NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate] - Version 4

[Britanno]

Basically, NWO's entire argument is "libertarian ftw!!!!"

[Lemanrussland]

Why?

Because the State's duties are to provide its citizens life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see Efficient Lightbulbs in that phrase. As much as I support environmentalism, this bill is one of those which takes the government's hand too far down the peoples' pants.

(Also note that companies already are phasing out incandescent lightbulbs themselves. The first lightbulb reform was initiated by companies trying to get an edge over their competitors; see General Electric's actions in 2007.)

Can't it be argued that consumption of energy (and thus generation of pollution) has third party impacts, and thus falls under the purview of a state that seeks to protect liberty? Doesn't the generation of pollution fail to pass the harm principle?

While I am in favor of market or price system based solutions to pollution management (like cap and trade policies), I acknowledge that, in principle, environmental regulation is part of a state's duties, even if we look at the state's mission as being solely to protect liberty.

If we do go forward with regulation-based (rather than market-based) "light bulb reform", it should be phased (with older technologies being removed from the market via attrition), and should be part of a comprehensive effort to improve energy efficiency which includes other measures like changing fuel economy standards in passenger cars, light trucks, and commercial vehicles, and changing building codes to promote energy efficiency.

[Pesda]

Incandescent lightbulbs, however, are not market inefficient, not to mention fhat we need rid of them ASAP.

If you want to get rid of them, come up with an alternative that will be compete effectively with them in the open market. What types of lightbulbs I choose to buy are no business of the state.

Actually, it is the business of the state. The extra pollution caused by using inefficient lightbulb will hurt everyone. It is the duty of the state to protect us from unnecessary pollution.

[New Bierstaat]

If you want to get rid of them, come up with an alternative that will be compete effectively with them in the open market. What types of lightbulbs I choose to buy are no business of the state.

Actually, it is the business of the state. The extra pollution caused by using inefficient lightbulb will hurt everyone. It is the duty of the state to protect us from unnecessary pollution.

No, it isn't.

[Britanno]

No, it isn't.

Pollution affects us all. We need protection from it. It is the duty of the state to protect us.

[Pesda]

Actually, it is the business of the state. The extra pollution caused by using inefficient lightbulb will hurt everyone. It is the duty of the state to protect us from unnecessary pollution.

No, it isn't.

Please do elaborate.

[New Bierstaat]

No, it isn't.

Pollution affects us all. We need protection from it. It is the duty of the state to protect us.

That doesn't mean the lightbulbs I purchase are the government's business. If I want to cut pollution, I have the choice to buy more efficient lightbulbs (which I already do) and turn my lights out when they don't need to be on (which I also do). It is the individual citizen's responsibility to do his part. It is not within the responsibility of the government to force the citizen to do so.

I buy CFLs and have for years. There is a cost benefit; they last longer, and they cost less to run. Further, they can be purchased in several hues ranging from pale blue to pale yellow; incandescent bulbs mostly just have the pale yellow color. Educate the public about these things, and you'll find no need to shove lightbulb alternatives down their throats.

[Pesda]

Pollution affects us all. We need protection from it. It is the duty of the state to protect us.

That doesn't mean the lightbulbs I purchase are the government's business. If I want to cut pollution, I have the choice to buy more efficient lightbulbs (which I already do) and turn my lights out when they don't need to be on (which I also do). It is the individual citizen's responsibility to do his part. It is not within the responsibility of the government to force the citizen to do so.

I buy CFLs and have for years. There is a cost benefit; they last longer, and they cost less to run. Further, they can be purchased in several hues ranging from pale blue to pale yellow; incandescent bulbs mostly just have the pale yellow color. Educate the public about these things, and you'll find no need to shove lightbulb alternatives down their throats.

If I understand correctly, your logic is "we shouldn't force people to stop hurting each other, give them a choice and they might stop hurting each other anyway." Is this correct?

[Britanno]

That doesn't mean the lightbulbs I purchase are the government's business. If I want to cut pollution, I have the choice to buy more efficient lightbulbs (which I already do) and turn my lights out when they don't need to be on (which I also do). It is the individual citizen's responsibility to do his part. It is not within the responsibility of the government to force the citizen to do so.

Pollution is the government's business, and this affects pollution, so it is the government's business.

[Lamaredia]

Incandescent lightbulbs, however, are not market inefficient, not to mention fhat we need rid of them ASAP.

If you want to get rid of them, come up with an alternative that will be compete effectively with them in the open market. What types of lightbulbs I choose to buy are no business of the state.

So basically, fuck the environment.

[The Liberated Territories]

It's basic and it's minimal. People to have this tendency to perish in precarious multitudes when those duties change.

I don't see anyone perishing in precarious multitudes here (mafia wankery aside) and our constitution doesn't limit the state to those duties. Why are those duties properly basic and minimal? Why should there be three things, instead of two or one, which would be more basic and minimal? Perhaps the most basic and minimal would be none at all? Why should we strive to make the state's role basic and minimal?

Because anything more is theft or death.

I'd rather have the choice to buy whatever light bulb I please, thank you very much.

[New Bierstaat]

That doesn't mean the lightbulbs I purchase are the government's business. If I want to cut pollution, I have the choice to buy more efficient lightbulbs (which I already do) and turn my lights out when they don't need to be on (which I also do). It is the individual citizen's responsibility to do his part. It is not within the responsibility of the government to force the citizen to do so.

I buy CFLs and have for years. There is a cost benefit; they last longer, and they cost less to run. Further, they can be purchased in several hues ranging from pale blue to pale yellow; incandescent bulbs mostly just have the pale yellow color. Educate the public about these things, and you'll find no need to shove lightbulb alternatives down their throats.

If I understand correctly, your logic is "we shouldn't force people to stop hurting each other, give them a choice and they might stop hurting each other anyway." Is this correct?

Thanks for blatantly ignoring my point about educating people.

[Britanno]

Educating people? What do you want us to do, sit every adult down and give them a lecture on light bulbs? Like people will actually give two shits about this, the way we get people's attention is if we legislate.

[The Liberated Territories]

Educating people? What do you want us to do, sit every adult down and give them a lecture on light bulbs? people will actually give two shits about this, the way we get people's attention is if we legislate.

OR, instead of dumping money into a useless law that will only matter for five years tops, we leave the awareness to the private sector to dish out. Competitors could also be incentivized to switch to flors with tax breaks, which could quickly switch production into a positive direction.

[The New World Oceania]

Educating people? What do you want us to do, sit every adult down and give them a lecture on light bulbs? Like people will actually give two shits about this, the way we get people's attention is if we legislate.

Educating people? What do you want us to do, sit every child down and give them a lecture about sex? Like people will actually give two shits about this, the way we get people's attention is to legislate. I motion to mandate condoms.

[Pesda]

If I understand correctly, your logic is "we shouldn't force people to stop hurting each other, give them a choice and they might stop hurting each other anyway." Is this correct?

Thanks for blatantly ignoring my point about educating people.

Is your logic "we shouldn't force people to stop hurting each other, give them a choice and they might stop hurting each other anyway if we educate them"?

[Pesda]

I don't see anyone perishing in precarious multitudes here (mafia wankery aside) and our constitution doesn't limit the state to those duties. Why are those duties properly basic and minimal? Why should there be three things, instead of two or one, which would be more basic and minimal? Perhaps the most basic and minimal would be none at all? Why should we strive to make the state's role basic and minimal?

Because anything more is theft or death.

I'd rather have the choice to buy whatever light bulb I please, thank you very much.

Please do explain how a ban on inefficient light bulb is either theft or death.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

Honestly it is not the government job to decide what someone buys from the store. Also it is not their job to decide how much energy one is wasting as he pays for it. So if people buy them it is their choice. And I kind of doubt that such a ban will really help the environment.

[The Liberated Territories]

Because anything more is theft or death.

I'd rather have the choice to buy whatever light bulb I please, thank you very much.

Please do explain how a ban on inefficient light bulb is either theft or death.

Such straw man. Much logic. So serious. Wow.

[Zurkerx]

There is something called Pro-choice (and no, not abortion). People have the right to buy whatever product they want. Since some people buy these light bulbs, there should be no one stopping them, especially the government.

[Pesda]

Please do explain how a ban on inefficient light bulb is either theft or death.

Such straw man. Much logic. So serious. Wow.

You said that the state doing anything more than "those duties" ("provide its citizens life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness") would be theft or death.

[Pesda]

There is something called Pro-choice (and no, not abortion). People have the right to buy whatever product they want. Since some people buy these light bulbs, there should be no one stopping them, especially the government.

Choice ends when it hurts others.

[Oneracon]

Why?

Because the State's duties are to provide its citizens life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness.

I believe you are confusing the words of the United States Declaration of Independence with the more abstract concepts of the role of government, which differ widely among nations (even among developed "Western" nations).

[The Liberated Territories]

Such straw man. Much logic. So serious. Wow.

You said that the state doing anything more than "those duties" ("provide its citizens life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness") would be theft or death.

So it is theft (taxation required to enforce that measure).

Because the State's duties are to provide its citizens life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness.

I believe you are confusing the words of the United States Declaration of Independence with the more abstract concepts of the role of government, which differ widely among nations (even among developed "Western" nations).

I personally am a Lockean and prefer "life, liberty, and property."

[Pesda]

You said that the state doing anything more than "those duties" ("provide its citizens life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness") would be theft or death.

So it is theft (taxation required to enforce that measure).

Which would be tiny.
Edit: if we shouldn't stop people from hurting each because we need money to do so, maybe we should stop funding the police.