Rand Paul IS AWESOME!

[Shady]

This is one of the best commentaries from a politician I've heard in a while.

"You're really anti-choice on every other consumer item you've listed here. Including light bulbs, refridgerators, toilets, you name it. You can't go around your house without being told what to buy. You restrict my purchases. You don't care about my choices. You don't care about the consumer frankly. You raise the cost of all the items with all your rules, with all your notions that you know what's best for me.

I find it insulting that a lot of these products that you're gonna make us buy are often made in foreign countries. You ship jobs over seas."

It's about time somebody started to speak up against this bullcrap! :angry:

[Shakeyhands]

I appreciated his style, but was a little lost on the argument.

As an example, Seat belts save lives, seat belts lower the cost of healthcare and insurance, therefore, should we not legislate that people have to wear them?

We have, in my home, all our fixtures fitted with the new light bulbs, yes, they were a little more expensive to purchase than the old incandescent bulbs, but they use less power, and last longer. In fact, since we made the change I don't believe I have had to change one. Is this not better for all of us?

We also have low volume toilets here, never had a problem with them at all. There was no extra costs associated with installing them and they save me significant money each year with saved water.

All of our appliances are energystar certified, again, I save money and it's good for the enviroment.

What exactly is the issue?

[CANADIEN]

Freedom is being threatened because a Government CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE adopts new energy efficient standards for household appliances and... the error... I can hardly say the word... lightbulbs.

If that's what the Tea Party has to offer, long live coffee.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's see if I can analogize:

Safety scissors restrict choice.

Safety sceissors are made in China.

There.

Good argument.

------------------------------------------------------

So, looking at society as a collection of individuals as he does makes sense when considering individual rights and responsiblities, but we are also a mass of people.

If we don't put safety restraints on mass produced products, they will cause mass deaths. I suppose after the fact, we could point at each individual who died from an exploding BBQ lighter and call them stupid.

Plus he had to talk during her answer several times.

"I can't find a toilet that works !"

"Everything costs more !"

He says he's been waiting 20 years to complain about his toilet. Is that why most people want to be Senator ?

Edited March 11, 2011 by Michael Hardner

[Bonam]

I appreciated his style, but was a little lost on the argument.

As an example, Seat belts save lives, seat belts lower the cost of healthcare and insurance, therefore, should we not legislate that people have to wear them?

We have, in my home, all our fixtures fitted with the new light bulbs, yes, they were a little more expensive to purchase than the old incandescent bulbs, but they use less power, and last longer. In fact, since we made the change I don't believe I have had to change one. Is this not better for all of us?

I happen to agree that the new light bulbs are a much better option. But suppose someone does not agree? Suppose they prefer the light quality from incandescent light bulbs better (the color of light does appear slightly different). Suppose they are concerned about the mercury. Suppose they are afraid of change and just want the same type of light bulb they've always had for the past 30 years. So long as a company out there can keeping making money by producing and selling these obsolete light bulbs that some people might still want, and supposing some people are willing to pay the higher electricity costs associated with them, why should the government get involved? The new bulbs are clearly superior and more and more people are adopting them over time anyway. Why does the government needs to force people to do so? It is happening anyway, you don't need laws to coerce people on such trivial matters, especially when the trend is in the desired direction anyway.

[Shady]

Let's see if I can analogize:

Safety scissors restrict choice.

Safety sceissors are made in China.

There.

Good argument.

Good strawman. How exactly to safety scissors restrict choice? Look, if this topic doesn't interest you, that's fine. But acting like a douchebag and pretending not to understand the points being made is pretty retarded.

If we don't put safety restraints on mass produced products, they will cause mass deaths.

Of course, mass deaths.

I'm pretty sure that safety restraints aren't the issue here. Unless of course light bulbs and toilets are a major cause of fatalities these days. Another great strawman though. Bravo!

Plus he had to talk during her answer several times.

My God, how can he live with himself!

He says he's been waiting 20 years to complain about his toilet. Is that why most people want to be Senator ?

Nope. But I'm sure you know that's not why he wanted to be a Senator either. This is just more of what I would describe as your retard mode. Where for some reason, you dumb things down, and refuse to see the larger issues. You actually have a bit of a history of this...

So JFK would be a Republican because he put in a tax cut ?

Very weak.

Once again. If a topic doesn't interest you, fine. But don't go into Michael Hardner retard mode, dumb everything down, and pretend you don't see the larger issues.

[Michael Hardner]

Good strawman. How exactly to safety scissors restrict choice? Look, if this topic doesn't interest you, that's fine. But acting like a douchebag and pretending not to understand the points being made is pretty retarded.

Of course, mass deaths.

I'm pretty sure that safety restraints aren't the issue here. Unless of course light bulbs and toilets are a major cause of fatalities these days. Another great strawman though. Bravo!

I gave the right amount of disdain to his staged fake righteousness with my silly analogy.

Nope. But I'm sure you know that's not why he wanted to be a Senator either. This is just more of what I would describe as your retard mode. Where for some reason, you dumb things down, and refuse to see the larger issues. You actually have a bit of a history of this...

I have the right to be silly if I see silliness. It's silly, therefore I shall be silly.

[Shady]

I gave the right amount of disdain to his staged fake righteousness with my silly analogy.

Well, your analogy was definitely silly, and nonsensical. However, I'm not sure how you know something is staged. It was a regular occuring hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I guess if someone has opinions that differ from yours, they're characterized as staged and fake righteous.

I have the right to be silly if I see silliness. It's silly, therefore I shall be silly.

Well, I admit there was some humour in this delivery. But the overall issue is anything but silly. However, I definitely don't wanna deprive you of Michael Hardner Retard Mode.

[Shady]

I have the right to be silly if I see silliness. It's silly, therefore I shall be silly.

It's also not the type of behavior I'd expect from somebody that wants to be a forum faciliator. Does this promote, as Greg stated, a role of good-will ambassador, to guide and encourage forum participants to act and post with respect? Just wondering.

[CANADIEN]

I gave the right amount of disdain to his staged fake righteousness with my silly analogy.

I do not see it as fake. And it is not silly... it is actually a downright insult to the intelligence.

We are talking about standards on how certain items in the house are made. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, STANDARDS. If one thinks that a given standard is innapropriate, is not working, etc. etc., that's one thing. But to claim , that they restrict choice, that they constitute an unwarranted government intrusions, that those who promote them are hypocrites because some also favour abortion choice... Frankly.

Edited March 11, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Pliny]

I appreciated his style, but was a little lost on the argument.

As an example, Seat belts save lives, seat belts lower the cost of healthcare and insurance, therefore, should we not legislate that people have to wear them?

We have, in my home, all our fixtures fitted with the new light bulbs, yes, they were a little more expensive to purchase than the old incandescent bulbs, but they use less power, and last longer. In fact, since we made the change I don't believe I have had to change one. Is this not better for all of us?

We also have low volume toilets here, never had a problem with them at all. There was no extra costs associated with installing them and they save me significant money each year with saved water.

All of our appliances are energystar certified, again, I save money and it's good for the enviroment.

What exactly is the issue?

The issue is whether you choose to install, low flush toilets, CFL lightbulbs or someone forces you to do so by law.

If you can't convince someone that it is wise to do so on its own merit then should you just force him to do it?

Should you convince someone that climbing Mount Everest is hazardous to your health or should you force him not climb it?

Seatbelts may save lives and I imagine they have cost someone their life as well. Overall, I would say they are a benefit and I think public demand made automobile manufaturers install them or lose to the competition. I only used to wear mine driving on the highway but now am forced to wear it whenever my vehicle is in motion.

I really didn't notice those arguing for mandatory use of seatbelts point to the drop in the death toll on the roads after and go na, na, na, nanana - I told you so. And they definitely aren't pointing to the drop in insurance costs because there hasn't been one. If it wasn't a law we would be able to tell if insurance were more expensive because there would be a question on the insurance application that determined if it was in fact a greater cost to insurance companies.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, your analogy was definitely silly, and nonsensical. However, I'm not sure how you know something is staged. It was a regular occuring hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I guess if someone has opinions that differ from yours, they're characterized as staged and fake righteous.

He obviously knew he was going to make a statement. The outrage expressed would be rehearsed beforehand.

The thing that really made me realize the extent to which he was whoring was when he mentioned US jobs going overseas to build such things. If he really is laissez-faire then is he saying that government should get involved somehow ?

[Michael Hardner]

It's also not the type of behavior I'd expect from somebody that wants to be a forum faciliator. Does this promote, as Greg stated, a role of good-will ambassador, to guide and encourage forum participants to act and post with respect? Just wondering.

I'm not sure. Why don't you complain and find out ?

When I see ridiculous and overly politicized statements cheered on my MLW people, then sometimes I see red and I ridicule the ridiculous.

The pablum that politicians of all stripes mass market for the general consumption shouldn't be the basis of discussion here, IMO. Those are commercials for politicians.

[Michael Hardner]

I do not see it as fake. And it is not silly... it is actually a downright insult to the intelligence.

We are talking about standards on how certain items in the house are made. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, STANDARDS. If one thinks that a given standard is innapropriate, is not working, etc. etc., that's one thing. But to claim , that they restrict choice, that they constitute an unwarranted government intrusions, that those who promote them are hypocrites because some also favour abortion choice... Frankly.

Welcome to the end goal of Libertarianism.

This is what they're going to be pushing for next, once social services have been eliminated.

[GostHacked]

Well Rand has a good point. If I don't buy those new light bulbs (which takes away my right to have an option) there is a fine and possible jail time attached to it.

Regulations and laws restrict your choices. Not saying all laws or regulations are bad, there are obvious cases where regulation and laws are needed, but this like the TSA patdowns, just seem to go to far.

I'd still rather listen to his father.

[Pliny]

I do not see it as fake. And it is not silly... it is actually a downright insult to the intelligence.

We are talking about standards on how certain items in the house are made. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, STANDARDS. If one thinks that a given standard is innapropriate, is not working, etc. etc., that's one thing. But to claim , that they restrict choice, that they constitute an unwarranted government intrusions, that those who promote them are hypocrites because some also favour abortion choice... Frankly.

Standards are good but a standard is a degree or level that is proper and adequate for a specific purpose. The premise is that it is not necessary to enforce the new standards if they have merit, and should not require laws to enforce them. What is the specific purpose of the new standards. Save energy? Lower costs for everyone?

If a law were made to make abortion illegal, except in life threatening circumstances, would you oppose it? It would restrict choice, right? The analogy is there. Arguing the benefits against the detriments may make the case for or against in people's minds but making a law sort of closes the argument through force, you wouldn't want to be forced would you?

Saying the argument is about standards alone is not really the case, either. What "standards" are being violated? What new standards are being implemented? They certainly aren't related to safety, and efficiency is arguable (See thread on CFL bulbs).

[Michael Hardner]

Standards ensure that the products available comply to safety, conservation and other objectives that are central to the common good.

We don't want the kind of society that allows individuals to make consumer choices that will cause excessive impacts to the majority, hence we ban dangerous products and drugs, and enforce standards by law.

[bush_cheney2004]

We don't want the kind of society that allows individuals to make consumer choices that will cause excessive impacts to the majority, hence we ban dangerous products and drugs, and enforce standards by law.

That's OK...one of the first things I do with a new low flush toilet is to cut away the water damn to get a full tank flush. 1.8 gallons of water (errr...6.8 liters) just isn't enough to sink the Bismarck!

[Shakeyhands]

I happen to agree that the new light bulbs are a much better option. But suppose someone does not agree? Suppose they prefer the light quality from incandescent light bulbs better (the color of light does appear slightly different). Suppose they are concerned about the mercury. Suppose they are afraid of change and just want the same type of light bulb they've always had for the past 30 years. So long as a company out there can keeping making money by producing and selling these obsolete light bulbs that some people might still want, and supposing some people are willing to pay the higher electricity costs associated with them, why should the government get involved? The new bulbs are clearly superior and more and more people are adopting them over time anyway. Why does the government needs to force people to do so? It is happening anyway, you don't need laws to coerce people on such trivial matters, especially when the trend is in the desired direction anyway.

So where does the greater good come in?

[bush_cheney2004]

So where does the greater good come in?

....on the taxes and fees for CFL disposal!

[GostHacked]

Standards ensure that the products available comply to safety, conservation and other objectives that are central to the common good.

We don't want the kind of society that allows individuals to make consumer choices that will cause excessive impacts to the majority, hence we ban dangerous products and drugs, and enforce standards by law.

This is why you have a warning on electronics DO NOT SUBMERGE IN WATER. Which you think, to most, would be a no brainer.

[CANADIEN]

Standards are good but a standard is a degree or level that is proper and adequate for a specific purpose. The premise is that it is not necessary to enforce the new standards if they have merit, and should not require laws to enforce them. What is the specific purpose of the new standards. Save energy? Lower costs for everyone?

It is one thing to claim that a certain standard is wrong, or is inneficient, or will be too constly is one thing. To argue that it is some form of unwarranted government intrusion is just plain absurd.

So is..

If a law were made to make abortion illegal, except in life threatening circumstances, would you oppose it? It would restrict choice, right? The analogy is there. Arguing the benefits against the detriments may make the case for or against in people's minds but making a law sort of closes the argument through force, you wouldn't want to be forced would you?

The fact thqat I oppose abortion aside...

Choosing a brand of lightbulb or a particular type of toilet is quite a different issue from abortion. To continue or terminate a pregnancy is a life-altering decision for the baby, the mother, and often for other people as well. I am disappointed in you, quite frankly; I have been used to far better arguments from you, even when you are wrong.

[Pliny]

It is one thing to claim that a certain standard is wrong, or is inneficient, or will be too constly is one thing. To argue that it is some form of unwarranted government intrusion is just plain absurd.

So is..

The argument isn't about standards, whatsoever. The government is not imposing a standard.

The fact thqat I oppose abortion aside...

Choosing a brand of lightbulb or a particular type of toilet is quite a different issue from abortion. To continue or terminate a pregnancy is a life-altering decision for the baby, the mother, and often for other people as well. I am disappointed in you, quite frankly; I have been used to far better arguments from you, even when you are wrong.

It isn't a different issue to someone who is pro-choice. There is no baby. It's the mothers choice. And other people, although they may be affected, have no right of concern in the matter. It is an infringement upon the woman's control over her body and, in her view, right to make choices regarding it.

You may oppose abortion but would you support a law that makes it illegal? If so, then your position is consistent. If not then you are a Liberal and feel it necessary to make choices for others for their own good based upon your feelings as regards what is best for the collective good.

[Pliny]

Standards ensure that the products available comply to safety, conservation and other objectives that are central to the common good.

We don't want the kind of society that allows individuals to make consumer choices that will cause excessive impacts to the majority, hence we ban dangerous products and drugs, and enforce standards by law.

Yes, Michael, we must make our decisions for everyone entirely on the basis of their being central to the common good. I don't mind establishing standards in law. It seems incongruous to me to be that outlawing incandescent bulbs on the basis that their replacements are energy efficient and then push the electric car as the standard of the future.

CFL bulbs, lo-flush toilets, are not about standards. They aren't even about economic or energy efficiency. They are some corporatists idea of eliminating competition for himself. By the time the competiton re-tools, if they can afford to, they will have made their money. It seems you can sell anything these days that is scientifically formulated and is touted as having the green stamp of approval on it.

[Pliny]

So where does the greater good come in?

It comes later when it's discovered the laws were made for the wrong reason and in fact shouldn't have been made. Perhaps by then everyone will have forgotten who made them and changing them back will be too destabilizing then we have to live with them for the "greater good" anyway.

Like Bonam says, the changes are occurring so people sort of take the greater good into consideration in their activities. Laws that enforce the change, are unnecessary and befroe we go into the deep end on accepting anything as being right for the greater good shouldn't we proceed with a little caution and see what happens during the evolution? Making a law means we have to live with it and hope it is right.