Government: How big is too big?

So...California...more proof they're out of their cotton-picking minds: http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/03/23/state-considers-ban-on-big-screen-tvs/12993/

In their continuing quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, state regulators have uncovered a new villain in the war on global warming : your big screen TV Couch potatoes, beware.

The California Energy Commission is considering a proposal that would ban California retailers from selling all but the most energy-efficient televisions. Critics say the news standards could take 25 percent of televisions off the market — most of them 40 inches or larger.

“The larger the television, the more at risk it is of being banned unnecessarily in California,” said Douglas Johnson, senior director of technology police for the Consumer Electronics Association.
Association officials say the standards are not only unnecessary – because the federal government already regulates energy efficiency through the voluntary Energy Star program — but also ill-timed. The last thing our economy needs now is products taken off the market, they say.

Furthermore, they say that with a weak economy, consumers are going out less and watching TV more.

“This is really about regulating entertainment, not energy use,” Johnson said.
Poppycock, says the commission. Affordable big screen TVs will still be available under the new standards, spokesman Adam Gottlieb said. In fact, he said the regulations will save you money.

The commission calculates that if you buy televisions meeting the proposed standards it’ll cut your annual energy use by — drum roll, please — $18 to $30 per television per year. “I don’t know anyone who doesn’t like to save money,” Gottlieb said.

Gottlieb said the commission is exploring the regulations to reduce the strain on the energy grid and to avoid building new power plants. Televisions are the fastest growing consumer appliance in California. Californians are buying bigger TVs, and more of them. If something doesn’t happen, televisions are going to devour a bigger and bigger piece of the state’s power grid, which means we’ll need more power plants. More power plants mean more greenhouse gas emissions.

“Consumers aren’t aware of the hidden cost of powering these things,” Gottlieb said. Gottlieb insisted that the regulations wouldn’t eliminate big screens from California stores. But the commission’s own draft report says TV energy use is “proportional to the screen size.” And there’s no doubt the regulations will limit energy use. So if you’re in the market for big screen TV, now might be the time to buy. The regulations are expected to be approved this summer.

Yes, I know they're just thinking about it, but come on. I'm sorry about all the links being in there, it's just how it was.
 
[quote name='familydog']Do we go by fraudulent claims of legality created by the victors of an unneccesary war?[/quote]

See, that's the funny thing about winning a war: you get to tell the losers what to do.

If we follow the idea of slavery was unconstitutional yet it was practiced and defended with fervor, wouldn't you conclude the United States was an illegal nation from the beginning?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If we follow the idea of slavery was unconstitutional yet it was practiced and defended with fervor, wouldn't you conclude the United States was an illegal nation from the beginning?[/quote]

No. These United States were formed from a contract (the Constitution). The basis for understanding a contract's terms come from accepted legal language used at the time of the contract's creation. In the case of the 18th Century, English Common Law reigned as the basis for our legal understandings. If both parties involved ignore the actual meaning their contract, it does not become void.

A simple contract between you and I will be taken to a court of law if there is a dispute. The court will use current legal understandings of the contract language to settle it, regardless of how you and I interpret the language. Ideally, the court will set both parties straight, but this dispute does not make the contract void.

Unfortunately, "the system" used to settle contractual disputes in the early 19th Century did not abide by it's own language and legal tradition. As Spooner points out in Chapter III and VI, English common law at ther time did not allow for slavery to be Constitutional.

According to Spooner, it wasn't until after the Civil War that the contract had become void. The outcome of the Civil War led to violation of the Constitution's contractual terms agreed upon by the states and federal government. The violation is based on the same rationale and legal understanding as his justification for why slavery was never Constitutional.
 
[quote name='familydog']Lol wut?

I fail to see the point of your post. Spooner makes an excellent case on why slavery was never Constitutional. You did nothing to refute that.

Next.[/QUOTE]

Wow. Reading a post as dumb as yours makes me appreciate the vs. forum regulars, even if most of them have never even heard of Spooner.

I didn't refute Spooner's argument because I agree with him. Here's what I said to clarify:

1. The framers did not believe the Constitution banned slavery at the time, and yet the Constitution is considered even today to have always been some kind of special list of rights.
2. Slavery was practiced after the Constitution was ratified.
3. Spooner agreed with both #1 and #2.
4. Spooner once argued the Constitution was not valid using similar reasoning to what I used earlier in the thread.

[quote name='familydog']
A previous poster tried to play "gotcha" with Spooner's arguments. The poster claimed that Spooner argued the Constitution invalid. Yet, if this poster was actually familiar with Spooner and his writing, the poster would know that The Unconstitutionality of Slavery was written during the climax to the Civil War (1865). It wasn't until after the war that he argued the war itself had invalidated the Constitution. This in his writting No Treason (1867). Therefore, the poster's arguments are irrelevent.[/QUOTE]


:lol: I'm well aware that No Treason was written years after The Unconstitutionality of Slavery. I'm not sure you were, though. That's why I said, "he once made a similar argument". And if you really knew what you were talking about, you'd know the Civil War was not the only reason Spooner considered the Constitution to be invalid. Go look again.

You should've paid more attention to the thread before you jumped in to go on this tangent of yours. It was suggested that we should look to the Constitution for a list of rights. I pointed out that it doesn't make much sense to do that. Even if the text of the Constitution does not authorize slavery, the framers of the Constitution believed that it did. So why should we trust that they came up with a good list of rights?
 
[quote name='familydog']According to Spooner, it wasn't until after the Civil War that the contract had become void. The outcome of the Civil War led to violation of the Constitution's contractual terms agreed upon by the states and federal government. The violation is based on the same rationale and legal understanding as his justification for why slavery was never Constitutional.[/QUOTE]

As I just posted, this was not his only reasoning. You need to go look again. Here, I'll help you out:

Furthermore, those who originally agreed to the Constitution, could thereby bind nobody that should come after them. They could contract for nobody but themselves. They had no more natural right or power to make political contracts, binding upon succeeding generations, than they had to make marriage or business contracts binding upon them.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If we follow the idea of slavery was unconstitutional yet it was practiced and defended with fervor, wouldn't you conclude the United States was an illegal nation from the beginning?[/QUOTE]

familydog doesn't understand Spooner's later work, so he answered "no", but you're actually on to something, FoC.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']So...California...more proof they're out of their cotton-picking minds: http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/03/23/state-considers-ban-on-big-screen-tvs/12993/



Yes, I know they're just thinking about it, but come on. I'm sorry about all the links being in there, it's just how it was.[/QUOTE]

You can add that to California considering banning cars painted black.

...

...

No, I'm really not kidding: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/26/AR2009032603316.html
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You can add that to California considering banning cars painted black.

...

...

No, I'm really not kidding: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/26/AR2009032603316.html[/quote]

I've always wanted to be arrested for driving while black.

...

Does anybody want to see a horribly racist statement based on the proposed law?

...

The flip side of this is winter. In Northern California, they have seasons. Should black cars be given an incentive because of how much less heat is required to keep the driver warm?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The flip side of this is winter. In Northern California, they have seasons. Should black cars be given an incentive because of how much less heat is required to keep the driver warm?[/QUOTE]

Good question. Maybe we'll just ask our vast new global warming (sorry, "climate change") bureaucracy about it. Either that or you can petition His Holiness Al Gore for some indulgences.
 
[quote name='rickonker']familydog doesn't understand Spooner's later work, so he answered "no", but you're actually on to something, FoC.[/QUOTE]

It could be possible that familydog is focusing on Spooner as an abolitionist instead of as an anarchist.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Man, I feel sorry for people who live in California. Seriously.[/quote]

Yeah, it seems like no matter who's in charge, the Government just keeps getting crazier and crazier.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Man, I feel sorry for people who live in California. Seriously.[/QUOTE]

I don't. They don't have to. They choose to.

Californians, in general, still really pride themselves on their trend-setting state.
 
[quote name='Msut77']It could be possible that familydog is focusing on Spooner as an abolitionist instead of as an anarchist.[/QUOTE]
Could be, but it doesn't matter. familydog was relying on Spooner's later arguments (which refute familydog's point) to only be valid after the Civil War. As I pointed out, Spooner had more than one argument, and they didn't all depend on the war.

So like I said a while ago, ironically, the person familydog was citing for support himself provided one of the best refutations possible.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't. They don't have to. They choose to.

Californians, in general, still really pride themselves on their trend-setting state.[/quote]

So does that trend-setting include the people who are choosing to leave California because it's getting so messed up?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']It is only MOSTLY FALSE.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean false? They did consider it, and that's what I linked to.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']http://drudgereport.com/flashtx.htm

texas has the right idea.[/QUOTE]

Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."

lol.

Washington DC has been Texas for 8 years of the last 8 years and 3 months. Where was Perry's condemnation when the Supreme Court was smashing states' rights under Ashcroft and Gonzalez (a Texan)?

Perry is going to get the shit kicked out of him by Hutchinson next election and he's running scared. He'll say or do anything at this point to look like a leader so he can point to it later. Wasn't a peep from that asshole before.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Ahem.



...

MOSTLY FALSE.[/QUOTE]

From the article, yes it wasn't banning the color specifically, but the proposal was to require a certain kind of paint. This kind of paint has yet to be effectively developed in a black color. Thus, although the proposal wasn't "black paint on cars is banned," it had that effect. It's semantics. What I said was correct. They decided against it (wisely) of course.
 
"One potential implementation plan called for auto manufacturers to phase in one-third of their color pallettes by the 2012 model year, with all colors having to meet the 20% reflectivity goal by 2016"
So, yes, banning black paint. Potentially. A decade from now.

In fairness, I don't know anything about other "potential implementation plans". But I haven't seen you post anything indicating that you do, either, so whatever.
 
bread's done
Back
Top