Quote:
Originally Posted by
phlanx
Elliot
There are outside the US more than two choices available to political views, I am neither a republican or democrat
Since when did I argue that cleaning pollution has anything to do with global warming, I am not convinced that global warming is man made, I do however think pollution is unnecessary
Note of interest : In today's high court in the UK it has been made law that climate change and the reasons is now officially recognised as a philosophy
Do you read into things or do you read what is in front of you!?
Given the hidden agendas of so many people who argue politics, I tend to read between the lines. It has served me well in the past, as my reading tends to be rather acurate.
Quote:
You really contradict yourself, you want clean environment for your son to grow up in, which is happening now, and yet you wish to allow the market to take a generation to change over, by which time your son will be all grown up and the fish gone (a little extreme but you get my idea)
You assume that this will take a generation. Why? I think it can happen rather quickly. It didn't take all that long for the Blackberry to become popular. Or the Ipod. It doesn't take a generation for a new product do go into production and become popular. It just takes developing a good product and some good advertising.
Quote:
Regarding cars, lets forget the practical idea of electric cars at the moment, but if sales of electric cars continue, at some point they will surpass the petrol versions and at that point the oil companies can sing and dance all they like, they will be in a weak position - this is market pressure you agree with, and I do, and as long as the government can assist with speeding up the dleivery of electric cars to the market then what on earth is the problem
It's not the government's job to "assist" with anything in industry. It has no legal authority to do so here. And if the government "assists" in anything, then it is violating its requirement and responsibility to maintain a fair business environment.
Quote:
Your idea that any given government does not have a say in how or why certain issues should be handled is laughable - since the dawn of time, the man in charge has always had a say, just as his subjects have had an equal say back
Actually, from the dawn of time, goverrnments had the right to dictate, and the people had no right to argue whatsoever. If they did, they were either punished harshly or executed outright.
Then we came along, and we made (in part) this declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Within the Declaration of Independence is the justification for the limiting of the power of government... a "new Guard" for the future and security of the rights of the people.
Simply put, the government HAS NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY to make such laws. And if they do, it is OUR responsibility as citizens to either reverse their course by voting them out of office and putting in others who will put right what was wronged, or else to eliminate that government and begin anew. That's the principal that lead to the Revolution and the principal that created the United States of American in the first place. And that is the principal by which we SHOULD be operating today... the principal that a government that has too much power is a danger the G-d-given rights of man, and must therefore be LIMITED in its power.
By arguing for greater power for the government, you are in essence, rejecting the very basis on which the USA was created in the first place. And while there are many who would agree with you, I am not one of them.
The government does indeed have a say in how certain issues are to be handled. Those issues, however, are spelled out in the Constitution. The government has no other powers than those listed in the Constitution, and the reason for that is the basis of our genesis as an independent nation. Any call to increase the power of government beyond the responsibilities listed in the Constitution is in essence a rejection of the reason we became a nation in the first place.
I don't expect you, as a Brit, to follow that principal. Your genesis is very different from ours for all that it was our revolt against your king that caused our creation. The principals that guided the creation and formation of the United States are different from those that created the UK. But these ARE our principals. And while it might be OK for you and your countrymen to create a government that has increased and increasing power, that is for YOU, not for us.
So while you may think that the idea that the government should have limited power is laughable, it is, in fact, the very basis on which this nation was created. I don't find the concept laughable at all. I find it to be the only true path to liberty and freedom of choice. Anything else is an abrogation or subjegation of liberty and freedom of choice.
Elliot
