Green new deal equals magical thinking

[mbohu 77]

2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

But are you breaking the law because you disagree with it - or because it is inconvenient?

"Officer, I was speeding because I disagree with the speed limit, not because it was just inconvenient!" "Oh, I see: well then you don't have to pay, of course. The speed limit is only meant for those who agree. Have a nice day!"  

[turtlespeed 212]

2 minutes ago, mbohu said:

"Officer, I was speeding because I disagree with the speed limit, not because it was just inconvenient!" "Oh, I see: well then you don't have to pay, of course. The speed limit is only meant for those who agree. Have a nice day!"  

I wonder if you would be OK with me pacing with a slower car to force you to obey the speed limit/law.

[DJL 232]

8 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't disagree.

But are you breaking the law because you disagree with it - or because it is inconvenient?

 

 A little of both.  I've definitely thought some speed limits were a bit low or some stop signs a bit arbitrary.

[mbohu 77]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

I wonder if you would be OK with me pacing with a slower car to force you to obey the speed limit/law.

It would for sure annoy the hell out of me--but by driving on the road that was built by public funds, and in fact by living in a country with a legal system, I have implicitly agreed to follow these laws or suffer the consequences.

If there was a way to exclude you from the benefits of us paying a little more to improve our environment (so if everyone who does not want to do so could somehow move into a completely separated section of earth where their own pollution only affects themselves) then it would be perfectly ok for you to decide not to pay and no one should force you to. However, when that isn't possible, you may be required to live with something you do not completely agree with--that is of course the case with all of us.

[mbohu 77]

11 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I wonder if you would be OK with me pacing with a slower car to force you to obey the speed limit/law.

Fortunately, in Colorado, and unless you are the highway police (who sometimes do that very thing), you are still required to use the right lane, even if you drive at the speed limit--so I'll still have the choice to pass you, and then pay a fine if I'm caught.

[turtlespeed 212]

45 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Fortunately, in Colorado, and unless you are the highway police (who sometimes do that very thing), you are still required to use the right lane, even if you drive at the speed limit--so I'll still have the choice to pass you, and then pay a fine if I'm caught.

You are assuming that I would care about the law at that point, and obey it.

[SkyDekker 1,119]

On 10/23/2019 at 7:26 AM, turtlespeed said:

Do you believe that you should be able to force me to agree with you?

No. But I agree that you can be forced to do something you don't agree with. Like pay taxes.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

No. But I agree that you can be forced to do something you don't agree with. Like pay taxes.

I agree with taxes - I don't agree that I cannot directly influence where they are attributed.

[SkyDekker 1,119]

32 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I agree with taxes - I don't agree that I cannot directly influence where they are attributed.

How much of a tax increase are you willing to pay to build a bureaucracy that manages every single person's direction? What is your plan on how to fund requirements that nobody wants to pay for, or not enough people want to attribute to?

[turtlespeed 212]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

How much of a tax increase are you willing to pay to build a bureaucracy that manages every single person's direction? What is your plan on how to fund requirements that nobody wants to pay for, or not enough people want to attribute to?

 

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

How much of a tax increase are you willing to pay to build a bureaucracy that manages every single person's direction? What is your plan on how to fund requirements that nobody wants to pay for, or not enough people want to attribute to?

I want to lessen the Bureaucracy - decrease the size of the government.

Lessen restrictions - and bring government back to the ratio it was back when it was implemented.

 

[SkyDekker 1,119]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

I want to lessen the Bureaucracy - decrease the size of the government.

How do you design a framework where people have direct say in how their tax dollars are spent with less bureaucracy?

The people killed on Boeing jets are very happy about less restrictions.

[turtlespeed 212]

9 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

How do you design a framework where people have direct say in how their tax dollars are spent with less bureaucracy?

The people killed on Boeing jets are very happy about less restrictions.

I don't really think they are happy or unhappy.  I think they are dead.

[SkyDekker 1,119]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't really think they are happy or unhappy.  I think they are dead.

The fine result of less regulation.

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

How do you design a framework where people have direct say in how their tax dollars are spent with less bureaucracy?

Still left unanswered. 

[turtlespeed 212]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

The fine result of less regulation.

Still left unanswered. 

Less government = less needed to regulate - 

Self correcting problem.

[mbohu 77]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

I agree with taxes - I don't agree that I cannot directly influence where they are attributed.

That seems like a great idea, at least at first. My initial reaction would be: I would like that too--however, I do not think that such a system would work too well, if we look at it more closely.
Again, one of the problems is that you cannot separate who pays and who benefits. I may decide that I have no interest whatsoever to have any of my tax dollars to go to the military. Nevertheless, if I live in the same country and others pay for the defense of it, I will still benefit, even though I won't pay. Same in your case: You won't pay for cleaner air, but if others do and you live in the same country (or in this case, the same planet, you'll benefit)
And of course there are many things that I am fine with paying for, and not personally benefitting directly--simply because they are things that I believe are worthwhile to have as a society in general, or possibly because I DO benefit, but indirectly and in a way that would be hard to track.

And of course, the current system does give us some control over how our taxes are spent-just not on a person-by-person basis.

 

[SkyDekker 1,119]

34 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Less government = less needed to regulate

uhm no.

Less government is less ability to regulate. Doesn't speak to need, desire or requirement.

But to get there, you still need a mechanism that collects, directs and enforces the direction provided by each tax-payer. In essence you are advocating a massive increase in regulation and government in the short term.

You have also not provided your mechanism for how short-funding, over-finding and non-funding would be dealt with.

I get the sense maybe this was a nice sound-bite you heard somewhere, but haven't really thought it through?

[mbohu 77]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

You are assuming that I would care about the law at that point, and obey it.

Of course not! You already stated that you don't obey laws that you do not agree with. That being the case though, it's kind of satisfying to know that every now and then you'll have to suffer the consequences. (...and in the case of that specific law, I think you are in the majority!)

[turtlespeed 212]

1 minute ago, mbohu said:

Of course not! You already stated that you don't obey laws that you do not agree with.

>>>Please show me where I stated that.

 

That being the case though, it's kind of satisfying to know that every now and then you'll have to suffer the consequences. (...and in the case of that specific law, I think you are in the majority!)

>>>>How liberal of you. Thanks.

 

[billvon 2,379]

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I was responding to this - I don't see any law mentioned.

Laws that require you to pay utility bills that include funding for green energy and low-income ratepayer support programs.

Quote

Do you ever drive over the posted speed limit?

Sometimes.  If I get pulled over I get a ticket.  Usually I don't because speed limits down here are pretty reasonable.  (70 in most places)

From your answer, I will take it that you think it is sometimes OK to break the law.  Noted.

 

[mbohu 77]

30 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Of course not! You already stated that you don't obey laws that you do not agree with.

It was a reasonable inference from your 2 statements:

"You are assuming that I would care about the law at that point, and obey it."
and:
"But are you breaking the law because you disagree with it - or because it is inconvenient?"
(maybe I misunderstood you here, but it sounds like you are saying that you don't feel one should need to obey a law that one doesn't agree with)

34 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

>>>>How liberal of you. Thanks.

Any time, man!

[billvon 2,379]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Less government = less needed to regulate - 

Self correcting problem.

Less government = more need to regulate.

Ask yourself if the old, boring, socialist part-121 aircraft certification program was more or less efficient than what is happening with the 737 Max now, a program where the Trump administration helped "streamline" the process.  Which is more efficient?  Which will cost Boeing (and air travelers) less?

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Lessen restrictions - and bring government back to the ratio it was back when it was implemented.

Are you referring to when the country was formed?

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, mbohu said:

It was a reasonable inference from your 2 statements:

"You are assuming that I would care about the law at that point, and obey it."
and:
"But are you breaking the law because you disagree with it - or because it is inconvenient?"
(maybe I misunderstood you here, but it sounds like you are saying that you don't feel one should need to obey a law that one doesn't agree with)

Any time, man!

I was seeking clarification to his motivation.

On one hand - if you disagree with a law, then you can be a conscientious objector.  Refuse to obey the law, in a non violent or dangerous way.

If its just an inconvenience - then that is a whole different story.

My guess is that the most of that pie chart is colored by the latter.

 

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

Are you referring to when the country was formed?

Mostly.  That era, anyway.

[wmw999 2,114]

14 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Mostly.  That era, anyway.

The approach to the value of human life was entirely different in those days, especially if that life was female, or servant. The early USA was a very British place by heritage -- they said that all men were created equal, but still didn't believe in that enough, and created the Senate, to make sure that America wasn't entirely ruled by rabble.

If someone died in a farm accident, it was just life; people died. The scale was smaller, and those were generally servants who died, just as it was poor children who were sent out to serve households, under whatever conditions the households chose -- sometimes good, sometimes bad.

We've changed as a society. Maybe we've gone too far the other way, but we value human life more, and we value more people more closely to equally. Many (maybe most) of our safety regulations reflect that, and to return to an unregulated system would allow the currently-empowered corporocrats even greater leeway to do whatever it takes to make a profit. For their stockholders, of course, because they're more important than the customers, or the employees, or even the public at large. Money rules.

Wendy P.