ETWolverine;2058237]If the majority wants "energy saving products" then they will buy them on their own. They shouldn't be MANDATED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Let the market determine what people want. If the majority truly want LEDs or Fluorescent bulbs, they'll buy them and the incandescent bulb makers will either start making LEDs and flourescents or they'll go out of business.
Salvo, In eutophia your argument makes sense, most people buy products out of habit, something your marketing people have recognised for decades, so getting people to change through choice is difficult
There are some issues in this world that need society to be pushed into - energy saving products I believe is one of them, as the use of energy effects the markets more than anything else, this is particular so in the US, and I would have thought you would want to be less dependent on foreign fuel and one way to do that is too force people to choice the low energy alternative
Quote:
The only reason for government to regulate and mandate something is if the majority DOESN'T want it but the government does. Which I suspect is the case. Let the market decide what the people truly want, not the government.
I believe that one person talking to another, reason can be found, but talking to a crowd of people and the reason goes out of the window. Just as I said above, your energy use influences every other countries and vice versa, being globally I think it is the right of the pointed elected officials to make some judgements that effect all of us
Quote:
Absolutely wrong. What they would have said is "make both available and let the people decide for themselves which ones they want". If a product is truly better, the people will realize it and buy it. If it isn't truly better, the people will reject it themselves.
Wow, the concept that eluded man till the 1930s with Edward Berneys. To be fair to you it was a dumb suggestion on my part as the answer to it is how you see the founders. SO please excuse the dumbness here
Quote:
Yes it does... but the government is eliminating the free choice... it no longer works both ways.
Again, in a perfect world nobody would pollute another person, however, those that don't smoke don't always give two hoots about anothers person freddom of choice and as such it is taken away, you see this action as tough on the individual, I see it as common sense.
Smoking is bad for you I think nobody can deny that, but I still have the freedom of coice to smoke, and the nonsmokers have the freedom of choice not to inhale it in public places, (even though they are still inhaling chemical gasses when stuck in traffic with the aircon on, but that's a different story :)
Quote:
Well, one way would be to revamp the education system in this country and eliminate the monopoly that the UFT, AFT and NEA have over education... open up more charter schools and allow school vouchers so that everyone can get the education they want/need, instead of forcing them into a failed school system that isn't educating them.
Again, I think your argument here is purely anti governemntal control not because they shouldn't do it, but purely they are delivered a good enough service.
Do you think that they way any government strides for a minimum standard while a business goes for the masimum standard possible is the difference between state and private eductaion?
Regardless, you should be able to recognise that providing educational care is paramount in a country that reqards qualification, and saying that I would agree with you that private run schools do seem to provide the better education
So would you say it is better for your taxes to be paid to private organisations instead of the paying for its own council to run it, while at the same time stating what the minimum should be, and if these organisations want to stride for higher than that is the competition that I think should occur?
Quote:
Second, you stop wiping their noses and @sses for them. You stop giving them EVERYTHING. You place time and dollar limits on welfare programs. You eventually cut them off and tell them to get a job and stop leeching off society. If a person is physically capable of a job (ie: he's not crippled beyond the ability to work, he's of the age of majority, and he has no mental illness or developmental illness) then he should be forced to get a job.
Agree, except for one point, taking away the benefits would mean the person could starve or commit crimes for food. However, do I accept that the long term unemployed should get it for free, there are lots of jobs that can be done by these people that would benefit the community, and if they don't like getting paid very little for a normal weeks work, then they could get a proper job and get paid better for the same amount of hours. Then and only then if they refuse to do it, there should money should be taken away for one week, afterwhich they can reaply and join the work program at the start of every Monday, and every failure to turn up is a non payment
Quote:
n short, the way you teach people to do for themselves is to slowly start forcing them to do for themselves.
It's no different from teaching your own children to become independent... slowly, over time, you grant them their independence and stop supporting them for everything in their lives.
Agree, there is only so many times you can tell your kids to stop running before they learn the hard way - like we all did :)
Quote:
Yes it is. And for a SHORT TIME, I have no problem with that. But making such a grant ongoing and never-ending would be counter-productive. Such grants should have limitations... and clearly they did, because your friends are now contributing members of society again. I have no problem with such a program. What I have a problem with is "evergreen" welfare programs that have no limitations that never give one an incentive to stop living on welfare.
Agree, there should be limitiations and consequences to their actions, tighten up the system would be good - of course here in the UK/EU that would require numerous law changes and one big one in particular - The Human Rights Act, but I think we can agree that this should be the case
Quote:
BTW, such a program as the one you mention would fall under the government's mandate to "create and maintain a favorable economic environment". Re-education and re-training programs that create new employment opportunities fall into that category.
Just as I believe Global Warming has created numerous new fields of oppurtunity, regardless of how's or whys, this is one of the responsibitlies a government has - to make sure that continued growth occurs to please the capitalists, and to ensure that employment is ongoing to please the workforce
Quote:
Then we are in agreement.
YEP :)
Quote:
Does that apply to the USA's health care system as well?
I believe any man made system has flaws, it is how they are resolved that makes the difference, there are good and bad points to everybodies health care system, it is what each government does that makes the difference for the better or worst, capitalist ideas alone cannot be the answer, nor do I believe a solely Social System is the answer either, a mix of the two covers everybody
Quote:
Correct. That's what unemployment insurance is supposed to be for... enough money to help you get by for a short period until you can find a new job.
Can't believe we are still agreeing :)
Quote:
Again, I agree. If the government system was there to help the people who really need it, and cut off those who DIDN'T really need it, I probably wouldn't have a problem with that. If welfare were trimmed down to the bare bones, I could live with it. But it ISN'T being trimmed down... it is, in fact, being EXPANDED.
As I said above, cutting off people would just lead to an increase of crime, and then you would moaning about increased insurance payments on top of increased taxes for the extra police force required. There should be penalties but certainly not a straight forward cut off
Quote:
Problem is that government isn't in the "directing" business. It's in the CONTROL business.
Do you equate governing to mean control? In the context of the words there is a huge difference, man cannot be trusted to rule himself in a society that has 7bn people - we would be waging war with our neighbours every five seconds, so to keep the peace a system of Govern must be in place
So it really comes down to the fact again, you as a person can make educated informed choices about your life, however, not everyone can, and as such I would like to have somesort of control of those people for making decisions in their lives that would effect mine
One example - smoking again, if I was a non smoker I wouldn't want to be in a public place with smoking everywhere, so this control provides a fair field of play for everyone
However, your fears are that any type of control is damaging to the welfare of yourself and as such you oppose it at every corner, not realising that the very control you oppose has entitled you to a relatively peaceful life
As I have said before, there must be checks and balances, and what our systems allow for is a high degree of transparancy, allowing every voter to know what their elected officials are doing, and as such, the checks and balances keeps the level of control under constant scrutiny
Quote:
Besides, consumers, at least in my experience, have a much better idea of what products work and don't work than the government does. Especially if it's a technical product that the government generally doesn't understand (like medicines). DOCTORS and PATIENTS know their meds, the government is pretty much clueless. Asking the government to be the watchdog over products that they don't really understand... that's also counter-productive.
Agree on the watchdogs, however, they are the officials appointed by the people and should be the ones to make the final say, provided they reveive recommendations by the people it will effect, so in your instance, a panel of doctors will recommend to the government
This I think largely is what happens, but you must have the final say with the government, or else the cornerstone of democracy has been taken away from you and you no longer have freedom of choice
Quote:
I would prefer that to the government doing it.
So you agree that a government that has transparancy has a need to protect its citizens from what could be potentially dangerous situations, Cool :cool:
Quote:
People don't HAVE to be law abiding, honest and mindful of their fellow man. THE PRODUCT or SERVICE will either be a good product or service, or it won't. The people can choose for themselves based on their experience with the product or service. Honesty has nothing to do with it.
Don't know about you but when we buy our kids toys I know from the markings that it has been produced to the highest standards available or known, what I don't want is to see a repeat of teddy bears that have a spike as a backbone which could injury my kid. Surely you can see the sense of having standards and regulations imposed on companies to ensure the dodgy companies are not supplying such products
This is simply down to pure honesty, if companies were honest, and nota single person was dishonest then again you would be eutopia and there would be no need for this type of control, but we don't so we do need it
Quote:
The guy selling the drug might be a snake-oil salesman. He might be a complete shyster. He might lying through his teeth about how good the product is. But once people get ahold of the product, they will know very quickly whether the product works or not. If it doesn't live up to the hype, the snake-oil salesman will go out of business. If it does live up to what he says it does, who cares whether he's a snake-oil salesman or not.
Okay, as I said above, if we were talking about washing up liquid and the priduct failed to live up to its hype then sure no problem, the company wouldn't and shouldn't last
However, I believe it was your country that invented the Colonels Own Remedies, one bottle for all illnesses - manufactured poorly, ill convceieved concoction that eventually does more harm than good - I think today it is called Coca Cola - Do you think this company would be out of bsuiness if they still produced the same product as when it first started or do you think people would know it was bad for them and still drink it anyway, mainly for its addictions
People need to be protected from themselves, again this is a form of control I like to see
The freedom of choice has not be taken away from though, as if I want to have the original recipe of coke, I can still get it from the market :)
Quote:
The MARKET will decide. We don't need the government to do it. The government shouldn't be there to decide anything more than basic safety of the product, and that in as minimalistic a way as possible. The EFFICACY of the product can be determined by the public's reaction to the product.
See above, we are kind of agreeing, except several points of control
Quote:
Besides, knowing what you know about government, wouldn't you say that government trying to ensure the honesty and mindfulness of people selling stuff is sort of like the fox guarding the henhouse? Do you really want the most distrustful, dishonest group of people in existence to be the arbiters of trust and honesty?
It is funny how a poltician would like to say the truth, the people would love him to say the truth, but when he does the social group of people slay for it.
Politics is about checks and balances, which also includes procastination to obtain something you didn't have before
Eutopia allows honesty without reprisal, Earth doesn't
Quote:
They are indeed fair arguments. I agree with certain points, and disagree with others. See above.
Your getting there -Yep this was sarcasm
