It can't be called voting when you steal from somebody and offer to not steal as much or to return some of it if they do what you want. That's called extortion.
you keep reverting to this basic argument.
The same issue keeps being brought up.
you should be arguing why they cant do it better, but instead you deflect to your moral argument here.
There is no deflection what so ever. You asked me a question. "wouldn't it be good if the government required all these new energy technologies to be recycled?"
You can't talk about what would be good, or what should happen without invoking morality.
We can be talking about cheese fermenting without bringing up morality at all, but if you start saying things like "Well wouldn't be easier if we just enslaved women to make our cheese" there is no amoral way to answer that.
you ignore these basic theories that disprove your point.
I ignore nothing of the sort, the tragedy of the commons is caused by the perception of freeloaders. The perception of freeloading is most often caused by freeloading. Solve the freeloader problem and the tragedy is avoided.
If carbon dioxde truly was an environmental damage significant enough to constitute the violation of rights then phased banning of burning previously buried carbon is the only role any government force would have.
How people adapt so long as they aren't violating rights is not a matter for extortion.
There are plenty of rich people who say they believe carbon dioxide concentrations are an existential threat. Do you believe they are lying?
and, on that specific point, maybe there are some rich people who think climate change is a problem, but there aren't enough of them to do anything about it right now.
How did you come to that conclusion? Do you think a majority of people think it's a problem? What about a majority of income being made by those who believe it is a problem?
on the point that if the rich have not enough incentives, you just ignore the fact that i stated that the poor will suffer massively when the cost of fossil fuels are too much for the rich to switch to something else. that's a logical fact that you can't get around and are ignoring
You are drifting to a different context. We were talking about whether there would be enough willing support for the development of high quality renewable energy sources without government force.
Making a new better energy source doesn't make fossil fuels more expensive, in fact it will make them cheaper as fewer people will use them. If the new energy source is truly more efficient then eventually fossil fuel use will taper off to those rare scenarios where they still have a use and that means that fossil fuel extraction will shrink to meet that demand. The price would then be determined by the use case but given how easy it would be to meet a lighter load of fossil fuels it would still be very cheap.
if you actually made the argument, that government intervention could be worse
That I have already explained.
What do you suppose the future of energy is?
Long term? Magnetic resonance fusion. Medium term should be fission but it might be resurgence of coal burning or mass investment in solar panels.
i agree with these. except i will say, weren't you the one sayin how the market is too stupid and short sighted with the solar panel thing?
The solar panel market is not natural, it's being propped up by irrational demand. The irrational demand is coming from stolen money. Stolen money produces irrational demand because people do not care whether someone else's money is wasted.
I said that there are cases where people are irrational without stolen money, but solar panels and wind turbines isn't one of those cases.
The renewables that are being built today are inferior to burning coal and methane. That is it takes humans less time and effort to get energy from fossil fuels than by building these inferior versions of renewables not in small part due to the fact that these inferior versions keep failing.
It is conceivable that a mass production line of a small number of models of renewable modules that have been expertly engineered to last for centuries could within four decades realize a higher ROI than fossil fuels.
That won't happen so long as people are being subsidized and paid to install any renewable regardless of the quality or longevity (which is exactly what has been happening).
how they use plasic instead of glass? and you, the non expert
I'm not quite a non-expert on material science. Like I said though, this isn't for lack of knowing better; it's a complete rejection of anything but the absolute fastest (and thus cheapest) production line. Why? Because they can get away with it, because nobody is doing better, because there is no reason to invest in high quality when the government subsidies and contracts will accept low quality.
It's the customer's rationality that makes the market work and when the customer is the government the customer is very irrational (actually they're corrupt or lazy, they don't care about the end goal; often being in it only for a paycheck or bribes)
The solution is building at scale, to make a complicated high quality product cheaply means large specialized production lines. Something the free market did perfectly fine during the industrial revolution (when there was almost no regulation and far lower taxes). Before that can happen naturally though, the customer needs to prefer high quality to low quality products.
yet instead of sayin how the government could regulate that point
Yes, put me in charge and I'll regulate all the engineering. Tell them exactly what materials they can use and how. That will fix it all right?
Except what if I'm wrong about the best way? What if there is a better way?
In fact, if the government is producing engineering drawings that have to be followed (more or less), why wouldn't the government just produce the solar panels? Why shouldn't the government just manage all the production?
Well that's been tried, the people who tried it called it communism. It's not that it doesn't produce things. It's just that it does it worse, and people are miserable, and it's unjust.
If there is a role for government here, a practical and moral role, it is to setup the project, define the metrics of evaluation, and run a competition to design better renewables and factories to make them en masse.
The government could guarantee legal structures so the public could invest without worrying about being defrauded and competing firms can see the very huge and tangible rewards for winning (billions of dollars of pledged funds).
No elite private investors required. Just citizens, their hopes, and teams who claim to have a solution.
you arent saying how the government is too dysfunctional to do the research
I'm trying very hard to make you see the connection between the practical and the moral. The reason government as we see it practiced today is dysfunctional is because people who get money regardless of success aren't motivated by success and aren't selected for responsibility by a history of success. The only way to pay people the same or more even when they fail is when you can steal the money. Nobody who produces wealth (earns the money) will tolerate failure after failure.
If you went to a restaurant and they gave you raw or burnt food 9/10 you would stop going there. BUT if they threatened to put you in a little box if you didn't order from them they could keep serving you raw or burnt food.
It's immoral to threaten you, but it's also a detriment to the efficiency of the system because it allows them to keep producing crap at your expense.
Government CAN do the research, but only if it organizes itself such that people within the organization are rewarded by success and punished by failure. Like a free market. The first, best, and indispensable step to make sure that government organizes itself in this way is to give the people the right to stop paying them for failure. The effort as a whole needs to know that they can fail, that if they don't deliver there is no federal reserve or tax increase that will save them.
In other words government can do it, when it has to play by the same rules a non-profit or a corporation has to. Thus you can see the only reason to not call this "part of the government" a corporation or a non-profit is because of additional oversight and the air of officialdom. Those factors are not problems and thus "government" is not the problem.
That's why I won't shut up about "theft", I'm telling you the root of the problem. The difference in the rules creates the difference in behavior creates the difference in outcome. That's why governments waste. Any private entity that could just steal without effort would quickly become just as wasteful.
so this area is magically okay for it to intrude upon?
Threatening people is intrusion. Skewing the market with stolen money is intrusion. Doing a better job than private entities is not intrusion.
when the moral green light is there, suddenly the practical wisdom is also there? don't you see how inconsistent you are being?
What in your life taught you to find that odd?
To quote the bible without making a religious argument at all: the wages of sin is death.
If that wasn't the case, you're probably wrong about morality.
i think instead of all the distraction arguments you make, you should take each specific proposal people make, and say why the government involvement would end in a worse result
Policy Proposal: Steal a bunch of money and build an offshore windfarm
Question: if the windmills fall apart in ten years, catch on fire, kill a bunch of birds, whatever what happens to the politicians, the company that installed the windmills, etc...?
Answer: Absolutely nothing, they're probably out of office, even if they aren't it's not like the public can remember something like that. The company will also be just fine. In fact they'll slip some extra cash to the new candidate who will brag about 'modernizing' the windfarm. Somehow costs keep going up, the windmills don't get better; but that profit margin for the corrupt company makes bribes all the easier.
Worse result: Replacing a bunch of poorly designed windmills as an eternal money laundering operation at the expense of the entire economy + a corrupt company that is now interested in subverting the government.
Better result: Big investment to produce electricity to sell. If the windmills fail that means investors lose a lot of money. They are feverishly interested in making sure the windmills do what is expected. They hire proxies to vet everything. They look at many designs and designers. They are interested in efficient maintenance rather than replacing the whole thing. Because they are rewarded by the actual production of electricity rather than the shallow appearance of progress they produce electricity for less resources to the nation.
