Headline news over at LP.org

Cypress, we CAN deal with more than one issue at a time. It isn't reasonable to insist that one should not bother with government mandates to ban commercial products because there are WORSE abuses of power.

We can question ALL abuses of power.
 
Ooops Edwards apparently already did!

http://tinyurl.com/3avxom

John Edwards Vows To End All Bad Things By 2011

AMES, IA—In an effort to jump-start a presidential campaign that still has not broken into the top Democratic tier, former Sen. John Edwards made his most ambitious policy announcement yet at a campaign event in Iowa Monday: a promise to eliminate all unpleasant, disagreeable, or otherwise bad things from all aspects of American life by the end of his second year in office.
 
When I hear a Con complain about Reagan banning CFCs, I'll take this argument seriously, rather that what it appears to be: intellectual masturbation involving blind hatred of any, and apparently all, public policy.

Our elected officials most certainly have the right to ban certain practices, if economically and technologically feasible to do so, if there is a significant benefit to public health, environment, and national security.

Transitioning from Incandescent light bulbs is a relatively simple matter, with significant benefit to both environment and national security, as part of a comprehensive national energy strategy.
 
Originally posted by
avatar6104_35.gif
Light bulbs have almost nothing to do with oil. The overwhelming majority of US electricity comes from coal and natural gas.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by
avatar6104_35.gif
If we want to decrease our oil dependence, government should create incentives to produce electric commuter cars.
Click to expand...

That'll just eat up our coal and gas faster, creating more environmental hazards. The answer is Nuclear Power. It is historically the safest and most efficient energy on the planet Earth.
 
Cypress said:
When I hear a Con complain about Reagan banning CFCs, I'll take this argument seriously, rather that what it appears to be: intellectual masturbation involving blind hatred of any, and apparently all, public policy.

Our elected officials most certainly have the right to ban certain practices, if economically and technologically feasible to do so, if there is a significant benefit to public health, environment, and national security.

Transitioning from Incandescent light bulbs is a relatively simple matter, with significant benefit to both environment and national security, as part of a comprehensive national energy strategy.
Click to expand...

Show me some of Reagan's similar measures and I'll bash them too.

I'm an equal opportunity hater. I already criticized the LP and the Democrats on this thread, might as well go for a hat trick.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Cypress, we CAN deal with more than one issue at a time. It isn't reasonable to insist that one should not bother with government mandates to ban commercial products because there are WORSE abuses of power.

We can question ALL abuses of power.
Click to expand...


should government have banned CFCs, lead in paint, and lead in gasoline?

Didn't it hurt some aerosol and paint companies?


Or is it possible to balance the public good, against profit?
 
Beefy said:
That'll just eat up our coal and gas faster, creating more environmental hazards. The answer is Nuclear Power. It is historically the safest and most efficient energy on the planet Earth.
Click to expand...

it won't eat up our coal and gas faster if we transition to other methods of electricity production.
 
Young Libertarian said:
Show me some of Reagan's similar measures and I'll bash them too.

I'm an equal opportunity hater. I already criticized the LP and the Democrats on this thread, might as well go for a hat trick.
Click to expand...


banning CFCs undoubtedly had a significant benefit to the environment and human welfare. That's not even debateable.
 
Originally posted by
avatar6104_35.gif
it won't eat up our coal and gas faster if we transition to other methods of electricity production.
Click to expand...

What do you think of Nuclear power? I think it is the best solution, but the energy companies don't like it because its too cheap.
 
Beefy said:
What do you think of Nuclear power? I think it is the best solution, but the energy companies don't like it because its too cheap.
Click to expand...

I'm not against nuclear power. But, the economics of it are pretty unpalatable to most private investors and energy companies. But, I'm open to exploring it
 
Cypress said:
should government have banned CFS, lead in paint, and lead in gasoline?

Didn't it hurt some aerosol and paint companies?


Or is it possible to balance the public good, against profit?
Click to expand...

This is not even close to the same thing. Switching to CFs does provide some benefit.

Banning lead in paint and gasoline, and CFCs was a matter of PUBLIC HEALTH.

Banning incandescent bulbs is a matter of political posturing, as they are on the wane ANYWAY. Incandescent bulbs are not hazardous in and of themselves. In fact, they are far more environmentally friendly than CF bulbs, which contain mercury.

If the electricity PRODUCTION issue were dealt with, incandescents wouldn't be an issue at all. In fact, they'd be SAFER.

The only reason CFs are "more environmentally friendly" is because the means of ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION are so bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top