06.01.07
Require solar electricity in all new homes?
Apparently 90% of Americans think this is a good idea:
According to a recent Roper survey commissioned by Sharp Electronics Corporation, nearly 90 percent of Americans think that solar electricity should be an option for all new home construction, up significantly from one year ago (79 percent).
Three-quarters of survey respondents perceive solar power to be more important than ever, evidence that Americans recognize the value of solar as a clean, renewable form of energy. The survey was conducted in May of this year among 1,004 adults to measure their perceptions of solar power.
Source: http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com
According to a recent Roper survey commissioned by Sharp Electronics Corporation, nearly 90 percent of Americans think that solar electricity should be an option for all new home construction, up significantly from one year ago (79 percent).
Three-quarters of survey respondents perceive solar power to be more important than ever, evidence that Americans recognize the value of solar as a clean, renewable form of energy. The survey was conducted in May of this year among 1,004 adults to measure their perceptions of solar power.
“More and more, consumers are interested in solar energy, as the results of this survey clearly show. The message from consumers to homebuilders is clear – builders can differentiate themselves while satisfying customer needs by offering solar electricity on any home they build,” said Ron Kenedi, vice president, Solar Energy Solutions Group, Sharp Electronics Corporation
Even as consumers embrace the technology, they are not fully aware of its capabilities and they have misconceptions about how a solar energy system works in a home. Survey respondents were more likely to recognize solar could turn lights on (82 percent) and heat bath water (82 percent) or a swimming pool (80 percent), than power common electric devices like computers or appliances (71 percent).
There is a gap in understanding that solar electricity operates just like regular electricity and is the same kind of electricity that a local utility company provides.
“As the world’s leading solar manufacturer, Sharp views this uncertainty as a strong reason for educating the public about the features and benefits of solar energy. It can power everything from air conditioning and computers to appliances and vacuums; consumers need to understand why it makes sense, both financially and for the environment,” added Kenedi.
Sharp recently launched a unique awareness campaign under the tagline “Hello Sunshine” designed to demystify solar electricity for consumers. Components of the “Hello Sunshine” campaign appear in newspaper ads, Internet search results and web page banners – even a colorful traveling education trailer that will move from town to town throughout California increasing awareness and understanding of solar electricity.
The survey also revealed that the financial benefits of solar energy play an instrumental role in a consumer’s decisions about solar electricity. Saving money on monthly energy bills was the primary motivation for consumers to install a solar system, with 84 percent of respondents citing this over any other reason.
More than half of respondents said they would be more interested in learning about solar energy for their homes, if the system would cost them zero money down and they would start enjoying an immediate payback in the form of lower energy bills.
This was the primary motivation for Sharp to create an alliance with CitiMortgage, which enables homeowners to fund the purchase of a solar energy system through a streamlined Home Equity Program where homeowners can use the equity in their homes to help offset the cost of installing solar panels on their roofs.
The findings of the survey include:
– 87 percent feel that homebuilders should offer solar power as an option for all new homes; older Americans are less enthusiastic, with 77 percent of those over age 65 supporting solar on new homes
– Respondents understand that solar power can be used to turn thelights on (82 percent), heat bath water (82 percent) or heat a swimming pool (80 percent)
– Respondents are less likely to understand that solar can power electric devices such as computers or appliances (71 percent)
– Americans over age 65 are least likely to recognize this functionality (56 percent)
– Those in the Northeast (63 percent) and Midwest (65 percent) were significantly less likely to identify this functionality for solar energy, compared to those in the South (75 percent) and West (78 percent)
– 82 percent say that a decrease in monthly energy bills is their primary motivation for installing solar power; other respondents indicated it was to reduce overall energy usage (79 percent), reduce oil dependence (77 percent) or because it is a secure source of energy (75 percent)
– 56 percent would be interested in learning more about solar for their homes if the system could be obtained for zero money down and their utility bills would be lowered right away
– Younger adults, ages 25-34, are more encouraged by monetary savings, with 67 percent expressing interest in solar
Steve of Anaerobic Digestion said,
2 June 2007 at 4:54 am
It is great to see so many peolple surveyed in the US have a wish to use solar energy. Also, there is a rising trend in popularity in the idea that new property developments should include options for renewable energy in the home.
This has already been found to be the case among UK citizens and has been taken further in London, with each developer as of this year required to source a percentage of the power for every new build from a renewable source.
Solar panels don’t have such a good payback in the UK, due to our climate, so we can expect to see other choices beside solar panels, such as small wind turbines etc.
I hope it is OK to include my link here? It is about Anaerobic Digestion and is all about renewable energy from waste materials here.
LeisureGuy said,
2 June 2007 at 7:39 am
Sure: your comment is good, it provides more information, and the link is relevant. Altogether, I would rate your comment as Class A.
Geoffrey said,
2 June 2007 at 10:28 am
Great article, but your title threw me. There aren’t many things I’ll support when preceded by the word “require”. I’m dying to get out from under the nanny state thumb, not pile more fingers on.
LeisureGuy said,
2 June 2007 at 10:36 am
Building codes are all about requirements. For a requirement-free environment, look at…. hmmm, no requirement-free environments in human communities. Either the community or a formal government (i.e., laws) will impose requirements, formal or informal.
I’m not sure what a “nanny-state” is, though. A government that is concerned with the welfare of its citizens?
Geoffrey said,
2 June 2007 at 10:58 am
I’m opposed to many building codes as well.
“I’m not sure what a “nanny-state” is, though. A government that is concerned with the welfare of its citizens?”
That statement exemplifies my point very well. That statement insinuates a “concerned” entity, much like a mother, father, or “nanny”. Our government was intended to be none of the above, yet that’s what it’s slowly becoming. It’s meant to be representative of the people, not it’s caretakers. Neither should my neighbor impose his beliefs on me. If he’d like solar power, have at it. If I’d like to buy from the local coal plant, I should be able to.
Too many people are happy to legislate away the freedoms of another. Someone’s “concern” shouldn’t equate to force or legislation. You can be “concerned” that people die from not wearing seat belts, smoking, or drug abuse. That doesn’t mean you should force them to conform to “what’s best for them”.
You do what you’d like. Allow me the same privilege.
LeisureGuy said,
2 June 2007 at 11:06 am
Your point of view is familiar but (in my mind) undercuts the value of community and government. With one swipe that view removes all sorts of protective legislation that the majority of people want—and, as you doubtless recognize, we live in a society and under a government in which the will of the majority in general prevails. The majority WANT pure food and drugs, safe drinking water, clean air, inspected airplanes, safe cars, soundly constructed buildings, safe worksites, good healthcare, social safety nets like Social Security, an educated citizenry, and the like. So they (the majority, either directly or through elected representatives) enact legislation that provides protection and supports them in their lives. The minority who do not like this approach are, of course, free to educate us in the benefits of doing away with such protections, but in the meantime we have the laws we have, which include (for example) mandatory use of seatbelts, which benefits us as a society by protecting our citizens.
Geoffrey said,
2 June 2007 at 11:19 am
I agree. We do live in a mob rules society, in part. I wasn’t speaking to what IS the status quo, but what I feel it should be. If we legislated everything that benefited us as a society, there would be no premarital unprotected sex, mandatory birth control, no homosexuality, no cigarettes or booze, drugs would still be illegal, etc. I was speaking to what the status quo should be. You mind your business and I’ll mind mine. How many of the items you listed as wanted by the majority were decided by referendum? If they weren’t, how can we say the majority wants them?
LeisureGuy said,
2 June 2007 at 11:38 am
“Mob rules” seems (to me) to be a (highly) pejorative phrasing of majority rule, to which I gather you’re opposed. So, presumably, you would prefer a rule by one of the traditional minority formats: plutocracy, aristocracy (whether hereditary or decided by, e.g., some test of “best” (normally devised so that those creating the test will be so selected), corporatocracy, etc.
I think you do fall into the trap of believing that the law is more informed by logic than by experience. I quoted Oliver Wendall Holmes in an earlier post, who said:
Regardless of Holmes as a person, I believe that this statement is accurate, and reflects the reality that the complexity and richness of life and life situations and decisions cannot be decided through logic alone.
I find the inclusion of homosexuality as something to be legislated against peculiar, if not homophobic. As you probably know, homosexuality was indeed illegal for many years in Great Britain, which had as much effect as would making a height of 5′ 10″ illegal: no diminution in the occurrence of homosexuality (or of individuals of that particular height), but many instances of unnecessary misery and injustice.
And of course, in this country we did indeed try making liquor illegal—the experiment call Prohibition. As you probably know, it failed spectacularly, which is perhaps a telling instance of how mere logic fails and we must look to experience for guidance.
I’m not sure how many laws are passed by referendum, but of course you are correct: our government is more correctly a republic, governed by representatives elected by a majority (or, as you would say, a “mob”), who fashion the laws and face the electorate for judgment on their decisions. And I think polls would support the majority (“mob”) approval of the laws and regulations that I mentioned.
Still, given your taste in (non-)government, where could you find such a structure (if I may call it that)? It sounds very much like the state of nature, wherein, as we are told, life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In any society that I know of, one finds laws and community standards that govern what one is and is not allowed to do. If this is intolerable, where does one go?
Geoffrey said,
2 June 2007 at 12:20 pm
You presume incorrectly. I believe in the Constitution as the framers intended. I’m a pure Constitutionalist, laced with a Libertarian streak. Government at the lowest level.
I also question the firmness of the beliefs upon which one stands when that person immediately regards any mention of homosexuality as “homophobia”. Perhaps you should fall back, read my statement again, then respond in kind. How does my statement supporting the belief that the State shouldn’t be involved in the preferences of individuals equate to homophobia? In fact, it is exactly the opposite.
The current state isn’t intolerable, it’s merely excessive. Laws must exist to maintain a cohesive community. You’ve taken my statements on several positions and either misunderstood them, or intentionally expanded them to scenarios in which they were not intended. Hence, my disdain for the nanny state. I believe in your ability to make good decisions for yourself. I also respect your freedom to make bad decisions for yourself. I believe in personal responsibility. I don’t believe in a state, or society, which reserves the right to decide what’s best for me, or force me to live my life in accordance with what you’ve decided is best for you.
’sic’ ‘Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither’ – Benjamin Franklin.
the wife said,
2 June 2007 at 12:50 pm
Okay, more specifically then:
“If we legislated everything that benefited us as a society, there would be no premarital unprotected sex, mandatory birth control, no homosexuality, no cigarettes or booze, drugs would still be illegal, etc.”
How would legislating against homosexuality benefit us as a society?
LeisureGuy said,
2 June 2007 at 1:01 pm
Well, as a pure Constitutionalist, seeing the Constitution as the Framers intended, I take it that you are in support of slavery—not a popular position these days. Note that I am simply exploring the implications of your statements, not trying to misunderstand them or put them into a context in which they were not intended. It would help me if you would provide some examples of where I have twisted the meaning of your statements, rather than trying to understand the implications.
For example, your comment on that we live in a “mob-ruled society” implies, rather clearly I think, that you oppose rule by a “mob” or majority. Do I misunderstand what you mean by the phrase?
So far as homophobia: You state, “If we legislated everything that benefited us as a society, there would be … no homosexuality, …” By that statement, I infer that you think that having no legislation prohibiting homosexuality (“no homosexuality”) would “benefit us as a society.” That seems to me to imply a distaste of homosexuality and a desire to prohibit it. I was merely pointing that such prohibitions do not work, and labeled your position as homophobia not because you mentioned homosexuality but because you took the position that legislation that prohibited homosexuality would benefit society. Perhaps I did indeed misunderstand, and if so, could you clarify what you meant?
I agree that laws must exist to maintain a cohesive community and to support community interests. I suppose we disagree on what interests those are. But surely you do see that laws that exist to maintain a cohesive community will, by their very nature, enjoin some actions and forbid others. That is, the very existence of laws does mean that a person cannot do what s/he likes: s/he must perforce obey the laws, even if the particular law is disliked.
And in many cases, the individual is powerless to make the decisions you require: the decision to have pure water or breathe clean air or have a safe workplace or fly in a safe airplane or enjoy safe food and safe drugs depends not so much on the individual position as on the effects of a broad number of individuals (including those who run companies solely for profit). Thus those things became regulated—often, indeed, because without regulation the desired situation was unavailable to the mass of people.
In any event, the state and society in which you live has decided, by and large, to legislate and regulate many things for the common good, regardless of the decisions of a minority.
And, as I pointed out, any law to some degree sacrifices freedom.
Geoffrey said,
2 June 2007 at 1:41 pm
“How would legislating against homosexuality benefit us as a society?”
For starters, the AIDS rate is much higher. Continuing, for many of the same reasons that being single breaks down the family, which is the cornerstone for communities. If you’re going to toss out a straw man argument and focus on a point and ignore the entire argument, then withdraw homosexuality from the list. Attacking a sidebar in place of the discussion is a failed argument.
“Well, as a pure Constitutionalist, seeing the Constitution as the Framers intended, I take it that you are in support of slavery—not a popular position these days.”
Please explain how, in any way shape or form, the Constitution supports slavery?
“For example, your comment on that we live in a “mob-ruled society” implies, rather clearly I think, that you oppose rule by a “mob” or majority. Do I misunderstand what you mean by the phrase?”
Not entirely. You are just over-simplifying it. I do oppose a rule by the majority if it isn’t supported by the Constitution. In many states, the majority ruled same-sex marriage to be illegal. Do you support that legislation, since a majority was allowed to take away the freedoms of the minority?
“That seems to me to imply a distaste of homosexuality and a desire to prohibit it. ”
No, that implies that a majority of Americans oppose homosexuality and would prohibit it if given the chance.
“Thus those things became regulated—often, indeed, because without regulation the desired situation was unavailable to the mass of people.”
Not true. That’s the beauty of a supply and demand economy. You are under no obligation to work at a company, fly in an airplane, or eat in a restaurant that doesn’t meet your expectations. The business should also have a right to operate as it sees fit. If enough people agree with you, the business changes or folds. That isn’t what you want, though. You want that business to conform to YOUR standards. Maybe I want every house on my street to be black. If every house were black, I’d be happier. If I get 13 of the 25 people on my street to agree that they would also be happier with black houses, thus improving the demeanor of the neighborhood, should we force the remaining 12 home owners to paint their private property black?
“And, as I pointed out, any law to some degree sacrifices freedom.”
Of course. What’s your point? Many laws are necessary and extremely beneficial. We have opposing beliefs. I believe in freedom and personal choice. You believe in your freedom to impose your personal choice on me under the guise of a societal improvement. I say that’s no improvement at all. You’ve yet to convince me it is.
How do you justify society’s belief that same sex marriage is a bad thing warrants taking away a homosexual’s freedom to take advantage of the same marriage benefits you enjoy with any person of his choosing?
LeisureGuy said,
2 June 2007 at 2:35 pm
Oh, my. This is getting to be complicated. A tree-structure would be helpful instead of this linear format, so that individual aspects of the discussion could be followed separately. I’ll see what I can do with headings.
Homosexuality
Homosexuality is a separate issue from being single. As you probably already know, homosexual marriage is a state greatly desired by both homosexuals and those heterosexuals who favor marriage as a stabilizing force. (I will pass over in silence those heterosexuals who believe that if homosexuals marry, heterosexuals will divorce, since there’s no evidence in favor of that and, in fact, the state of Massachusetts, which allows homosexual marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, which could be construed as evidence to the contrary.)
I don’t understand the “straw-man argument” comment. It was you who brought up the issue of the state’s legislating against homosexuality. So far as focusing on a point, I am trying to understand your statements. I thought you would support that. And talking about how being single breaks down marriage in the context of homosexuality is (to my mind, at any rate) truly a straw-man argument. As you’re probably aware, many heterosexuals are also single. Perhaps you want legislation requiring marriage? I thought not.
AIDS is higher? I don’t understand. The worst AIDS crisis on the globe is in Africa, and it’s a heterosexual phenomenon. The issue regarding AIDS is not homosexuality (or heterosexuality), but unprotected sex.
You’re stating (with no link, alas) that the majority of Americans would prohibit homosexuality. In fact, homosexuality is legal across the country, and I can find no evidence whatsoever that there is a majority that opposes that. Moreover, the acceptance of gay marriages or civil unions (either) is in some polls a majority. A solid majority (63%) support allowing gays to serve in the military. Here you can find quite a few polls on the issue. In fact, some of the polls address the very point you raise:
The Newsweek poll of March 14-15 of this year found that 50% of those polled supported either marriage or civil unions for homosexuals, 44% opposed, and 6% were unsure.
I don’t attempt to justify the belief of that 44%, and indeed I advocate allowing same-sex marriages. I do recognize the law is the law, but I also recognize that the law can be changed, provided that a majority wants the change. So one works to educate.
U.S. Constitution as the Framers had it
Let me quote from the document, which I gather you have not read. Emphasis added.
The Constitution (as the Framers had it) also did not allow the direct election of US Senators.
Supply and Demand Economy
Your statements are logical, but unfortunately are contradicted by historical fact. When foods were tainted and risky, and drugs unregulated, people did not have a choice, and businesses did not fold. They kept selling bad foods and bad drugs until laws forbade it. Businesses in search of profits long maintained unsafe workplaces with many worker injuries, showed bias in hiring practices and salaries, produced unsafe products, and stayed in business. But the citizenry didn’t like the effects of the practices and, through their representatives, changed the laws to provide the benefits they sought. Businesses long polluted air and water and took no care whatsoever of the environment, and remained in business, until the citizenry, strongly objecting to the practices, supported laws to restrain businesses. The financial markets operated unethically until laws were passed to regulate those markets. There are many, many examples from history that show clearly that the simple-minded “supply and demand and free-choice” argument simply does not work in practice. I refer to the Holmes quotation above.
FWIW, I believe in freedom and personal choice as well. I believe that people have the freedom to pass laws that reflect their personal choices (e.g., safety of food and drugs) and that that freedom will necessarily conflict with the freedom of businesses to create greater profit by selling impure food and drugs. This is a simple point: freedoms are not absolute, but must take into account the greater good—something with which I think you agree, given your statement regarding the necessity of laws to create a civilized society—laws that necessarily restrict some freedoms.
My pointing out the fact that any law to some degree sacrifices freedom to some degree was intended to show you that the statement by Ben Franklin, which you quoted, is not absolute: security itself requires some restrictions on freedom, and his statement, though a good slogan, requires considerable parsing in the real world.
I hope the above is clear and you do not view it as straw-man arguments. I truly am attempting to respond to the points that you raise.
LeisureGuy said,
2 June 2007 at 3:56 pm
Also, this post may be of interest.
Geoffrey said,
2 June 2007 at 5:33 pm
“I don’t understand the “straw-man argument” comment. It was you who brought up the issue of the state’s legislating against homosexuality. So far as focusing on a point, I am trying to understand your statements.”
Straw-man was directed at the wife, who instead of even addressing the point which included the example, or any of the other examples, attacked an inclusion because it was a simpler target.
“And talking about how being single breaks down marriage in the context of homosexuality is (to my mind, at any rate) truly a straw-man argument. As you’re probably aware, many heterosexuals are also single. Perhaps you want legislation requiring marriage? I thought not.”
You completely misunderstood what I was attempting convey. Since it’s a side-bar, I’ll skip it rather than explain it and stray down yet another path that has nothing to do with the original discussion.
“AIDS is higher? I don’t understand. The worst AIDS crisis on the globe is in Africa, and it’s a heterosexual phenomenon. The issue regarding AIDS is not homosexuality (or heterosexuality), but unprotected sex.”
Unless I’m mistaken, Africa isn’t part of the United States, nor does it fall under our system of government and the nanny-state discussion. In the US, homosexual men contract AIDS in far greater numbers than heterosexual men. Does that mean homosexuality should be illegal, since it’s beneficial to society?
“You’re stating (with no link, alas) that the majority of Americans would prohibit homosexuality. In fact, homosexuality is legal across the country, and I can find no evidence whatsoever that there is a majority that opposes that. Moreover, the acceptance of gay marriages or civil unions (either) is in some polls a majority.”
Every state that put homosexual marriage to a vote of the people turned it down. Are you suggesting that implies Americans are supportive of homosexuality? You can toss out “polls” all you’d like. The fact remains they chose to forbid homosexual marriage. Period.
“The Newsweek poll of March 14-15 of this year found that 50% of those polled supported either marriage or civil unions for homosexuals, 44% opposed, and 6% were unsure.”
Excellent poll. Obviously rigged. How do I know? Americans resoundingly voted to not allow same sex marriage. A poll trumps a vote?
“Let me quote from the document, which I gather you have not read.”
Snide comment noted. Not only have I read it, but I studied it fairly extensively in Law School. You obviously aren’t familiar with the stances of a strict Constitutionalist. Daniel Clark has not only written several papers on this subject, he also directly addresses the same argument you present. Reading the Constitution is one thing. Understanding it is another. The 3/5ths clause didn’t deal with slavery or the worth of a person at all, but to the apportionment of representatives. All that being said, the argument isn’t even applicable since it was added to the Constitution during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, not as part of the originally proposed document.
“When foods were tainted and risky, and drugs unregulated, people did not have a choice, and businesses did not fold.”
Not true. People did have a choice. They chose not to exercise it. Had they chosen to exercise it, those businesses would have been forced to change. The result? Higher prices.
“Businesses in search of profits long maintained unsafe workplaces with many worker injuries, showed bias in hiring practices and salaries, produced unsafe products, and stayed in business.”
Why did they stay in business? People chose to work there and utilize their services. What was the result? Unions and artificially inflated wages, hence higher cost to the consumer.
“I hope the above is clear and you do not view it as straw-man arguments. I truly am attempting to respond to the points that you raise.”
Very clear. Many of the points you made are entirely accurate, yet just boil down to a fundamentally different view. I believe in free choice, a true consumer driven economy, and small government. You believe people can’t make correct decisions, need the government to look after them, and anything YOU deem good for society should be legislated.
You also avoided my questions.
LeisureGuy said,
2 June 2007 at 6:00 pm
Okay, your questions:
1. Please explain how, in any way shape or form, the Constitution supports slavery?
The 3/5 count, as I understand it historically, was to be applied to slaves. Now I understand from your comment that this is incorrect, but again, no link. It also was totally unclear to me that you mean some earlier draft of the US Constitution. I believe that normally when one refers to the US Constitution, one means the document that was signed and ratified.
2. In many states, the majority ruled same-sex marriage to be illegal. Do you support that legislation, since a majority was allowed to take away the freedoms of the minority?
I do not support the law, but do accept it as the law and thus work to get the law changed to be fairer and more just. You may recall that the law once also made marriage between difference races illegal, and this (unfair and unjust) law was finally repealed. (I assume that you do not wish to make interracial marriages illegal.)
3. If I get 13 of the 25 people on my street to agree that they would also be happier with black houses, thus improving the demeanor of the neighborhood, should we force the remaining 12 home owners to paint their private property black?
This is a silly question, IMHO. I don’t think laws are passed by neighborhood, but certainly there are many laws governing appearance of houses, number of cars allowed on the street, etc.
4. “And, as I pointed out, any law to some degree sacrifices freedom.” Of course. What’s your point?
I think I explained that. Ask again if you don’t understand.
5. How do you justify society’s belief that same sex marriage is a bad thing warrants taking away a homosexual’s freedom to take advantage of the same marriage benefits you enjoy with any person of his choosing?
I believe I replied to this: I don’t justify that belief, but work to change it.
Other
You’re perfectly correct: Africa is not part of the United States. I was trying to understand your somewhat cryptic statement, “For starters, the AIDS rate is much higher.” I understood that to mean “among homosexuals,” and I was replying to that. I did not understand that you meant to restrict the statement to the US. Of course, the AIDS rate (in the US) among African-Americans is also higher than in other (racial) groups: “Fifty-one percent of HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed during 2001–2004 were among blacks.” I take it you would not make being an African-American illegal? So I similarly don’t think it makes sense to make being homosexual illegal—it’s as much a matter of choice as being African-American, after all.
The poll was rigged? Do you have any evidence for this beyond what you stated? And why is the word “polls” in quotation marks. Don’t you understand what a poll is? I can’t believe that. Those are polls, pure and simple.
And what about your statement that Americans would make homosexuality illegal? I responded to that—it’s legal the width and breadth of the land. What evidence do you have for that statement?
Regardless of the hypothetical choices people had in the old days with buying pure food and drugs, finding pure water in city systems, finding safe workplaces, etc., the fact remains that the choice people exercised, through their elected representatives, was to regulate businesses to require the conditions that people want. I don’t think we agree on the broad range of choices available to the average working family in a city today. Indeed, since you don’t like building codes, what would the typical home buyer do without them? The adherences to building codes in many cases lie deep within the structure on a level unavailable (and unintelligible) to the average home buyer. How is s/he to exercise this choice of which you speak?
And when things are proposed to make choice easier, businesses often fight it tooth and nail—in concert and in unison. For example, the nutrition facts label on processed foods makes it easier for consumers to exercise choice and provides the information they need. Businesses really didn’t want that information available and would never have provided without the force of regulation and laws.
While I’m always interested in hearing someone else state what I believe, I am capable of doing it myself. FYI, I believe in a consumer-driven economy with government acting as a counterweight to the power of business to ensure that consumers get a fair shake and good products. For example, the government to require businesses to provide the information that consumers need in order to make their choices. I do believe that people can make correct decisions in most cases if they are provided the necessary information. I also believe that people can make poor decisions that endanger themselves and others. I believe it is to the benefit of society as a whole that we minimize poor decisions. Don’t you?
And, though it’s obvious, you also want what YOU deem good for society to be followed: minimal restraints and laws and devil take the hindmost.
Geoffrey said,
2 June 2007 at 6:56 pm
“It also was totally unclear to me that you mean some earlier draft of the US Constitution. I believe that normally when one refers to the US Constitution, one means the document that was signed and ratified.”
I specifically stated framers. You repeated it. If it was unclear to you, it’s because you chose not to read it. Unless it’s your belief that every change to the Constitution since then is to be attributed to their intent as well. I believe you’re being intentionally obtuse.
“I do not support the law, but do accept it as the law and thus work to get the law changed to be fairer and more just. ”
Then why is this standard applicable with you, yet not me? I state I disagree with something and believe it to be unfair and unjust and an argument ensues. Yet for you the same scenario passes as a defense?
“This is a silly question, IMHO. I don’t think laws are passed by neighborhood, but certainly there are many laws governing appearance of houses, number of cars allowed on the street, etc.”
Is that an acceptable manner of avoiding a question? Simply declaring it “silly”? I’ll try that.
“I did not understand that you meant to restrict the statement to the US.”
Weren’t we discussing the US, US law, and US society? Should I fall back on Sharia Law when discussing US Common Law? Of course not. Why? Because it has nothing to do with the discussion. It’s tossed out when one can’t address the point.
“I take it you would not make being an African-American illegal? So I similarly don’t think it makes sense to make being homosexual illegal—it’s as much a matter of choice as being African-American, after all.”
Again, what’s the point? Your argument is it’s ok to legislate for the good of society. I argue you only want to legislate what YOU view is good for society. You’ve just proven my point.
“The poll was rigged? Do you have any evidence for this beyond what you stated?”
I’ve stated my point. Are you contending an extremely small representative sample is more accurate than a higher than average voter turn-out that results in the exact opposite of what your poll suggests? Clearly this is a case of you wanting something to be true so badly that you’re willing to ignore the facts.
“And what about your statement that Americans would make homosexuality illegal? I responded to that—it’s legal the width and breadth of the land. What evidence do you have for that statement?”
For one, sodomy laws are still on the books in many communities. The people didn’t over-turn them, the Supreme Court did. Secondly, in every state that has attempted to curtail the freedoms of homosexuals has down so by a vast majority. It’s the “legal width and breadth of the land” only because the Supreme Court says it is. Yet another compelling reason for my initial statements.
“The adherences to building codes in many cases lie deep within the structure on a level unavailable (and unintelligible) to the average home buyer. How is s/he to exercise this choice of which you speak?”
I fail to see how that is my problem? Yet another example of you wanting the government to nanny you and put it’s hand in my pocket.
“For example, the nutrition facts label on processed foods makes it easier for consumers to exercise choice and provides the information they need. Businesses really didn’t want that information available and would never have provided without the force of regulation and laws.”
Again, what’s your point? People will patronize businesses that cater to their needs. An example? Cambridge is currently trying to nanny it’s citizens by banning trans fats. Why? People don’t want trans fats banned. There are businesses in Cambridge who don’t use trans fat. There businesses haven’t shut down their trans fat competition. Why? People like it. The nanny state wants to remove it though, because it’s better for us.
“And, though it’s obvious, you also want what YOU deem good for society to be followed: minimal restraints and laws and devil take the hindmost.”
Not so. What’s the difference? Under my beliefs, your decisions could remain exactly the same. Under your beliefs, I’ll be forced to follow your decisions. You’re happy to have a system that forces me to wear a helmet, a seat belt, and forbid adults to enjoy the same benefits you enjoy. I’m not.
LeisureGuy said,
2 June 2007 at 7:19 pm
“It also was totally unclear to me that you mean some earlier draft of the US Constitution. I believe that normally when one refers to the US Constitution, one means the document that was signed and ratified.”
“I specifically stated framers. You repeated it.” True—so of course that means I read it, right? What I did was misunderstand it: I thought the “framers” referred to those working on the Constitution and bringing out the document that was signed and ratified. If this is not the case—if judicial interpretations are to be made upon some earlier, unsigned draft—then I was wrong, and it’s due to simple ignorance.
“Unless it’s your belief that every change to the Constitution since then is to be attributed to their intent as well. I believe you’re being intentionally obtuse.” No, the amendments—with perhaps the exception of the Bill of Rights—are well separated from the original event.
Your belief I am being intentionally obtuse is incorrect. I am not. I am trying quite seriously to respond carefully. One snide comment I cop to, but in general I am taking your arguments seriously and responding seriously.
“I do not support the law, but do accept it as the law and thus work to get the law changed to be fairer and more just. ”
Then why is this standard applicable with you, yet not me? I state I disagree with something and believe it to be unfair and unjust and an argument ensues. Yet for you the same scenario passes as a defense?
— I don’t quite follow this. The argument, such as it is, constitutes an effort to understand and to convince. In the case of the quotation above, I was responding to one of your questions, just as you respond to mine.
“This is a silly question, IMHO. I don’t think laws are passed by neighborhood, but certainly there are many laws governing appearance of houses, number of cars allowed on the street, etc.”
Is that an acceptable manner of avoiding a question? Simply declaring it “silly”? I’ll try that.
—Read it again, please, especially the part that states “certainly there are many laws governing appearance of houses, number of cars allowed on the street, etc.,” and also the part “I don’t think laws are passed by neighborhood.” That is what I thought was silly: that a street of houses could somehow vote in enforceable requirements on housing appearance. But I did acknowledge that indeed there are laws that enforce housing appearance (so I presume a requirement for black houses could be passed—though normally nonconforming usage is allowed under a grandfather clause).
You also just dropped arguments when you felt they were irrelevant, particularly a number of arguments regarding laws pertaining to homosexuality. What’s sauce for the goose, etc.
“I did not understand that you meant to restrict the statement to the US.”
Weren’t we discussing the US, US law, and US society? Should I fall back on Sharia Law when discussing US Common Law? Of course not. Why? Because it has nothing to do with the discussion. It’s tossed out when one can’t address the point.
The point you were making was about AIDS and homosexuality. I took this to be a global statement. I did see that I was wrong, and tried to address the problem. I can’t retract the initial misunderstanding though. Sorry.
“I take it you would not make being an African-American illegal? So I similarly don’t think it makes sense to make being homosexual illegal—it’s as much a matter of choice as being African-American, after all.”
Again, what’s the point? Your argument is it’s ok to legislate for the good of society. I argue you only want to legislate what YOU view is good for society. You’ve just proven my point.
No, I don’t think I have. First of all, I don’t think it does society any good to make homosexuality (or being African-American) illegal, so such laws do not help society in the least and, in my view at least, harm it. Moreover, the issue with AIDS, as I said, is not homosexuality, but unprotected sex.
“The poll was rigged? Do you have any evidence for this beyond what you stated?”
I’ve stated my point. Are you contending an extremely small representative sample is more accurate than a higher than average voter turn-out that results in the exact opposite of what your poll suggests? Clearly this is a case of you wanting something to be true so badly that you’re willing to ignore the facts.
—No, I think it’s a case of respecting the statistical reliability of random polls–or, as you call them, “polls.”
“And what about your statement that Americans would make homosexuality illegal? I responded to that—it’s legal the width and breadth of the land. What evidence do you have for that statement?”
For one, sodomy laws are still on the books in many communities. The people didn’t over-turn them, the Supreme Court did. Secondly, in every state that has attempted to curtail the freedoms of homosexuals has done so by a vast majority. It’s the “legal width and breadth of the land” only because the Supreme Court says it is. Yet another compelling reason for my initial statements.
—The power of the Supreme Court to decide the law of the land is established in this Constitution of which you are so supportive. So arguments denigrating the Supreme Court as somehow outside the process of law do not make a lot of sense, given your position.
I believe that the law (and the right of privacy) protects consensual sex among adults in private.
“The adherences to building codes in many cases lie deep within the structure on a level unavailable (and unintelligible) to the average home buyer. How is s/he to exercise this choice of which you speak?”
I fail to see how that is my problem? Yet another example of you wanting the government to nanny you and put it’s hand in my pocket.
—It seems to me that a good part of your argument depends upon pejorative phrasing—i.e., “to nanny” me, “mob rule”, etc. In this case, you have said that people should exercise their choice, and I am pointing out that, in actual practice, that exhortation fails because of lack of knowledge and lack of information. The problem is not to you (unless you’re buying the substandard house), but to your argument.
“For example, the nutrition facts label on processed foods makes it easier for consumers to exercise choice and provides the information they need. Businesses really didn’t want that information available and would never have provided without the force of regulation and laws.”
Again, what’s your point? People will patronize businesses that cater to their needs. An example? Cambridge is currently trying to nanny it’s citizens by banning trans fats. Why? People don’t want trans fats banned. There are businesses in Cambridge who don’t use trans fat. There businesses haven’t shut down their trans fat competition. Why? People like it. The nanny state wants to remove it though, because it’s better for us.
— There’s that “to nanny” usage again. But, to answer your question: my point is that businesses work very hard to deprive the consumer of information needed to make (on an informed basis) the choices that we (you and I) want them to make in a consumer-driven economy. Businesses must be forced by law and regulation to provide that information or, as we have seen in practice, they will not provide it.
“And, though it’s obvious, you also want what YOU deem good for society to be followed: minimal restraints and laws and devil take the hindmost.”
Not so. What’s the difference? Under my beliefs, your decisions could remain exactly the same. Under your beliefs, I’ll be forced to follow your decisions. You’re happy to have a system that forces me to wear a helmet, a seat belt, and forbid adults to enjoy the same benefits you enjoy. I’m not.
— Not quite true. Under your plan, I would lack all the protections painstakingly enacted over the years to ensure that I get safe drinking water (without having to test my drinking water myself), safe prescription drugs (and I wouldn’t know how to test those), that the planes I fly are inspected, the pilots trained; that … well, why go on? The fact is that we as a country have enacted these protections after previously not having had them, and the protections are there for the greater good of the society as a whole—to protect citizens or, as you say, “to nanny” them.
I suppose we’ve reached a conclusion of sorts. You want to abolish protections, I (and most people) want to keep them. So I suspect that we shall be keeping them.
Geoffrey said,
2 June 2007 at 7:57 pm
“If this is not the case—if judicial interpretations are to be made upon some earlier, unsigned draft—then I was wrong, and it’s due to simple ignorance.”
Again, your compelling desire to be sarcastic leads to inaccurate statements. It’s difficult to debate when I spend most of my time correcting your intellectual dishonesty. Where did I state that’s what judicial interpretation stems from? The original statement, which you’ve now distorted with a drag through the mud, had no relationship to judicial process. It was a statement describing my political beliefs.
“— I don’t quite follow this. The argument, such as it is, constitutes an effort to understand and to convince. In the case of the quotation above, I was responding to one of your questions, just as you respond to mine.”
There will be no convincing on either side. There is no intent to convince. It’s sword play. You appear to be firm in your acceptance of a nanny state, and I’m certainly firm in my opposition to it.
“—Read it again, please,”
I did read it again. As I stated, you failed to answer the question. It was pretty direct. It was also close ended. Instead of answering it, you dismissed it the danced around an answer.
“You also just dropped arguments when you felt they were irrelevant, particularly a number of arguments regarding laws pertaining to homosexuality. What’s sauce for the goose, etc.”
No, I did not. Nice try, though. If I inadvertently missed one, feel free to ask again. The only thing I “dropped” were your attempts to side track the conversation.
“First of all, I don’t think it does society any good to make homosexuality (or being African-American) illegal, so such laws do not help society in the least and, in my view at least, harm it.”
As you’ve endorsed, it doesn’t matter what you think as long as 51% of the people disagree.
“—No, I think it’s a case of respecting the statistical reliability of random polls–or, as you call them, “polls.”
Obviously, since the polls were dead wrong, the statistical reliability wasn’t that statistically reliable. Keep respecting it, though. I believe that’s known as “blind ignorance”.
“—The power of the Supreme Court to decide the law of the land is established in this Constitution of which you are so supportive. So arguments denigrating the Supreme Court as somehow outside the process of law do not make a lot of sense, given your position.”
I’m trying to decide if you aren’t that bright, not giving the conversation your full attention, or I’m not expressing myself clearly. I don’t believe it to be the latter, since other’s don’t have trouble carrying on conversations with me. I don’t believe it to be the former, since much of your writing is intelligent and well thought-out. I can only conclude you just aren’t paying attention.
Why do I say that? Because your statement makes absolutely zero sense when placed against the context of what I’ve been saying all along. I AGREE with the Supreme Court’s finding. That’s my point. It SHOULD be left to the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it. Otherwise, “the majority” would impose their will on the minority. Something you support.
“I am pointing out that, in actual practice, that exhortation fails because of lack of knowledge and lack of information.”
How is that my problem? If you don’t feel comfortable with the house, don’t buy it. If I want to build a deck railing at 36″ instead of 42″, my tax dollars shouldn’t go towards making sure I can’t do that so you can have a warm fuzzy feeling should you ever decide to buy my house. The onus is on the cellar to prove the conditions set forth by the purchaser. If he fails to do so, the buyer is under no obligation to complete the transaction. However, some other buyer may not have the same concerns. YOU want to make your warm fuzzy feeling my problem. I want you to worry about your own warm fuzzy feeling, and stop telling me what to do with my private property.
“Businesses must be forced by law and regulation to provide that information or, as we have seen in practice, they will not provide it.”
No, they mustn’t. You want the government to hold your hand. I say stand on your own to feet. If you don’t feel comfortable buying a product, then don’t buy it. If the answers to your questions aren’t printed on the label, don’t buy it. Buy a product that will meet your standards. If there isn’t one, there obviously isn’t a market for it. If consumers demanded informational labeling, and only one company was willing to provide it, buy stock in that company. It’s going to sky rocket. However, that doesn’t mean it’s fair to raise my costs because of something you care about, but I don’t.
“I suppose we’ve reached a conclusion of sorts. You want to abolish protections, I (and most people) want to keep them. So I suspect that we shall be keeping them.”
We shall. Not exactly accurate, though. More appropriate would be “You need someone to hold your hand and protect you through life at the cost of freedom. I prefer my freedom at the cost of protection”.
You must be a big supporter of the Patriot Act.
LeisureGuy said,
2 June 2007 at 9:05 pm
What a strange conclusion. I am not a supporter of the Patriot Act. You needn’t bother to explain whatever sequence of logic led you there, but since the conclusion is wrong, then either your premises or your logic is in error.
You seem to be taking refuge in various insults (e.g., referring to my “intellectual dishonesty”), so I think we should draw this to a close.
Thanks for commenting.
Geoffrey said,
3 June 2007 at 5:58 am
I was merely stating fact. It was neither sarcastic or insulting, as you’ve previously displayed.
I will agree with you, though. This discussion has run its course.
LeisureGuy said,
3 June 2007 at 6:09 am
Forgive me, but it’s not fact, but only your opinion. And somehow you have tried to place on my the position that I must agree with any majority decision. Having to abide by the decision does not constitute agreement, and (as I’ve pointed out) the majority can shift its position—e.g., interracial marriage.
Perhaps I was sarcastic here and there, but I did grow tired of the constant pejorative phrasings standing in for thought or argument—e.g., “mob rule”, “nanny state”, using quotation marks around “polls”, etc.