute our world. Stop it. Pay for it. and stop whining.

I do? How do I do that exactly? If I pollute another’s private property, I should be taken to court and made to pay to clean it up. Do you have some knowledge about what I do and what I don’t do?

As to where I got the Anarchy rant from: You.

Then possibly some reading comprehension courses are in order.

>blockquote>Sorry Irony is so difficult for you to fathom.

No, Irony is not difficult at all. When I see some from you I’ll point it out.

Liebel, on the other hand, is a different topic all together.

Perhaps as KCtim cannot smell his own stink, metaphorically, neither can you see your own fallacies.

My fallacies? Preytell, what are those ‘fallacies’ exactly? Is there something ‘incorrect’ about my assertion that there are some who use the green movement to push authoritarian or socialist ideals? Is there something ‘incorrect’ with demanding that my government go the extra mile to find solutions to our problems that solve those problems AND do not violate my individual rights?

Exactly where am I ‘missing the boat’ again?

That is the exact same logic you used to paint Hillary’s completely unrelated quote as Socialism.

LOL, I hate to tell you but the notion of taking something from someone else for the ‘greater good’ is pretty much the definition of socialism, don’t you think? I know it is harder these days to tell the difference between paying for resources and funding socialist agendas, but that doesn’t mean you can get away with saying those things without being labelled as such.

Granted, the original quote was not about ‘environmentalism’ (it was taken from the article I was referencing, I thought I was making it clear at the very beginning that I was quoting from another’s work, but I guess that fell flat…), but it was still a socialist statement.

Death on your own pitard probably hurts a little.

I wouldn’t know, I’m pretty much still alive and kicking…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2008 8:05 PM
Comment #243877
In my view, the above article doesn’t have a single leg to stand on.

Only if we throw out the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of Independence…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2008 8:07 PM
Comment #243878

kctim “I would quit hindering energy development.
- I would build new and more efficient facilities.
- I would require ALL customers to provide proof of citizenship before they were supplied with energy, services, aid and employment.

I would NOT have govt going into homes and controlling their thermostat, phone or what they eat.”
kc, while all of these solutions may work eventually they still require a “totalitarian law” to ensure they are complied with. Developers may have the liberty to build but what they do has reprocussions on the liberty of others. Same thing can be said for energy producers.
Shouldnt we the people have a means of protecting us from the excesses of others. Voluntary compliance really isnt an option at this point in time. Maybe one day but not now.
BTW isnt it just a little bit totalitarian to require private companies to check citizenship prior to offering their services? Sounds like something Bush apologist do.
According to the post these thermostats are radio controlled devices so no intrusion into the home would be required. So while they may be expensive and somewhat intrusive how do you get those that refuse to be part of the solution to comply. You seem to favor more energy and the associated problems

“We both read the same constitution we just interpret it differently”

“Very true, but my interpretation of it does not step on your rights, freedoms or liberties. Your interpretation of it does.” Sez you.
By allowing others to infringe upon my natural rights to clean air and water you in fact do step on my liberties. It a hard row to hoe kc when it comes to sorting out whose liberties does what to who in a modern interconnected society. I think that is why we have elected reps trying to pass laws respectful of all of our liberties not just liberties for a few. Im not saying they(our elected reps) are successful a lot just saying thats the plan.

When Rhinehold was saying green movement I was thinking he was meaning the Green party. The focus on special interest groups being totalitarian and taking away the liberties of others just seems more far fetched. I wonder why the post he linked to didnt include the exxon backed groups that exercise the same rights as the greens on the carbon issue as part of the problem.
I really dont see how special interest groups that exercise their free speech rights are able to deny you liberty. It takes a government according to Rhinehold to do that. If you object to the SIG’s lobbyist you are violating their free speech rights according to conservative logic. Of course you do have the right to your own lobbyist exercising their free speech rights to stop the laws you object to. Now me, I dont beleive corporate and SIG lobbyist have the right to influence government with money, thats bribery not liberty.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 25, 2008 8:09 PM
Comment #243880
Well kc it sure didnt come off that way. I didnt notice special interest group mentioned, however I did notice socialist and red mentioned.

Yeah, I stated that there are individuals in the green movement that are more interested in advancing socialist and authoritarian ideals.

Do you disagree with that statement?

Yet when anarchist is mentioned it seems to upset you.

Mentioning Anarchists is not upsetting to most people at all. Speficially calling someone an Anarchist who isn’t would go over just as well as if someone called you a nazi if you weren’t…

I did notice Clinton taken out of context and misrepresented in the link.

Her original comment was not about the Environment. It was still a socialist notion, to take money from one group of people to give to another for ‘the common good’, is it not?

I did notice the think tank nonsense on CAFE caused deaths.

You can dispute it, but on the grounds of the evidence they’ve presented, I say that they have a good case. How is it invalid exactly?

Nor do I like being called a socialist

When were you called a socialist exactly?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2008 8:13 PM
Comment #243881
According to the post these thermostats are radio controlled devices so no intrusion into the home would be required.

And Bush’s spying program required no intrusion into your home either, so you’re for it since he is trying to defend us from terrorism?

You’ve already said that we should throw out our rights to protect ourselves from outside forces, the precident is being set…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2008 8:16 PM
Comment #243883
Your assertion is that because we don’t agree with your extremist view of individual freedom, is that we are Red.

extremist? LOL, they are the same views our founding fathers had. Those extremists!

What I am saying, quite clearly, is that your point is absurd and extreme. I only used extreme examples to point out the extremety of your and Rhinehold’s position.

And I’m saying, quite clearly, that you are full of it.

By your own arguments, you’ve validated the Bush Administration’s spying program. Well done, though I don’t think that was your intention…

When you don’t like a particular reality of modern living in an Urban society, you scream about Liberty.

If by living in an ‘urban society’ you mean we have to give up our individual liberties, you are going to have to do a lot of backing up of that. Why?

Having standards set on pollution amd using carbon credits as a means to reduce pollution only restricts your liberty to continue to diminish my liberty to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and not live in a catasrophic result of global warming.

Interesting, where have I said that we shouldn’t set standards on pollution…? Where have I said that we should just ignore the issue and move on. In fact, I’ve stated SEVERAL TIMES that we need to find solutions that include protecting our individual rights. I pointed out several ‘solutions’ that do not do this, they take the easy way out. And as long as we, as a society, go along with them because we don’t demand more from our leaders, we freely give up those rights just as we do if we don’t stop spying programs.

Jefferson’s ideas of liberty were not meant to destroy civility and allow rampant treading upon others rights. Government can and should intervene to mediate.

Yes, it should. As I’ve pointed out many times. but not stupidly, arrogantly, over-reachingly, unconstitutionally or while violating rights that they CAN’T violate since they don’t regulate them.

You diminish the meaning of Liberty, in my opinion, with these kinds of Narcissistic rants about how you have the right to pollute the world.

Can you name one time anyone here has said that they have the right to pollute the world?

You offer no solutions, but only cry. “don’t tase my liberty, bro!!! It may get attention, but ultimately makes Libertarians look like a joke.

If defending our basic rights, without which are not only not free but nothing more than slaves to the state, then laugh at me all you want. Only until you can’t, of course, because doing so would be illegal…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2008 8:30 PM
Comment #243885
By allowing others to infringe upon my natural rights to clean air and water you in fact do step on my liberties.

Sorry, but those are not natural rights, no matter how much you want them to be. Natural rights cannot exist if it requires someone else for them to exist. Clean water may or may not exist naturally, it depends on a lot of things in the natural environment. The same with air. Are we to sue for grievence if there is a forest fire and we don’t have clean air?

NOW, you do have a right to have your private property not polluted against your wishes by other individuals. And that is how these issues should be addressed.

If an ‘evil corporation’ puts pollution in the waterway and it affects my private property (either through the water table or a river we share) then I would sue the $$#% out of them for it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2008 8:35 PM
Comment #243886
It a hard row to hoe kc when it comes to sorting out whose liberties does what to who in a modern interconnected society.

Not really, it’s actually pretty easy. Unless you want to start defining things as natural rights that aren’t…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2008 8:36 PM
Comment #243911

Thanks, Rhinehold for completely reinforcing the ridiculousness of your post.

I am curious how suing a massive corporation for killing thousands goes. Your ideas of liberty as espoused here lead us to not our founding fathers, but to the founder’s of perhaps say Bhopal, India.

Nice plan. I know you’re not for pollution, just stupidly adhering to ideals that lead us there.

Once again you reject the idea of police enforcement of law. Next time someone assaults you just sue them. Don’t call the police as this would violate your principles of freedom.

As to why Urban life requires some diminishment of the freedom you spout about, is that people live in close proximity. If you live on 200 acres, blast your stereo, or hire a rock band to play in your front yard. You are free to do so. In a 200 unit apartment, that doesn’t work so well.

Ideals are wonderful, Rhinehold, but practicality is different. You seem to not be able to fathom compromise to accomodate living conditions.

Your rights stop when they vuolate mine. That is basic to any society, including our founding fathers. That you cannot comprehend that is amazing. Of course you do understand that, but in the la la land of logic you have launched here, that would be inconvenient for you to admit.

Lawsuits are your apparent solution to every societal ill. They haven’t worked, pollution is killing people, and now may be threatening climate. You however see some imaginary threat to your imagined freedom. Jeffferson would think you a fool. He didn’t sue the British. He didn’t sue the Barbary Pirates.

Rhinehold, in fantasy land we can live again in a frontier society, and discuss the rights that exist on the head of a pin. The rest of us will deal with real issues.

Freedom is about living the lives we choose responsibly in congruence with the rest of society. That line moves as the rest of society does. Freedom of religion, speech, and basic liberty have been upheld. There are real threats to freedom everyday. It comes from zealots of all kinds, including tree huggers. Carbon credits do not realisticly diminish those inherit freedoms except in your run amuk fantasies. It’s a pratical solution to a practical problem. You don’t like it? Then aver for a better idea. No one but you amd a few kooks believe lawsuits will get us there.

It’s sad to watch someone abuse the real revolution of ideals of Locke, Jefferson et al, by continuing to cite them in every small gripe he has with the world.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 26, 2008 12:24 AM
Comment #243914
I am curious how suing a massive corporation for killing thousands goes.

If someone kills another, they are arrested and put in jail. Who is being ridiculous now?

Your ideas of liberty as espoused here lead us to not our founding fathers, but to the founder’s of perhaps say Bhopal, India.

Again, showing your lack of historical context…

Once again you reject the idea of police enforcement of law. Next time someone assaults you just sue them. Don’t call the police as this would violate your principles of freedom.

This has to be the stupidest, most ignorant paragraph I’ve read on here in a long time, congratulations.

Where, anywhere, have I denounced law enforcement?

As to why Urban life requires some diminishment of the freedom you spout about, is that people live in close proximity.

It is precisely BECAUSE we live closer together that we need to enforce civil rights. If I live on 200 acres, there is no need for a right to privacy, no one is going to be anywhere near me…

Ideals are wonderful, Rhinehold, but practicality is different. You seem to not be able to fathom compromise to accomodate living conditions.

And you seem to unable to understand that these freedoms and rights that I talk about are not for the government to take since they don’t give them to us, the exist as a natural state.

Your rights stop when they vuolate mine. That is basic to any society, including our founding fathers. That you cannot comprehend that is amazing. Of course you do understand that, but in the la la land of logic you have launched here, that would be inconvenient for you to admit.

Am I on candid camera?

You have just stated the basis for libertarian (classic liberal) thought, googlumpugus…

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” —Thomas Jefferson 1819.

Lawsuits are your apparent solution to every societal ill.

It is? Interesting, learning what my ‘apparent views’ are from someone else…

They haven’t worked, pollution is killing people, and now may be threatening climate.

And had the government not gotten in the way of resolving the issue we would be much cleaner now. Government should be protecting individual rights, not ‘bailing out failing companies’.

You however see some imaginary threat to your imagined freedom.

Now my freedoms are imagined? *shrug*

Jeffferson would think you a fool.

This idiocy is based on?

He didn’t sue the British. He didn’t sue the Barbary Pirates.

He had no legal standing to ‘sue the British’, it was not a free society, it was not a society built upon the rule of law…

Rhinehold, in fantasy land we can live again in a frontier society, and discuss the rights that exist on the head of a pin. The rest of us will deal with real issues.

No, you will deal with real issues in a lazy manner ignoring the Forgotten Man. You will deal with one issue that creates another, and then deal with that issue creating another. Then you will wake up one day and find Big Brother sitting in your bathroom checking to see how much you have digested that day, with no recourse because the precident has been set.

Tell me, are you concerned at all about the government spying on you? Why do you think that can’t do that exactly? I mean, people are dying! Surely a little spying never hurt anyone, right? I mean, if you have nothing to hide…

Freedom is about living the lives we choose responsibly in congruence with the rest of society. That line moves as the rest of society does. Freedom of religion, speech, and basic liberty have been upheld.

The line moves, huh? Interesting…

“Nothing… is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.” — Thomas Jefferson 1824

There are real threats to freedom everyday. It comes from zealots of all kinds, including tree huggers.

Which I think was the freaking POINT of my article, jesus…

Carbon credits do not realisticly diminish those inherit freedoms except in your run amuk fantasies. It’s a pratical solution to a practical problem. You don’t like it? Then aver for a better idea. No one but you amd a few kooks believe lawsuits will get us there.

So, the real problem here is that we have hit upon your pet issue so for THIS issue we must suspend our rights…?

It’s sad to watch someone abuse the real revolution of ideals of Locke, Jefferson et al, by continuing to cite them in every small gripe he has with the world.

LOL - Are you suggesting we should only concern ourselves with our rights when they are large violations, the small ones we should just ignore?

I’m sorry if you think I’m overreacting because I have a problem with people hijacking a movement that I have been a part of for decades to push authoritarian policies, but I really don’t think you’re actually helping whatever point you’re trying to make with what you have written…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 26, 2008 1:16 AM
Comment #243963

Rhinehold,

I’m sure you’ve heard of Jared Bernstein’s definition of the Bush (actually beginning with Reagan) economy as a YOYO economy, YOYO being “you on your own” as opposed to a WITT economy, WITT being “we’re all in this together”.

While we’re talking environment here rather than economy I feel the same principles apply. You suggest that if we as individuals feel threatened by the coal or oil industries we can simply file a lawsuit. I find that to be ridiculous.

I speak from some limited experience with lawsuits. I’m living on Social Security disability today largely due to exposure in the workplace to Dupont’s Teflon during the manufacturing process. I filed three lawsuits against my employer, and Dupont, and also the insurer, Cigna.

Well, this ain’t the movies! Huge corporations (and all involved were huge, the names Cigna and Dupont speak for themselves and the employer is a multinational German based conglomerate whom I can’t name due to a gag order) can drag these things out in court for decades.

The cost of these lawsuits becomes overwhelming to the plaintiff and to the taxpayer through support of the judicial system. Oh yes, you, as a taxpayer (like it or not), do support our justice system while these proceedings move forward.

To me it really does boil down to the YOYO vs. WITT thing. Whether it’s the economy or the environment or any number of other issues I think we’re all in this together. You obviously think we should all be on our own.

This also plays somewhat into the Libertarian Party’s idea of allowing secession from any entity, law, etc. that one personally doesn’t agree with. Well, if we allowed that we would simply be living in anarchy.

I’d also like to add that there would be no such thing as a Superfund Site if your ideals held to be true. Look at the list:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/npl.htm

Once again YOU get to pay for others misdeeds!

I am very curious though, you constantly rail against democracy as “mob rule”. What would you prefer? I’ll grant you that sometimes we, collectively, get it wrong but what’s better?

Posted by: KansasDem at January 27, 2008 2:16 AM
Comment #243973

Rhinehold,

You said,

“I’m sorry if you think I’m overreacting because I have a problem with people hijacking a movement that I have been a part of for decades to push authoritarian policies, but I really don’t think you’re actually helping whatever point you’re trying to make with what you have written…

Of course you define this legislation as authoritarian. You apparently don’t consider police enforcement of law authoritarian, or at least you refuse to see the correlation because it doesn’t fit your argument.

Again, passing a law that creates a market to distribute costs of pollution is only authoritarian in your twisted logic of rights. It’s a law that impinges on your inalienable rights. Kind of like your inalienable right to kill babies and stack them in your yard. You don’t see pollution as a real threat, therefore it’s something you can persue as a hobby and feel good about, but when it threatens life itself, it becomes authoritarian to create a market to trade in real costs.

The police arresting you for your stack of dead babies isn’t authoritarian, but creating a free market of carbon credits is authoritarian, jack botted thuggery. Yeah, this makes sense.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 27, 2008 4:54 AM
Comment #244034
What would you prefer? I’ll grant you that sometimes we, collectively, get it wrong but what’s better?

The way we are set up now, that we can vote on things as long as they are within the rigid limits of what the government can do and do not violate the individual rights of those in the minority view.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 27, 2008 9:57 PM
Comment #244035
To me it really does boil down to the YOYO vs. WITT thing. Whether it’s the economy or the environment or any number of other issues I think we’re all in this together. You obviously think we should all be on our own.

No, I think that we should not be violating individual rights, the rule of law and the constitution when we make laws. I’ve never said ‘we are on our own’, but we can accomplish things without the government always dictating individual actions, can’t we?

Perhaps that is the real issue, do you think that every thing that happens to an individual in the US has to be dictated by the government?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 27, 2008 9:59 PM
Comment #244036
Of course you define this legislation as authoritarian. You apparently don’t consider police enforcement of law authoritarian, or at least you refuse to see the correlation because it doesn’t fit your argument.

If ‘this legislation’, you are apparently speaking about the UK proposal to force everyone to submit to government tracking on their fuel usage and where they purchase, how much they use, rationing, penalties for using a legal substance, etc, then yeah, I see that proposal as being authoritarian…

Authoritarian - favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom.

BTW, one small problem with the carbon credit thingy… It wouldn’t do SQUAT about limiting pollution.

Isn’t that supposed to be the point of the legislation, to limit pollution? How would this proposal do so exactly? All it does is shuffle money around and screw the middle class. That’s what we need, isn’t it? Adding taxes to the middle class, possibly sending their money to rich people who develop carbon credit companies to make money for doing basically nothing?

It’s a stupid idea and it is a violation of privacy rights and a couple of amendments to the Constitution. Now, it was not presented in the US, so we have little to worry about, but it wouldn’t pass constitutional muster I suspect.

Again, passing a law that creates a market to distribute costs of pollution is only authoritarian in your twisted logic of rights.

Twisted logic of rights? I guess we don’t need those ‘privacy rights’ do we? Let’s just get rid of them. Are you supporting Bush’s spying laws? You refuse to answer that question, this is the exactd same issue, just a different fear source….

It’s a law that impinges on your inalienable rights. Kind of like your inalienable right to kill babies and stack them in your yard.

You can try to be stupidly insulting, but it surely doesn’t help whatever argument you think you are trying to make. Instead, you just display your lack of understanding of what an inalienable right is.

You don’t see pollution as a real threat, therefore it’s something you can persue as a hobby and feel good about, but when it threatens life itself, it becomes authoritarian to create a market to trade in real costs.

I don’t see pollution as a real threat because I don’t agree with this proposed ‘solution’ that will do NOTHING to limit pollution and will screw the middle class?

You mean ‘if I’m not with you I’m against you?’

And people wonder why so many see no difference between the left and the right in this country… It’s all which bogey man they use, the techniques, power grabs and arguments are exactly the same.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 27, 2008 10:12 PM
Comment #244037

BTW, you don’t need the government to create a carbon credit market.

You *DO* need the government to force everyone to use it and submit to the intrusive violation of our privacy and search and seizure rights…

Not that I don’t doubt it will one day be suggested here, because we have moronic legislators who don’t understand the basic foundation of constitutional republic. But that doesn’t make it any less authoritarian…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 27, 2008 10:15 PM
Comment #244052

Rhinehold,

You make clear the weakness of your arguments by avoiding answers to my argument and simply reframing the issue in your rhetoric.

You have no right to pollute. You have no right to kill and stack babies on your front lawn.

Neither of these were inalienable rights discussed by the founders.

You have made it clear you do not see pollution as a threat and therefore do not feel a need to have society control it, irregardless of the damage it does. That is the real basis of this rant.

I’m quite sure you will not defend my acclained right to stack dead babies on my front lawn. In my opinion, for the sake of this ridiculous argument, it is not a threat and should not fall under governmental authoritarian control.

I’m sorry you find my cogent argument insulting, I find your avoidance of dealing with the issue I raise, which clearly shows the fallacy of your argument, is dismissive, and in that way equally insulting, if that is to be the thrust of your reason for avoidance.

Carbon Credits are not meant to control pollution and evaluating it as such would indeed be stupid.

I am left with nothing to value in your arguments except someone raging against the machine. Rage on.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 28, 2008 9:10 AM
Comment #244056

googlum
“Your assertion is that because we don’t agree with your extremist view of individual freedom, is that we are Red”

No. It is my assertion that those who favor govt monitoring and controlling of the people, have no idea of what freedoms they once had as Americans.

“What I am saying, quite clearly, is that your point is absurd and extreme. I only used extreme examples to point out the extremety of your and Rhinehold’s position.”

And I freely admit that and has stated so many times on here. Most Americans no longer enjoy the freedoms they were granted because they have willingly given them up for govt “freebies” and “perks.”
So yes, my views are now extreme.

“When you don’t like a particular reality of modern living in an Urban society, you scream about Liberty.”

That is because not everybody lives in an urban society. Some of us actually enjoy our freedoms and have chosen to live away from such a life.
This type of thinking is part of what caused so many people to vote against leftists in the 90s. Just because people in an urban area fear something or demand less freedoms, does not mean those in rural areas want or need the same.

“Having standards set on pollution amd using carbon credits as a means to reduce pollution only restricts your liberty to continue to diminish my liberty to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and not live in a catasrophic result of global warming”

What does this have to do with govt controlling your living room or listening to your phone calls and taking from one and giving to another? Who has said pollution standards are wrong?

It appears your personal fears are what you are using to justify govt control of individual lives and that is no different than when someone on the right does it for what they fear.

Posted by: kctim at January 28, 2008 10:04 AM
Comment #244060

j2
“isnt it just a little bit totalitarian to require private companies to check citizenship prior to offering their services?”

No more so than any of the current standards they must abide by.

“According to the post these thermostats are radio controlled devices so no intrusion into the home would be required.”

Well, googlum won’t answer it, maybe you will: govt isn’t actually in your home when listening to terrorists phone calls either, do you support that?

“So while they may be expensive and somewhat intrusive how do you get those that refuse to be part of the solution to comply.”

Education and standards. The earth isn’t going to burn up next week, next month or next year. We can, and are, working towards more energy efficient lifestyles and we should continue to do so. But govt controlling individual lives won’t get us to utopia any quicker.

You seem to favor more energy and the associated problems

“It a hard row to hoe kc when it comes to sorting out whose liberties does what to who in a modern interconnected society.”

Which is why our govt was meant to run govt, not individual lives. Picking and choosing as we do now, is what has led us to the current form of unfair govt that now rules us.

“I think that is why we have elected reps trying to pass laws respectful of all of our liberties not just liberties for a few”

Yes, they now pass laws which favor the majority and ignore the rights of others. They once had limits on doing that though.

Posted by: kctim at January 28, 2008 10:23 AM
Comment #244084

kctim “Well, googlum won’t answer it, maybe you will: govt isn’t actually in your home when listening to terrorists phone calls either, do you support that?”
Government couldnt be in my home and listen to terrorist phone calls cause there are no terrorist at my home unless your counting anyone that leans to the left as a terrorist. Government through the FISA court listening to terrorist I have no problem with. Government without judicial oversight listening in on American citizens phone conversation in hopes of tracking down a terrorist without FISA oversight I do have a problem with.

“Education and standards. The earth isn’t going to burn up next week, next month or next year. We can, and are, working towards more energy efficient lifestyles and we should continue to do so. But govt controlling individual lives won’t get us to utopia any quicker.”

CA privatized energy earlier and it got Arnold elected after they recalled Davis over the whole energy fiasco. They have energy related problems so the state government is looking for a solution. I guess they consider radio controlled thermostats a better solution than rolling blackouts. Evidentially the education thing hasnt worked yet as they seem to be still having problems. As the themostats in question will be in new construction and major retrofit projects people will still have the option of not buying an office or living space in the new units or working elsewhere, you know the standard free market solution. So this solution , at this point, doesnt seem to be as totalitarian as spying on American citizens IMHO.

“Yes, they now pass laws which favor the majority and ignore the rights of others. They once had limits on doing that though.”

Seems the 108th and 109th passed laws that favored the corporations over the people if you ask me. The 110th has more laws obstructed and vetoed than passed. But to say they pass laws which favor the majority of the people and ignore the rights of others requires some examples cause right now Im not buying it. Nor do I buy the arguement that they once had limits on passing laws that favored the majority while protecting the rights of the few. At least not in the past century. Anybody that supports the rights of SIG’s and Corporations to hide behind free speech rights to bribe our elected officials shouldnt complain about the laws they get IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 28, 2008 3:48 PM
Comment #244107

Kctim,

I was talking about carbon credits not thermostat monitoring. I never addresseed things that are someone’s overexcited fantasies.I was attempting to bring this into a real world discussion of a carbon credits market, not somone’s distorted brave new world nightmare carefully crafted and completely ridiculous on it’s face.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 28, 2008 8:47 PM
Comment #267666

The novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley was published as a warning. It tells the tale of London in the year 2540, in a dystopian future in which the government controlled every aspect of the citizens’ lives, down to not allowing any dissenting, or in other words free, thought. This was Huxley’s vision of what will happen to societies if the government was allowed enough leeway to impose their iron fist into the everyday lives down to thoughts, words, and free choice of the citizens. This novel was controversial, and still is, but what is worse still is that his and also George Orwell’s cautionary tales of restriction of governmental regulation are beginning to come true, even here in the land of the free, the USA. For instance, the California government has allowed zoning of Los Angeles to include where fast food restaurants cannot have a store open. Burger joints are becoming outlawed, and one of the next targets is the payday loan industry, which has already come under fire. Many politicians and candidates are pledging to rid their respective states, municipalities, and also the entire United States of this legitimate and valuable service industry. Many of these politicians are hoping to get elected so that they can serve their own self interest or the banking lobby’s interests. How far should they be allowed to go before we, the American people, say enough? Post Courtesy of Personal Money StoreProfessional Blogging TeamFeed Back: 1-866-641-3406Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.htmlBlog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

Posted by: Payday Loan Advocate at October 21, 2008 4:08 AM
Post a comment