Debate : 10314


Off-Topic / Debate / 10314

Rolling Blackouts —Scott P. Costello

For the second time I have now been victim of California's rolling blackouts. The first experience was a few months ago at home, and now today 5/8/01 here at work. For those of you not experiencing this wonderful phenomenon, it really sucks! This is (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Richard Marchetti

(...) And I bet you thought you lived in a country where the presidential election couldn't be stolen by a man in bed with the oil and energy companies too! Interestingly the price of natural gas, petroleum, and electricity are all going through the (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Mark Sandlin

(...) One of the places it's being bought from is Washington State. As a result. my power bill is almost double what it was at this time last year. :^P Meanwhile, the local power companies are asking us to conserve (so they can sell our power to CA) (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Why don't you do what the Soviets did in Murmansk? To run the power grid, they hooked up the nuclear submarines to the grid to keep the power stable and affordable. best Lindsay (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Mark Sandlin

(...) Oh sure, I'll just go right out and hook up my nuclear sub. Oh wait, I don't own one. Guess I'll just keep bending over for the power company. ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Are you crazy? The 2nd Amendment guarantees that you can have one! What's wrong with you?! 8^) (...) "Let me control the power supply, and I don't care who makes the laws." Dave! (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) It doesn't guarantee that you can afford one...merely that _if_ you can, then it's legal to own. (...) "Who runs Bartertown?" Chris (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Hence the 8^) Dave! (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Clearly your second amendment rights are being violated. As long as that sub is "man portable" that is. So start building! ++Lar (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) No, that was the "royal" ("grand admiral?") you, as in the State of Washington. You've got tons of Pacific submarines at Bremerton, right? Hook 'em up! best LFB (though the Navy might take exception, granted...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) Its all corporate graft. Here in Houston (home of Enron, which has been fighting a court order to sell power to California), our energy costs are expected to triple this summer. Why? Even in August, Texas' month of peak demand, our energy (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) Forgive me for adding an adendum to my own post, but as I was driving back to work from my lunch hour a few minutes ago, it just occured to me that, yes, Enron really *is* building a twin for its existing skyscraper downtown. Yes, we have to (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lester Witter

(...) consumers. (...) for (...) we (...) really (...) it. (...) I read an article about Texas power in the WSJ this week. According to the article Texas has made a delibert effort to not be connected to the inter-state power grid. Not being (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Mark Papenfuss

(...) Wow, only double? You are lucky its only double, before all this my higest bill was $55 for one month, now the cheapest one I have gotten recently was over $150!! ARG! And of course they want to sell to us, they are getting rich doing so. Mark (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Mark Sandlin

(...) I'm not interested in having a contest with people from California to see whose bill is worse. My point is that it's absurd that my power bill is double when it's not even my state that's having the power crisis. ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) My bill is worst of all. It's the only one that I have to pay for. :-) (...) But why should a power company sell you power for less than it could sell it to me for? Just because it's located in your state? I think the power from a particular (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Of course your state is having a power crisis. Market forces. California is offering more money to the independent power companies than you are. What do you expect them to do, sell it to you for less than they can make? So, you have to pony up (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Mark Sandlin

(...) Here's a news flash: I already *DO* conserve. we're very careful to limit our usage, and our power bills still keep skyrocketing. The BIG (have politicians in their back pockets) COMPANIES in the area get rate cuts when they conserve, but I (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Mark Papenfuss

(...) lol, sorry if I came across like that, I was just wishing that mine was not as high as it is. I have a one bedroom apt, so I know my bill is less than many others, so I do feel lucky for that. (...) True, but your state will follow soon, Cali (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Naw, he want's oil prices to skyrocket. You (okay, the American people rejected him, but there he is) elect oilmen, what do you expect? When re-election time comes, he's going to find out all those California businesses that saw their profits (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Selçuk Göre

(...) Wow!.. Blackouts in US? C'mon guys, it's not that big a problem..:-) We were very get used to it just 10-15 years ago. I mean *regular* and *planned* blackouts, 2 hours everyday..:-) Things were much better during the last ten years but our (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Richard Marchetti

(...) That's precisely my point, except as regards the U.S. government. Believe it or not, Americans are naive enough to think themselves immune to the kind of corruption and nonsense that takes place elsewhere, frankly, ALL OVER THE WORLD! I think (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Most people I know (who express an opinion on the matter) are aware of the corruption and are equally aware that there's little the average citizen can do about it. <insert third-gov't-party ad here> As long as humans are subject to greed, and (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Less government power, less possible avenues of corruption. Yes, private interests also can be corrupt, but as long as there are no barriers to entry, corrupt (and therefore inefficent) companies get displaced by honest ones. ++Lar (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Power corrupts, be it business or government. As to corrupt (and therefore inefficient (Oh?)) companies getting displaced by honest ones: looking at Big Oil and Hollywood, I gotta disagree. ;-) Bruce (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Bruce, I have to agree with you. The measure of a company's success is its level of profit - not the level of corruption involved. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) I'll buy that (metaphorically) on paper, but I can't shake the feeling that, in practice, the corrupt companies would quickly take steps to erect barriers to entry. In theory, a government, even a big one, directly and quickly accountable for (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) Larry: I'm much persuaded by many of your arguments in favor of Libertarianism. I have, however, some lingering doubts about Libertarianism on a fundamental level. In other words, I feel that it is based on a principle (insofar as I understand (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) This is true. History shows that some of the greatest thinkers and artists have not been truly appreciated in their own livetimes… indeed that may well have given them motivation in their endeavours. (...) I think this issue was raised before. (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes: [big snip] (...) effect (...) expense (...) to (...) Right. You can only bribe someone to exert power that they have. If they have no public power, there is no public concern. (...) All public (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Who would fund such an organization, and how can it make any credible claims of independence? I don't deny the value, in theory, of the organization, but I don't believe that we can trust it to be any more impartial than existing watchdog (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) All good questions that the court of public opinion would have to satisfy, and thanks for reminding us of them, Dave! (1) Ask yourself them about the UL or ANSI, though, under the current system. When I did, I got entirely satisfactory (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) independent (...) who (...) Whomever wished to..? (...) Independant of what? (...) I'm pretty happy with the private consumer advocacy that I sponsor. (...) The shareholders? (...) think (...) Actually, I know very little about the FAA. I (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) So Joe Smith Toxic Waste Dumping, Inc. can fund a watchdog organization to demonstrate that it's safe to dump industrial sludge into the local reservoir. Is that what you're envisioning? (...) Independent of the interests it purports to (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Frank Filz

(...) I don't think such a company would really last terribly long. If their actions really had a wide impact, they would find quite an array of folks against them. And not all of the money to hire the lawyers to sue them out of existence will come (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Two word rebuttal: Phillip Morris. (...) That really isn't true. Companies have invariably dragged their feet on the "ounce of prevention" angle. The cold truth is, as much as businesses get over-regulated, they invariably brought it on (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Business has never been free to realize that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. They have never been actually liable for their damages across the long term. They have never existed in an unrestrained market where the government (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) If they aren't liable, then why do they spend so much effort dodging liablity? I'm not sure what you are basing your claims off of, but I gotta disagree with virtually every sentence above. And I'm also talking about throughout history, not (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) a (...) I mean that business liability as found by a court is virtually always disproportionate with the damages done. They are often fined way too much, and people make jokes about it for years (McDonalds coffee comes to mind), and they are (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Punative damages - the idea being that they'll think twice about pulling the same stunt twice. Everyone knows about the McDonalds thing, but virtually no one realizes it (and virtually every similiar case) had the award slashed drastically (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Okay, let's say that Joe Smith TWD Inc is sued into bankrupcy and their assets sold. In all likelihood the cost to repair the damage to the environment will greatly exceed the company's worth, so even full liquidation of assets won't fund the (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Frank Filz

(...) Well, the biggest such organization today is.... The United States Federal Government.... Think about it, what makes the government any different than Joe Smith TWD? Actually, there's a really big difference, they've done such a good PR job (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) So you're agreeing that a corporation will not only be just as corrupt, but will likewise take steps to make sure that its corruption is beyond the reach of individual correction? The difference is that the government can be sued, and the (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

I think you have a few nots missing, and a few added where they do not belong (...) c /can/cannot/ in many cases. Nor can government employees. (Libertopian corporations would have no such immunity for their personnel) (...) That is, has the power (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Where does all this c/can/cannot stuff come from? Is it English, or is it some esoteric computerese? FUT OT.Geek? Is that right? The gov't can't be sued for anything? I thought they simply weren't subject to civil suits, but were subject to (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) many cases, not all cases. So no, what you think I said isn't right. (...) Sometimes they are. Steve Jackson Games won a suit against the government I believe... The upside of small corporations is that it's possible to win against them. The (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: But I was serious about the c/can/cannot thing. What does that mean? Dave! (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) delete the slashes and insert the chars in <> c/<hange >can/< to >cannot It's an editor command, or supposed to look like one, anyway. Shows that you are Old Skool IBM with 3l33t VM 3d1t0r sk1llz, I guess. ++Lar (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) That's 'cause the government didn't bother to read the rules to Illuminati: Weird Groups (Gamers) are immune to Government Groups (Secret Service). Fnord. (...) Yeah for Libertopia! These corporate sharks rape the system for all it's worth, (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) away. I'm confused. I expected this to be anti-libertarian and so read sarcasm into it. But I don't think that it's warranted. Are you serious, Bruce? The opinion (sarcastic intent or not) is exactly how I feel. Put the ass of policy makers on (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I've said before I often agree with Libertarian theory - on paper. In practice, I think it has some serious problems - to be fair, what philosophy doesn't? I registered Libertarian to help get them on the California ballot many years ago, if (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) I agree that it's nit-picky when taken on its own, but the mindset is symptomatic of an apparent and as yet unresolved shortcoming of the Libertarian view--namely that those who are able to afford better conditions will become better able to (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Sorry, I wasn't trying to pass judgement on either side. I understand the point you have been trying to make, I'd just choose different ground to make it on than the roads. The roads in the poorer parts of SoCal tend to be broken up, the rich (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you need to demonstrate this is actually the case, though. I don't think it is. Ever heard the saying "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations"? With a few exceptions, the idle rich children tend to dissipate their wealth and the (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, I disagree on both counts, but I'm sure you're not surprised! 8^) I think that, as the proposed alternative to the existing system, Libertopia must provide the burden of proof that its notion of the fully free market won't result in the (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you can start from an unfairer place and move towards a fairer place without having to start completely from scratch. I about 1% of the time think we should throw all property documentation away in NA and start over, negotiating afresh (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think that I think Dave is almost right. It still won't be fair. (If I understand what is meant by fair.) Larry has more marketable skills than I do and I have more marketable skills than the lady who's changing the trash can behind me. Very (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I am not aware of any deregulation of the medical industries, at least not in this country in the last, oh, 70 years or so. Can you elaborate? Or were you meaning deregulation like what California did in the case of the power industry. That (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) No, that's not it. I'll try to track it down for you. I got it from a recent debate about the proposed Patient's Bill of Rights. D (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) First, if they actually were compliant with all the available data, then just like in the current system, we understand it to be a mistake and they do what they can to clean it up. Let's assume though, that there were data suggesting that it (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) These are the types of soundbyte answers I was talking about, since you're giving them as though they're self-evident and sufficient in themselves, when in fact they're neither. Your first byte here underscores that the wealthy will be (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) My attempt was merely to point out that one group is paying more for road improvement and the other group is paying more for delivered goods. It is not at all clear from this which group would be the poor and the rich. Or even, which way of (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Ah, now I see. My reasoning proceeds from the idea that, as roads deteriorate, wealthy communities are able to afford the upkeep without curtailing their spending on food, rent, and clothing. Poorer communities, faced with deteriorating roads, (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

Dave, I don't have a particularly tight rebuttal to your issue with the roads. I do believe that the nature of our world/nation/whatever would change with the coming of Libertopia. Some of the changes are unpredictible. I think that economic (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: I've snipped a good deal because I think we're getting down to our basic and irreconcilable differences, just like the last time you and I went around the table a few months back! 8^) (...) to (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Fair enough. Libertopia, though, is more of a thought experiment to examine ways to make changes than a thoroughly serious proposal for (relatively) instantaneous change. Certainly having it happen (all at once) to as large a nation as the US (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) You say this like the two are related? Sure you be more free to work longer hours to pay for basics. But think about the lives of those across the developing world on which the West’s "freedoms" are reliant. (...) If you read around a bit. (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Minerva is but one of many failed attempts. They go to prove Larry's claim that there is an impermiable barrier to entry. Unfortunate. Chris (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Unfortunate indeed. Did Minerva not involve the use of force to take the land of others?? Very libertarian. Scott A (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I guess maybe a few hundred people would probably claim that it did involve the use of force to conquor the area. But the other six billion, when presented with the facts would not. Mike Oliver went to an unused atoll and used dredging (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, then Scott's right; it *did* involve the use of force to conquer an area. Dave! (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) I shall have to read the book 1st. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) I know that this isn't what you or Larry meant, but the statement above is indicative of another thing many people see as a problematic quirk of Libertarian philosophy. That is, if a system didn't work, it didn't work: a) because of an (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I don't have the details on this. But I will say this (despite what Dave! says below...) if it involved the initiation of the use of force against people who were already in lawful possession of the territory, it doesn't sound very libertarian (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) I suppose I didn't phrase my intent very clearly. What I meant was that, although I know you and Chris aren't proposing things in this (non-falsifiable, et al) way, there are those who would do so, thereby damaging the credibility of what (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes. I wholeheartedly agree. And they *are* damaging! Very!!! (...) Right, for example while maybe we can't move to a "zero pollution unless you pay everyone" model, I think that moving to a market for just about every pollutant (where the (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl

(...) While I agree in general, Afghanistan did pretty well against Russia. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Sure. And if the public believed that, based on the evidence, and all the massive evidence counter to that organization's claims, then Joe Smith would get rich dumping into the reservoir. Just like today. Only, in Libertopia: a)I think that (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Ahhhh, spin control. Phillip Morris' wet-dream scenario! :-) (...) Listen to advertising: "An independent research firm confirms our product is the best..." They don't tell you who paid for the research to be done, which is often the entity (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Hah! Classic 80's Cold War paranoia, with Patrick Swayze to boot! The sad thing is that paranoia helps sell weapons. I have no doubt that our country makes enemies when none are there just to validate military spending. I looked back at one (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Neither, because that's not what the post said. At least not any that I saw, anyway. Feel free to provide the link back to the post to correct me. To reopen. It is my firm belief that a space based weapons platform *can* stop long and even (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: The bottom line of your statement is being in favor of a space based missle defense system for whatever reasons you argued. Those weren't of any particular interest to me since I'm obviously on a (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) Well said on all points! james (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Yes, there always will be a bogeyman - 'cause we will make one up if he can't be found. Military-Industrial complex. Or is that a bogeyman....? :-) (...) George the Elder had no problem with tyrants so long as he felt he could do business with (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) The Iran-Iraq War was started by Saddam because of the bad blood between him and Ayatollah, in addition to sheer greed for oil and land. Doesn't change the fact that we backed him, though. Doesn't change the fact that we helped perpetuate the (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Didn't say otherwise, but it seems you are trying to slide the primary blame onto America instead of where it firmly belongs. Believe me, I'm not a big Bush backer. (...) Are you saying that "real" arabs wanted Saddam in control of Kuwait? (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Hmmm, I wouldn't say that it firmly belongs on Saddam, I think the U.S. took the role of the trouble-maker kid on the playground saying "Ooooh, he's talkin' 'bout yo mama." There's a lot of underhanded U.S. stuff that went on, such as the bugs (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl

(...) Daniel, I think you need to do a bit more research before you state the above. The upper atmosphere "generally undisturbed"? "Occasional meteor"? Think AGAIN. (...) Combustion of a liquid-fueled rocket (solid fueled are rarely used "that (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Seems like you already did the research, so please enlighten us. As I said, we should approach the matter with caution. Yes, we should research the matter so we don't end up doing more damage to our atmosphere. You got a problem with that? Dan (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Saddam sees confusion in Iran and makes a grab for the oil fields (and not the first time they've fought about that). Unless you subscribe to orbiting-mind-control lasers (fnord!) that's pretty much right as Saddam's feet. You're not really (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) They guy's a greedy thug and a butcher, no problem with that. Invading Kuwait was his fault, no problem with that. But we still supported the bastard throughout the 80's, right? The Kuwaitis still aggravated the issue and America rejected (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Why did the US support Saddam? Why, because he was better than that bloodthirsty, nasty Shi'i Khomeini, that's why! (If you can't detect sarcasm there, you need your brain checked.) We figured that since Saddam was "secular" and willing to (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Hah! My fault, I'm used to the Arabic way of calling it "Saudia" instead of "Saudi Arabia." (...) Good for you! We need more!!! Dan (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) A few years ago I read in a less-than-scrupulous...researched article that each launching of the space shuttle depletes between 8% and 10% of the ozone layer. Now, I'm not a mathematician, but we've had considerably more than 10 or 12 (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Dang! It's gone! Where's the 200 sun screen? Bruce (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Sure, but it's 8-10% of the current (or remaining) ozone. So the first one stripped away 10% of the original amount, the next one 9%, the next one 8.1%, etc. So we'll always have some left. Or maybe the Ozone Flies just release more. Who (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Oh, wait, it's only 8-10% of the ozone it *passes through*, right? ;) I mean, good Lord, only if we're powering it with sulfur! (...) The solution, of course, is to simply drive our cars around in the stratosphere. (A reference, however (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) Our society tends to be quite liberal with the use of percentage figures to back up a supposed presupposition or argument. Did anyone see that Nova episode about meteors? "We don't know how many [large] meteors there are in the solar system, (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Percents, Per Se —Dave Schuler

(...) That's fabulous! I read an article back in '92 that proclaimed we'd already discovered 90% of the world's oil. Dave! (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Percents, Per Se —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Grin. When in fact we had already discovered 100% of it! At least 100% of that which had been discovered at that time. :-) Aren't the "proven reserves" larger now than they were then? Not that I know what that means, actually, it's just a (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) <some snippage of contents has occurred> (...) It is not clear to *me* that I believe America will always have any (significant) enemy. I rather think that as countries become more free, more of the world will become less belligerent. Many (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) What is this "belligerent" stuff? Are you to decide which country is "belligerent"? Belligerent to whom? To us? What, we aren't belligerent? Are they more belligerent? Don't you find this attitude the least bit arrogant? (...) I believe we (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl

(...) You're missing the point, Daniel. Why in must "a space based manufacturing infrastructure" be a "business of warfare"? I think the fact that you seem to equate them speaks more about YOU than about Larry or anyone else. I think you're a more (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) I think you're missing the point, Tom. Why should the beginnings of a "space based manufacturing infrastructure" be based on military applications? My whole point is that, all too often in this country, we use "enemies" to justify alarming (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl

(...) Because it will get things done faster, because no one (or consortium of) company is willing to pony up the money to do so at this time? (...) Oh, so we shouldn't allow anything to be done if SOME of the people involved are motivated by money (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) What's the big rush? As I said, look what happened in the last century because people rushed into so many things without considering the long term consequences. It is entirely possible that we may end up creating another problem for the next (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Circumspection was urged in this idealised "then" you're talking about too--especially as regards air travel, motor vehicles, and even medicine. And no mistake, you're absolutely right, we made a lot of problems (although I'd argue the balance (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And why do you choose to twist what *I* say? You misquoted and distorted me, without a cite, then had the audacity to say you were "protecting my privacy" by not citing me. That's rich. I use the word belligerent to describe a participant in a (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) I don't need to twist things, I even showed you your own words exactly as you wrote them. (...) That's a distortion and misquote right there! I said I did cite your example indirectly but that I "respected your anonymity" by leaving your name (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And then misinterpreted them. (...) Sorry. You are correct. There is a *tiny* bit of difference between protecting privacy and respecting anonymity. Not enough that you can slip a piece of paper beween them, but a tiny bit. However, it's still (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) I call it as I see it. We don't see things the same way. That much we can agree on. (...) A tactic? What is this discussion to you, a game? (...) Distortion or logical assumption? Why else would AMERICA put a defense system up there unless it (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think his point is not that we would _never_ protect American soil with a space based defense, but that we wouldn't be protecting the homeland from Iraq-launched Scuds. There are numerous reasons to build such a defense including: protecting (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) I understand that and I don't believe, or inferred, that Larry ever meant protecting America exclusively. But he did use the example of Iraqi "Scuds" as not a "created or fictitious need" for this defense system. I agree it may have been a (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

Addendum: (...) <snipped> Sorry, I forgot to do that on the post just before this. Dan (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) I asked a vailid one here: (URL)(although it was posed in his own inimitably (...) Ah. That would be because I questioned YOU... and you never like that. (...) That is not very libertarian? I thought the libertarian philosophy was "me! me! (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) It is good to see you agreeing with the libertarians on some things. (...) If we were preventing missiles from impacting, regardless of the nation that was being helped, we would be helping the people -- they are mostly good guys. Chris (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Yes, but I do NOT agree with being quoted out of context. (...) Perhaps the bad guys can pay to protect their people against the impacting missiles of the US & their friends? Scott A (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) So anytime I quote you, I must quote every utterance to ever come from your lips? Get real. (...) guys. (...) I would be in favor that arrangement under certain circumstances. It does seem a bit too close to profiteering on death for normal (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Did I say that - No. Do I want that - No. (...) I am very real. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) single question asked of me... I am not going to reopen that particular thread except to say that I am satisfied, based on my life long intake of news, opinion, propaganda and falsehood, rather than based on any particular site, that my (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) :-O (...) But you could not justify it any way! (...) I did not sentance them Larry - you did. (...) This is all out of context. You were asked a question. You came up with possible answers. One of which contradicts your libertarian viewpoint. (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) A "correct" opinion based on lies, falsehoods, generalization, and sheepish acceptance of the Zionist media model. Not a learned, open minded or fact based opinion gleaned from comparative analysis. Thus, in a world ethics perspective, (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) How wrong you are: "Israel has gotten, and continues to get, a raw deal in the world media, I have no idea why." (URL) A (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Dan (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) I was being rather sarcastic. Nobody is really wrong - we all have our opinions. Scott A (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) So it's OK for you to quote out of context, then? (...) out of context, I would have chosen this one... (...) Since you never effectively answered it. (although you did post, what, 4 responses to it?... Why so many? Couldn't compose your (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) No, and that is not what I did. (...) I think I did. I _still_ think you are wrong. I do not feel that Israel "administers justice fairly" or respects the "rule of law". Eric Olsen agreed with me on this: (URL) chose to muddy the waters with (...) (24 years ago, 15-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Such orginisations are normally funded by those they a supposed to police. (...) I agree. (...) You are missing the point. Improving air safet is not the point. Too many libertarians are concerned only with saving $$ - to give *themselves* (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) ... (...) ... (...) So I've been wondering for a couple months why the state doesn't lift the dumb socialist power price caps and allow the market to do its thing. Why don't you folks just let the problem fix itself? And really, what do you (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Steve Bliss

(...) What? Can you imagine the screams of protest as the citizens of California had to pay the *actual* costs for both their energy and short-sitedness? No politician could endure the horror of enraged voters! Steve (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott P. Costello

(...) You aren't kidding, at any sign of price increases our idiot govenor makes a big stink and forces the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to back down. Everytime they hold a meeting a bunch of morons show up to protest increasing prices. We (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Why don't a few of the allegedly-intelligent non-liberal morons show up at these meetings and do something about it? Dave! (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) California is a study in contrasts and balance. For example, if California is so liberal, how did Pete Wilson and George Deukmajin hold the governor's office for 16 straight years, with the legislature usually within a couple seats of each (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) That's something of a simplistic statement. The problem lies in that monopolistic businesses that control something that is in the vital interest of everyone in the entire state showed an apalling lack of foresight, with the bottom line of (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) I heard an economic analyst on NPR sum up the California energy crisis with this analogy: You own a McDonalds. The production costs of a Big Mac has risen to $6 each, but you are forced by the government to stay in business and sell them for (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Mark Papenfuss

(...) HA! I can not see how the price for producing has risin, if they are doing what they have been doing, why would it go up??? No new plants are up, none are going up - so whats changed? If the cost of producing a big mac goes up to $6, but the (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lester Witter

(...) this (...) Have you checked the price of Gas recently. Most power is generated using fossel fuels and prices have risen sharply Lester (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) this (...) In this particular hypothetical California McDonalds, I would guess that they had to invest in power infrastructure so that they could keep the grills hot even when the grid isn't active. That kind of UPS/diesel generation system (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) True. The problem is that you can't buy power that there's no generating capacity for. The issue is more that California's power infrastructure sucks, as you point out: (...) I had always been under the impression that California had been (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl

(...) It's not that (though that IS part of it). They can't even seem to maintain the current wind farms, because the treehuggers are whining about the birds killed by the blades on the windmills, and fight repairing any that break down. Setting up (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Oh my GOD. You're kidding, right? I mean, the British just built tunnels for hedgehogs, and let behavioral modification take its course. The birds would learn, soon enough...the Canada geese sure learned fast how not to migrate! Have you seen (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

I gotta say, I don't get this one. A few odd birds get killed. Can't say I like it, but at the same time, how many get killed by the pollution of a coal-burning power plant? Seems counter-productive to me. I don't know a tree-hugger that would agree (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Bird Processors (was Re: Rolling Blackouts) —Dave Schuler

(...) I'd like to see the data on this in any case. Birds have done just fine sitting on high-tension wires, so I expect they could adapt fairly quickly to windmills. From a more technical POV, I've read studies that many (I'm not sure which, (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Steve Bliss

(...) Some of those blades must move *much* faster than the ones I've seen, which look like they're traveling at a pretty leisurely pace. Sounds like we need some scientific observation on the natural rates at which birds run into obstacles. Steve (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I'll have to respectively disagree. There is the 'famous' case of the Altamont Pass windfarm in your lovely state. Altamont Pass has the highest concentration of nesting pairs of Golden Eagle's anywhere in the world. Golden Eagles are (...) (24 years ago, 15-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I did do some reading and share your concern. The projected number of birds killed annually by this is quite high. But birds do die, they died before towers were first built. In the overall scheme of things, then, will this lead to a (...) (24 years ago, 15-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) I don't know if I'm a usual suspect, but I'll share a few brief thoughts: (...) I think that the most reasonable approach that humanity can take when considering environmental impacts is to work hard and sensibly to maintain an equilibrium...a (...) (24 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) I do not view it as a "our needs" versus "theirs". Humanity & the environment are one. We need to stop viewing "the environment" as a luxury which is great when it is affordable. It should be viewed as a necessity. Further, I have to question (...) (24 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) A problem that I have with allowing "market morals" to uphold standards is that one only has to look at what unregulated industry has wrought at every opportunity that its been given. IMO, free market (im)morals produce the kinds of (...) (24 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

You might have hit send before you finished. But I think I see where you were going so I will reply. (...) I think we have to define what a free market is and establish if, indeed your example is an example of a free market or not, before using it (...) (24 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) Arrgh. I didn't delete my edits. (...) No, it wasn't "free" in the sense that it was a market in which entrepreneurs enjoyed the ability to pursue wealth without the debilitating presence of official corruption inherent to the system, but (...) (24 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) James, How do you consider we achieve responsible management? I have some ideas. I'm curious to what others think. -chris (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) I suppose that the foremost priority in responsible wildlife management is to maintain a viable ecosystem in every environmental sample that is large enough to be essentially self-regulating. In my mind, the most pressing problem is urban (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) The closest we have come to a free market in modern times was Hong Kong before it was handed back to China. (...) Wrong. You have the cheapest pump prices. In environmental terms, what is the cost of cheap oil? Effectively, cheap oil means we (...) (24 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) SUVs! Hopefully, we are once again going to see evolution-in-action on them with high gas prices. :-) Bruce (24 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Watch it. I don't want another dull evolution debate to start again. After I typed by above text this morning, I found this interesting item by Paul Krugman. It is a little dated now, but it is still very relavant to this debate. Two key (...) (24 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) quoted this passage instead. "True, economists generally believe that a system of free markets is a pretty efficient way to run an economy, as long as the prices are right--as long, in particular, as people pay the true social cost of their (...) (24 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) The market will *not* provide that... read the text I quoted. Consumers are too focussed on the low price of oil and the Big Macs. (...) As the text I quoted states, the market can not be trusted to look after the environment. Are you really (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The text you quoted *claims* it cannot. It is an assertion by that author, not a fact, that it is impossible to do so. That is not a view I share. The point of this subthread is to explore further, with concrete ideas and proposals, whether it (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Did I say it was as fact? (...) What a surprise. Can you justify this? (...) Not even if it cannot? (...) If you just want to say it can, we heard you already. But perhaps you can take the time to justify your view. But before you do, take a (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes. Let us review the difference between "states" and "asserts". Had you said "As the text I quoted asserts", you would be acknowledging that the author believed it to be true but not saying you felt it was fact yourself. However, you said (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) the (...) You had a 50:50 chance of getting it right - you failed. (...) Buy a dictionary : state - "to express, esp. clearly and carefully" "Critical thinkers" can justify their position. I asked you to TWICE in my last post. You failed each (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Frank Filz

(...) While ownership of many things seems problematical, I think free market forces do work in environmental protections. I feel pretty confident that in a general sense, those nations with more market freedom have more concern for the environment. (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I can't find the exact cite right now, but an extension of Maslow's 'Hierarchy of needs' implies that environmental awareness(1) and the desire to protect it typically does not arrise in a society until that society reaches some level of (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) I am not sure if I agree. If you are correct, look at which companies are wrecking the planet in the developing world... it is multinational companies from the developed world. The true cost of life in the west is very high: Oil 'time-bomb' in (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I know you are trying to stay on a narrowly focused topic here, but this is something I started to think about (again) as I was reading the end of the article and it may have bearing on this discussion. Can the market foster an ethical (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Good point. Also, *if* you owned all the plants, would you have the right to destroy them if you so wished? Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

Christopher, I found this text which goes over most of your points. It is rather long (I have not read it all yet). The key passage for me is this one: == ++ == "The libertarian's error resides in their proposal that privatization, which is clearly (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

There is some merit in the arguments your cite makes. I would ask this, however.... (and I snipped away the rest) (...) Overfishing is a worldwide problem, and a growing one. Whatever nation builds the largest fleet of boats wins the race to catch (...) (24 years ago, 22-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Welcome to the planet earth Larry. (...) I think you are cherry picking points from my post rather than jutifying your past "arguments" and claims. I shall humour you. The eu operates a quota system were fishing is concerned. There are strict (...) (24 years ago, 23-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) What is that supposed to mean, exactly? I've been here all along and have been quite aware of this class of problem inasmuch as it points out a major failing in the concept of public ownership. (...) If they are breaking laws they are not (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Explain please. (...) Explain please. (...) Did I say that? No. Anyhow, what is your altermative. (...) By "enforced more", I mean the law should be enforced more. The freemarketeers should be trusted less. (...) I do not agree that is always (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Explain the tragedy of the commons? Your cite referenced it, I assumed you are familiar with it. (...) Explain the notion that a person engaged in stealing is not a free marketeer? Seems obvious to me. Maybe you're not as familiar with (...) (23 years ago, 26-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Not my point - but never mind. (...) A good start Larry, but I do doubt your notion free marketeers do not break laws. Further, what gives them the right to decide laws are "unjust"? (...) You should make yourself clear then Larry. Deliberate (...) (23 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

I started twitching spastically 2/3 of the way through this. Scott, in ten years on the net, actively participating in conversations with all kinds of people with all kinds of beliefs, from all over the world, I have never, ever, met anyone as (...) (23 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

Although I have not read all of this I find this very unproductive. I am happy to be called "disruptive" if it means questioning those who make unsubstantiated remarks. I am sure those who make unsubstantiated remarks are happy that you are creating (...) (23 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I'm more amazed 2500 economists agreed on something. :) (...) I'm having trouble coming up with an example that shows how government regulation can protect something, at least one that is not mired with economics and other ideas. It's also (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) so sad... (...) what does the Libertarian think of the tradegy of the commons? Is it addressed? (...) Go Vegetarian! Just kidding ;) I'm pretty sure fishing regulations don't extend into nternational waters. There are some species that are (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes and no. The standard Libertarian answer applies well to the standard example... sheep overgrazing a commons can be remediated by having someone (or a group of someones) own the formerly common area and controlling how many sheep graze (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Alternatively the users of the common could determine what the maximum usage level is. Rather that competing against each other, they could invest in sheep together, via some sort of co-op, and take advantage of the common that way. However, I (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Absolutely. Coops are wonderful for lots of things. But then there isn't really a common, since the resource that might have otherwise been common is now owned by the coop. So you're basically solving the ToC issue the same way that the (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) No. Libertarians would sell usage to the highest bidder. (...) Perhaps we should all be a little unnatural? If you came from a different culture you may well think the opposite was true? I understand that some culture have little understanding (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) That's what I thought. (...) Aren't there corporate lobbies that want grazing (continuing with your example) prices that low? I'm not sure you can place all the blame on the goverment. (...) I'm still not sure why they should be owned. I've of (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Here is a start. It is not pretty, but it is a start: (URL) A (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) that I think about it I sure may have been wrong.) What's not pretty about that? The web page, the Ociania complex, or the idea of people building sovreignty on the seas? The only problem with that is that the Ociania project went belly up (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) The complex. (...) In your opinion. I expect it would be full of the elderly nouveaux riche hoping to avoid paying tax. I expect there would be others their too hoping to exploit “freedoms” which are thankfully illegal in most other civilised (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think that if it were real, it would be technologically nifty...but I guess I agree that it's not really attractive. I would hope to see them do better if they actually got something off the ground...err, shore. (...) Well, yeah. (...) I (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Yes. But as long as they could pay the "bill" I expect they will be welcome. The alternative, would mean imposing morals on others - and I know you are not a fan of that. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Uh! It is appropriate for organizations to lobby for the government to do the things that that organization thinks are good. It is inappropriate for the government to do bad things with our mutual resources. I think all the blame for anything (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm not sure I was. :-) Put it this way, if you have a system in which government influence can have more economic impact than competing in the market, and in which large companies can effectively change what it is that government influences (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) I think you have just highlighted one of the biggest problems with modern society. By that, I mean the increasingly common belief that just because an action is within the written law it must be ~OK~. I think this is quite wrong. Loopholes do (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I agree with that. I am bound by my own inner morals, not the letter of the law, and feel some things that are legal are wrong, and some things that are illeage are not wrong. (...) But that begs the question of how much change is needed. (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) I understand your point. But does the average beef eating man not benift from the cheap grazing in the longer term? Does the US not impose tax on the owners of the cattle? Does your country not gain from sourcing beef from inside the USA (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Yes, we are WAY better off producing food in our own country rather than contributing to foolish exploitation and environmentally unsound agricultural practices in other nations. Though we may benefit econimically, we are helping to destroy (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) We don't know. The true cost of subsidized beef is unknown. The true cost of eating more meat and less vegetables (health costs, economic benefits of people living longer) is unknown. The true cost of overgrazing is unknown. There are too many (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

I found a few cool pieces of information that seemed relevant to grazing, beef cattle, etc. These facts also point out the environmental benefits of being vegetarian: - About 85% of topsoil erosion is directly attributable to raising animals for (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) <snip> Thanks for those (pretty scary) factoids! They argue that the true cost of meat is a LOT higher than we are actually paying because the producers are - using subsidised grazing - using subsidized feed - not paying for the pollution they (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think there are some points worth making here. (...) Well...I would say that it is due to poor agrarian practices. It is certainly true that most of the US is used to grow feed crops for chicken, pigs and cows, but that in and of itself, (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It's only marginally helpful (although I thank you for the datapoint) because I don't feel eating meat (of animals bred to be stupid meat animals) morally wrong in and of itself, and I don't find doing things that are self destructive (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) I agree that eating meat is a natural thing and not morally wrong itself. However, I strongly feel that it is morally WRONG to eat the flesh of any animal that was raised in filth and suffering and killed inhumanely. Animals deserve a healthy (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I agree. My "stupid" comment was meant more to distinguish between cows and, say, dolphins, which I don't want to eat *because* they're too smart. (potentially... sentient!) Cows, Turkeys, Chickens, even Pigs I am fine with. (although I'm a (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Yes, stay away from pig meat. The Jews and Moslems had the right idea centuries ago. (...) Exactly, why be cruel? (...) God, Zeus, Budda, Shiva... fill in the blank. <snipped some stuff> (...) Well, I find that odd. Why is it morally wrong (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Indeed. I think our country needs to shift from the old paradigm of "a steak a day" kind of attitude. We overdose on meat! One of the most startling figures is the drastic jump in heart disease cases with the Japanese (who acquired a post war (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) there's an interesting project being run by PETA looking at these very issues ( (URL) ). I first looked at the site last year and found it pretty interesting. Probabaly the only thing PETA has ever done that I almost like. (...) Larry, I think (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Remember Libertopia isn't a "utopia" so isn't perfect. But ya, that's the idea. The thought is that strict liability with no dodging responsibility behind corporate shells would lead to a better assessment of costs. (...) Which parties are you (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) Most of the time, people seem to associate me with the commies, socialists, and/or anarchists(1). Probably because of my involvement in 'punk rock scene'. I don't like to categorize myself with any of them- not because I don't believe in parts (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) No worms, I dig what you're saying here. I think America has an aversion to the word "communism" and is stuck on the Cold War model of an oppressive "big brother", totalitarian state. Let's pretend there was never a Stalin or Mao and address (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'll tell you something that would make it easier for me to move to a vegan diet. I'm in California right now, and spent the day in San Francisco. We ate a most incredible dinner at a Vegan restaurant called Millenniun. It was indescribably (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Wow, sounds good but definitely not cheap. (...) I bet the other Christopher meant fast food places and pizza joints. When I lived in Michigan, there were hardly any good places to get decent vegetarian meals, and only one true vegan (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) The cheap grazing leads to higher profits. These profits are then taxed. (...) My question betrays our cultural differences. There are may in my country (not myself) who feel that we should remain self sufficient in food encase we come under (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And the taxes, which do not capture the true market cost of overgrazing, are then spent on whatever programs the government feels like, rather than on alleviating the problem. Surely you're not seriously arguing that this is efficient, or (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Perhaps other problems are bigger? Son of Star Wars perhaps? (...) I do not know enough about the situation to say that. (...) Britain (...) I do not think anyone promotes what happened in the USSR as true "communism". To see how little the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) Here's a concrete real-world example that may work for working through this: Monarch Butterfies are increasingly threaten with extinction in the coming decades mainly by destruction and degradation of their summer and winter habitats. I (...) (24 years ago, 22-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) At the end of the article you pointed us to they suggest leasing or buying the land...so why not? This one seems kind of easy. Everyone who wants to protect the monarchs bucks up a little bit and buys the 14 (or whatever) sites where they (...) (23 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Frank Filz

(...) This is one reason I really like the Nature Conservancy. The bulk of their effort goes to acquiring property, either through outright purchase, or by attaining conservation easements. Once they have acquired property rights by (mostly) free (...) (23 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I do a lot of work with TNC myself, and all I can say is the stuff they do is simply amazing- both on the surface and behind the scenes. -chris (23 years ago, 29-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I think there is a major push to buy up many of the sites in Mexico. (...) This is largely what I expected we would come up. I'm all for protecting as many species/ecosystems as we can in developed/developing areas but, and I may be taking (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Great! I'd prefer to see it done through private works, but if our government wanted to be involved, surely we could offer Mexico stuff in exchange for the land that they would value more. (...) Are there any left? I'm fine with that too, but (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) This is where the issue of fragmentation comes into effect. For those not in the know, fragmentation is the disruption of large extensive habitat patches into smaller, isolated, less hospitable patches. The 80% number in your example, would (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I'm probably in the ultra-minor minority of Americans who would like to pay for the real price of oil- mainly to reflect the true environmental costs. I don't mind paying the currently high prices but, I think I'v unintentially deluded myself (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Me too, actually. It seems to me like the only fair thing to do, and as long as it's a user fee that is pretty fairly apportioned, then I'd have no complaints. I'd actually like to see some reasonable attempt to remediate environmental damages (...) (23 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) Chris, you never cease to amaze me. :) IMO, The automobile is arguably the greatest threat to environmental and social quality, and is probably one of the most subsidized sectors of the world's economy. I was able to explain and demostrate (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Shiri Dori

(...) Chris's in general never cease to amaze me... <grin>... and you two both just did. (...) Arguably? *Arguably*?! I mean, show me anything else with greater threat. (...) <nod> I wish the government(s... all over the world) would invest in (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl

(...) NO, you won't actually. It will have to be cheaper AND more convenient. Too many public transportation systems are"broken" in that you have to use your CAR to get to them in the first place. There was an article in the SJ Merc last week or the (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) Which won't happen anytime in the near future. One of the biggest impediments to 'universal' public transportation is that our current model of suburban development does not lend itself to fast and convienent transit options. (...) While I (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I don't know... nuclear weapons, rogue asteriods, monsanto corporation, Planet Lunch(tm), the juniorasation of LEGO. ;) (...) you forgot the *more* :) I take the train pretty often. I wish it was cheaper and faster as well. A few years back... (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm thinking that's an insult. All I did was express a reasonable idea. :-) (...) I think Shiri suggested that she'd like to see PT subsidized ahead of cars. That is _so_ the wrong way to handle this. We just need to unsubsidize cars: (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Big, heavy, expensive vehicle - not cheap to repair. Bad brakes, poor emergency handling, prone to heavily damaging other vehicles in accidents it caused. Not that the proper level of fees can't be handled in other ways. (...) This either (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) OK, so _maybe_ SUV owners should pay more for insurance, but not because it consumes more gas. Should I have used the example of a car with a leaking gas tank instead? My point was that gas used is not closely correlated with how I think (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Frank Filz

(...) Of course I'm the exception to prove the rule... Of the significant accidents I've been in since I've been down here, 2 out of 3 have been on the interstate, though still in commuter traffic. Hmm, trying to think of accidents or accident like (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) As long as you can't do that with a hotel room, I should be OK. This year, maybe I'll drive us out to The Store... Chris (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Frank Filz

(...) I haven't managed to total any hotel rooms yet (though other members of my college SF club did discover that silly string doesn't just wipe off the walls one time at a convention... fortunately they took the responsibility and didn't pass it (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) I understand what you are saying. But the 19th century was not all that much better... it was just less organised. Remember, back then we had free market gems such as child labour and slavery. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Brown

(...) Hmm. I'm not sure that migratory species (or non-migratory) could have owners, even in a Libertarian ideal; at least, not until we have a much better understanding of ecosystem interaction. It opens up many difficult questions, among the (...) (24 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Steve Bliss

Congratulations. Try being without power for 3 days in the middle of a blizzard in January. :-/ Do they give you any advance notice of specific outages (like: we're dropping power to your house from 6:00pm to 8:00pm)? Steve (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Maggie Cambron

(...) blizzard (...) The California Independent Sysytem Operator monitors the state's power grids, and if they project that demand will exceed supply they issue a power alert (these come in Stages 1-3-- I believe a Stage 3 is the worst and (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) blizzard (...) Yup! We don't have rolling blackouts, we just have ice storms that bring the lines down. I live out in the woods on a well. When I have no electricity, I have no heat and no water. We do love our wood stove when that happens. (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

Yup, all the electric clocks in my house were blinking when I got home. At least where I work has been declared a "critical installation" and isn't subject to blackouts - allegedly, since I'm at a slightly offsite facility and we are all wondering (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott P. Costello

Here are the predictions for Southern California summer of 2001: 1. Hottest summer in years 2. Rolling Blackouts on a daily basis 3. $3 a gallon gasoline What it means to us personally: Heat will cause us all to get heat stroke. No relief at home (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Frank Filz

(...) Perhaps people will start to realize the economic folly of living in the desert.... (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Yer all softies. I was born and bred in de briar patch, and I grew up without air conditioners at school, home, or the car. Give me Joshua Tree and some water (for the water colors, mind you, not to drink - that's for sissies). Death Valley on (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) I'd say that the folly is not so much living in the desert but trying to turn the desert into an oasis capable of supporting millions of people in a manner of living that is more suited to the humid east than to the Mediterranean climate of (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott P. Costello

(...) First and foremost, it is incorrect to say that Southern California, or LA is a desert. The beauty of So Cal is that we have variety. Parts of the area are desert, but other parts are mountainous, swampy, rolling hills, and even forested. You (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) I concede that I painted the geography of the region with too broad a brush, though I certainly meant no offense and I apologize if any was taken. I understand that the variety of landscape, vegetation, and climate, as well as proximity to (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) If all the &%$#! New Yorkers would stop moving here, it wouldn't be a problem. :-) Mono Lake is slowly going back up, and the Owens River exists again. Honestly, if the water had been left in the Owens Valley, you'd simply have seen more (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Harvey Henkelman

(...) There are too many people living in our world today. What we need is another world war to cull the herd, send the poor and innocent off to die in a foreign land while the rich sit back and benefit (and laugh too). I'm waiting for Bush to (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)