Rand Paul IS AWESOME!

[Pliny]

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

I have a cat. Her name is Fifi.

[waldo]

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.

surely one doesn't need to impress the point with you on the decisive and indispensable role that government-mandated standards play in innovation... what the lack of standards does to compatibility and competitiveness... what standards bring to bear in terms of quality and performance. When a significant part of the industrialized world, particularly key trading partners, are moving forward on new technologies and energy efficiency innovations... is the answer really to, in this particular case, revert back to a somewhat antiquated and less efficient incandescent light bulb... simply because a few tea-bagger inspired, libertarian bent types get a little touchy over the introduction of new standards? Perhaps they're simply in favour of massive CCF bulb imports to satisfy the efficiency want/need of consumers - ya think? Power to the antiquated, less efficient incandescent... after all, what could possibly be wrong with North American companies losing overseas markets, while their innovative goods flood our domestic markets.

[Michael Hardner]

I have a cat. Her name is Fifi.

I hope for the sake of the Chicago School that the cat can support itself (open tins of Fancy Feast, clean its litter box) without help from the state, i.e. you.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

You should be able to discuss the merits of the idea without writing in some kind of motivation for some of the stakeholders involved.

Or do you accept it when people say that all capitalists are evil and greedy, and that they want the system to benefit them ? Or when they say that about Friedman's disciples ?

[bloodyminded]

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

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.

Rand Paul, like many self-styled "libertarians" [sic] supports the illegalization of aborton.

[waldo]

Rand Paul, like many self-styled "libertarians" [sic] supports the illegalization of aborton.

and... he is so self-styled that he railed against a non-government ophthalmology certification board to the point that he formed his own "Rand Paul Ophthalmology Board"... the one he now claims to be "board certified" under - notwithstanding that "his board" is run by himself, as president; his wife, as vice president; and his father-in-law as secretary. Notwithstanding the guy doesn't publish what "his boards" standards for certification are... and refuses to provide those standards. Yes... that, is self-styled!

[GWiz]

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

Speaking of CFL, they ain't going on STRIKE, but the NFL is...

[Pliny]

I hope for the sake of the Chicago School that the cat can support itself (open tins of Fancy Feast, clean its litter box) without help from the state, i.e. you.

That's the standard you expect of cats?

[Pliny]

Rand Paul, like many self-styled "libertarians" [sic] supports the illegalization of aborton.

You mean he is not for abortion?

I haven't read his opinion but as a libertarian I would think he is against the State intervening in those most private decisions. I myself would never advocate for abortion, except perhaps in life threatening situations, but then again I realize it is not my place to dictate one way or another with something such as a law. I am pro-life which means I don't make decisions in other people's lives. They must do that themselves. Children of course sometimes need parents to make choices for them until they can make responsible decisions themselves. Governments tend to think that their citizens are all children, especially liberal governments.

[bloodyminded]

You mean he is not for abortion?

I haven't read his opinion but as a libertarian I would think he is against the State intervening in those most private decisions.

Nope. From his own website (bolding mine):

I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.

I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.

I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/a-g/abortion-2/

Governments tend to think that their citizens are all children, especially liberal governments.

And, evidently, most conservative governments, and certainly Rand Paul.

Edited March 13, 2011 by bloodyminded

[dre]

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?

Because the government has defacto involvement. It shares responsibility for maintaining the grid and paying for new capacity.

If you run a utility that provides water, and you have the capacity to provide 500 gallons per day to 100 homes, and somebody invents an appliance/application that uses large ammounts of water to do the same job as an appliance/application that uses very little, you have a few choices.

You can invest in new capacity and fund it by raising taxes or rates. (Mr Paul would bitch just as much about this).

You can invest in new capacity and defecit finance it. (Mr Paul will be up in arms about this as well).

You can ration supply. (Which will piss EVERYONE off).

You can mandate the more efficient appliances and applications.

Or...

You can just watch the system crash so that nobody has a reliable source of water.

So the government just IS involved any way you slice it. And Mr Paul would be ranting no matter WHAT choice they made.

[ToadBrother]

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

But there has to be some sort of qualifier, right? There's a small community not too far from where I live that has had chronic water supply problems for years. A few years ago it got so bad that they were literally in emergency mode and had to start trucking water in via tanker truck. The local town council voted to started enforcing very harsh water restrictions, including moving towards plumbing fixtures that saved on water usage. Are you saying that the local council was wrong to do that?

Libertarianism fails because it artificially separates government from the wider society. Clearly the public interest in many cases is served by such rules. Since we're dealing with issues of finite resources that have to serve a large population, simply stating "well, the markets will sort that out, so what's the worry" doesn't seem like a rational policy, more like a statement of religious faith.

Edited March 13, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Pliny]

Nope. From his own website (bolding mine):

I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.

I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.

I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.

And now I have read it.

I agree with him about abortion itself, I am not an advocate, and perhaps if the definition of life were to include it's beginning as being at conception then it falls within the State's mandate to protect the sanctity of person and property and because a person would exist from conception it is it's duty. Women and Blacks fought for the right of recognition to be persons.

Pro Lifers think of conception as being the beginning of person-hood and pro-choicers don't.

Governments tend to think that their citizens are all children, especially liberal governments.

And, evidently, most conservative governments, and certainly Rand Paul.

As I stated, protection of the sanctity of person and property is the proper province of government. Rand Paul chooses to believe a "person" exists at conception. He, and conservative governments as well, would hardly be extending a "benefit" or "privilege" to the unborn beyond the right of every citizen if his concept were accepted.

The way to be able to treat anyone negatively, as you please, requires de-personalization. They must be considered nothing, as blacks were at one time considered sub-human and women chattel.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Pliny

[dre]

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

No thats a gross over simplification of the problem that ignores virtually all relevant factors.

The reality is that somebody has to manage the grid, invest in new capacity, and maintain existing capacity. Generation Deadbeat (thats us) doesnt wanna pay for it... not only have we ignored the need for new capacity, but weve allowed the existing capacity we inherited to crumble.

And this isnt just about the government either. No matter WHO is in charge of the supply side (public or private) they are going to have to make the same kind of choices. This is really no different than private telecomms trying to restrict the use of, or throttle applications that use massive ammounts of bandwidth, or raise the rates for all customers to accomodate big bandwidth users.

[bloodyminded]

As I stated, protection of the sanctity of person and property is the proper province of government. Rand Paul chooses to believe a "person" exists at conception. He, and conservative governments as well, would hardly be extending a "benefit" or "privilege" to the unborn beyond the right of every citizen.

You're changing your recently-stated views so that they align with Rand Pauls'...I find this frankly astonishing.

So now that you've read Paul's remarks, you no longer believe what you wrote three hours ago:

I haven't read his opinion but as a libertarian I would think he is against the State intervening in those most private decisions. I myself would never advocate for abortion, except perhaps in life threatening situations, but then again I realize it is not my place to dictate one way or another with something such as a law. I am pro-life which means I don't make decisions in other people's lives. They must do that themselves.

Edited March 13, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

But there has to be some sort of qualifier, right? There's a small community not too far from where I live that has had chronic water supply problems for years. A few years ago it got so bad that they were literally in emergency mode and had to start trucking water in via tanker truck. The local town council voted to started enforcing very harsh water restrictions, including moving towards plumbing fixtures that saved on water usage. Are you saying that the local council was wrong to do that?

Libertarianism fails because it artificially separates government from the wider society. Clearly the public interest in many cases is served by such rules. Since we're dealing with issues of finite resources that have to serve a large population, simply stating "well, the markets will sort that out, so what's the worry" doesn't seem like a rational policy, more like a statement of religious faith.

There is no more efficient way to deal with finite resources than the market system.

Having said that, a local council is different than a federal government.

I believe you are implying that common sense is abandoned under "libertarianism". Local initiatitives generally do address local problems whether council, local government or the citizens themselves address them.

"Libertarianism fails because it artificially separates government from the wider society."??? It artificially separates an artificial agency from society. Government is an artificial imposement upon society and needs limits and restrictions to it's mandate despite the misconstrued but widely held and promoted social democratic concept of supporting whomever provides the widest range of entitlements and privileges.

[waldo]

There is no more efficient way to deal with finite resources than the market system.

Plinyism: 4-legged market good, 2-legged standards bad!

surely one doesn't need to impress the point with you on the decisive and indispensable role that government-mandated standards play in innovation... what the lack of standards does to compatibility and competitiveness... what standards bring to bear in terms of quality and performance. When a significant part of the industrialized world, particularly key trading partners, are moving forward on new technologies and energy efficiency innovations... is the answer really to, in this particular case, revert back to a somewhat antiquated and less efficient incandescent light bulb... simply because a few tea-bagger inspired, libertarian bent types get a little touchy over the introduction of new standards? Perhaps they're simply in favour of massive CCF bulb imports to satisfy the efficiency want/need of consumers - ya think? Power to the antiquated, less efficient incandescent... after all, what could possibly be wrong with North American companies losing overseas markets, while their innovative goods flood our domestic markets.

[Pliny]

You're changing your recently-stated views so that they align with Rand Pauls'...I find this frankly astonishing.

So now that you've read Paul's remarks, you no longer believe what you wrote three hours ago:

If "life" is defined as beginning at the moment of conception then I entirely support his view. At the moment, life is not defined as beginning at conception so I would not make a ruling or law on abortion as much as I would be for one personally.

Please don't misinterpret my position which remains consistent. I have never been an advocate of abortion and if the fetus were considered a person under law I would support protecting them as any other "person". No special law need be made in their regard other than that they are considered persons. I'm sure Rand Paul would agree with that inclusion and it would suffice as a protection of the unborn. In order for all to understand the inclusion of the conception as the beginning of life it would have to be spelled out specifically under the legal defintion of "person" - that would be all that is required.

[bloodyminded]

If "life" is defined as beginning at the moment of conception then I entirely support his view. At the moment, life is not defined as beginning at conception so I would not make a ruling or law on abortion as much as I would be for one personally.

Please don't misinterpret my position which remains consistent. I have never been an advocate of abortion and if the fetus were considered a person under law I would support protecting them as any other "person". No special law need be made in their regard other than that they are considered persons. I'm sure Rand Paul would agree with that inclusion and it would suffice as a protection of the unborn. In order for all to understand the inclusion of the conception as the beginning of life it would have to be spelled out specifically under the legal defintion of "person" - that would be all that is required.

So...you don't believe we should be telling what a person should do with her own body...unless social conservatives manage to change the law...and hence your entire objective reality must change accordingly.

In direct dictate of Government decree.

[Pliny]

Plinyism: 4-legged market good, 2-legged standards bad!

Doing some of your own trolling, I see! What a copy cat! And that could probably be taken literally since cut and paste is your favorite pastime.

Anyway, enjoy yourself. It's another glorious day.

[Pliny]

So...you don't believe we should be telling what a person should do with her own body...unless social conservatives manage to change the law...and hence your entire objective reality must change accordingly.

In direct dictate of Government decree.

I didn't say we shouldn't be telling a person what she should do with her own body. I said I would never advocate abortion. I would advise against abortion in most cases. I would not "enforce" my "opinion" on them. It is the position of law to enforce.

My subjective reality would not have changed a bit. Government is forever changing my objective reality.

It isn't up to social conservatives to change the definition of person and so far they haven't. Perhaps science could provide a better definition of life for us all to live with. Right now the ruling is that the fetus is not a person. I disagree with that but respect it as the current "opinion" of law.

While it is true no law would have to be made if the definition of person included the unborn fetus, that would most probably have to be specifically outlined in law for clarity. There would be no law necessary regarding abortion further than that. In which case Paul Rand's suggestion of a law prohibiting abortion is made redundant and entirely unnecessary.

[bloodyminded]

While it is true no law would have to be made if the definition of person included the unborn fetus, that would most probably have to be specifically outlined in law for clarity. There would be no law necessary regarding abortion further than that.

I disagree. A pregnant woman's behaviour, and the way it might adversely affect the fetus inside her, would inherently become a matter of law and correction. how could it be otherwise?

In which case Paul Rand's suggestion of a law prohibiting abortion is made redundant and entirely unnecessary.

[pinko]

I didn't say we shouldn't be telling a person what she should do with her own body. I said I would never advocate abortion. I would advise against abortion in most cases. I would not "enforce" my "opinion" on them. It is the position of law to enforce.

My subjective reality would not have changed a bit. Government is forever changing my objective reality.

It isn't up to social conservatives to change the definition of person and so far they haven't. Perhaps science could provide a better definition of life for us all to live with. Right now the ruling is that the fetus is not a person. I disagree with that but respect it as the current "opinion" of law.

While it is true no law would have to be made if the definition of person included the unborn fetus, that would most probably have to be specifically outlined in law for clarity. There would be no law necessary regarding abortion further than that. In which case Paul Rand's suggestion of a law prohibiting abortion is made redundant and entirely unnecessary.

Your logic is convoluted and makes no sense.

[bush_cheney2004]

So...you don't believe we should be telling what a person should do with her own body...unless social conservatives manage to change the law...and hence your entire objective reality must change accordingly.

In direct dictate of Government decree.

Well, to be fair, government already directs what persons "should do" with our "bodies" via mandatory health measures (e.g. vaccinations), controlled substances laws, even mandatory draft registration (curiously males only...not females).

Edited March 13, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Pliny]

I disagree. A pregnant woman's behaviour, and the way it might adversely affect the fetus inside her, would inherently become a matter of law and correction. how could it be otherwise?

A woman acting purposely to adversely affect the fetus inside her? I can see that happening if they didn't consider the fetus a person, I suppose. Why would it inherently have to be a matter of law and correction? No rational person would do that to another person. It would be a matter of common sense. But then, it is not presently a person with any rights so I suppose the pregnant woman's behavior is of no consequence.

There would be a lot more respect for life in the womb under recognition that the fetus is a legal person. As a matter of fact, I think it would go a long way to curtailing unwanted pregnancies.