The LA Times is reporting that the People's State of California may soon move to ban big-screen TVs. The controversy is, of course, that the TV's are "power guzzlers" and bad for the sacred environment. The ironic part is that, as the article notes, private industry has already moved to newer technology and is already phasing out the older "power guzzlers," before the legislation had even been introduced. The point of the legislation, then, is only to increase the scope of governmental powers. The ban will, however, hurt consumer choice as the new technology is more expensive now than the existing technology. Clearly, this law is clearly not about the welfare of the citizens, but the power of the government.
"When the Republic is at its most corrupt, the laws are the most numerous." ~ Tacitus
"When the Republic is at its most corrupt, the laws are the most numerous." ~ Tacitus
Posts
5 comments:
Ok dude ... so I just found this blog randomly, and I don't know how some posts can be so sensible and others so Glenn Beckish. The state wants to increase the scope of their power, so they ... ban big-screen TVs? Really? I mean, don't get me wrong, it sounds like a silly law, but don't you think you're dipping your toe in conspiracy theory here?
Aletheion,
Ouch, that is the first time anyone has ever compared me to Glebb Beck.
I think the problem you are seeing is that in these short posts, i don't always spell out the arguments and assume some common ground between myself and my readers, such that their own framework would supply some of the missing details.
In this case, the point was that the legislators knew that the law was going to be ineffectual before it was passed based on the progression of technology. So, why did they even bother to pass it? I would argue that they did it for precedence so that they can use this law as the basis of some new law in the future.
Note too that the only reason they are even concerned with TV's is that they are trying to reduce power consumption on the premise that the environment is intrinsically good and that carbon emission is intrinsically bad. I say intrinsically here because there is no scientific evidence carbon has much of an effect on global heating and cooling. The most likely candidate is the sun, the source of most of the heat for the planet. This seems straightforward, but most apocalyptic environmentalists refuse to even consider the role of the sun in heating and cooling patterns. They need global warming to be true because they want to control what we do (i.e. force us to recycle, drive less, subsidize their "green" projects, etc).
Thus, the point of this post is that the government should not try to curtail the actions of its citizens based on some alleged higher goal (the environment), when the proper function of the government is to protect the rights of its citizens and nothing else.
Also, I don't believe in any gods, so Glenn Beck would hate me.
~Jason
We see eye-to-eye on both Glenn and religion! We're finding common ground already.
I think that most of our disagreement boils down to a fundamental difference of opinion on the function of government. I’m not opposed to government regulation to protect shared assets that the market alone won’t protect—the environment being one.
That said, I think this law has more to do with easing pressure on California's strained power grid than global warming (though of course that's an additional rationale). Yes, TV manufacturers are already headed in the direction of energy conservation, but not as quickly and (more importantly) not as universally as the law would require.
Your setting-a-precedent theory is interesting, but I’m skeptical. Can you give an example of what this law would be a stepping-stone for?
Aletheion,
I'm worried that the concept of "shared assets" is dubious at best. While I think that the environment should not be purposefully destroyed, I think this only because it might harm human health, and not for any reasons related to the intrinsic value of nature.
I agree that the obvious reason is that they don't want to build new power plants, but the reason that they don't is to not have a further "impact on the environment."
The problem with the law is that: 1. the government should only protect individual rights, not dubious concepts like the environment, 2. that laws which are not necessary should not be passed and clutter up the lawbooks, 3. if the government can start passing laws against TV's using too much power, they can start to pass laws against other things as well. This law won't be opposed because it doesn't have an impact. But the new law, that cites this one as precedence, will be more impactful. The process will continue until they achieve the level of cutbacks in "carbon output" that they desire. It could be in bans on overall energy usage, gallons of gas, or even personal "cap and trade" laws.
I just think the government should stop trying to increase its scope and power and focus on its proper role.
~Jason
Aletheion,
I'm worried that the concept of "shared assets" is dubious at best. While I think that the environment should not be purposefully destroyed, I think this only because it might harm human health, and not for any reasons related to the intrinsic value of nature.
I agree that the obvious reason is that they don't want to build new power plants, but the reason that they don't is to not have a further "impact on the environment."
The problem with the law is that: 1. the government should only protect individual rights, not dubious concepts like the environment, 2. that laws which are not necessary should not be passed and clutter up the lawbooks, 3. if the government can start passing laws against TV's using too much power, they can start to pass laws against other things as well. This law won't be opposed because it doesn't have an impact. But the new law, that cites this one as precedence, will be more impactful. The process will continue until they achieve the level of cutbacks in "carbon output" that they desire. It could be in bans on overall energy usage, gallons of gas, or even personal "cap and trade" laws.
I just think the government should stop trying to increase its scope and power and focus on its proper role.
~Jason
Post a Comment