4 ms·

Government forcing private industry to do something for purely political reasons is always wrong. It doesn’t matter if it’s to protect the coal industry or “gre

Government forcing private industry to do something for purely political reasons is always wrong. It doesn’t matter if it’s to protect the coal industry or “green power” — government involvement is almost always the wrong thing.

craftyguy 8y ago
On one hand there's the "no government involvement. period", but then we end up with companies clearly taking advantage of citizens and the environment without any repercussions. On the other hand, there's the "regulate all the things", which is almost always abused by those in power to take advantage of citizens and the environment without any repercussions. Can we not have a mixture of the two, where there's just enough government involvement to keep us from destroying ourselves and each other, but not too much such that we destroy ourselves and each other? Back on topic: this instance of government involvement is purely political, at the detriment of the environment and those in it, and should not be legal. I hope this, if it's implemented, is immediately challenged in court.
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  No, we can't, because "more vs less government" is an almost purely synthetic wedge issue that is purpose-built to be an ambiguous and adaptable distraction. If you so much as implicitly acknowledge its legitimacy by using it to frame your discussion, you have already lost.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    There's very clearly a "more vs less government" stance being taken here. OP very clearly takes the side of "less government". Other comments on HN, reddit, on the street are very typically (when on the topic of regulation) either "regulate everything" or "regulate nothing". If you believe otherwise, then I would LOVE to know where I can mingle with folks who don't see things as one extreme vs another, because that's literally all I see here.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  Good points. So what's wrong with seperation of powers? As you said, when too much power is concentrated, people will suffet. The commerce clause was obviously never intended to allow the federal government the powers it has today. At least in the case where state A is pointing a gun to your head and sending you to jail for growing medicinal marijuana for only personal use, when your state allows medicinal marijuana anyways, at least you can move with your feet to state B. As it is now this is not possible, because SCOTUS says that this falls under regulating commerce between states, somehow[1]. The only thing which the federal government should be allowed to do here is regulate the pollution externalities and commerce which literally crosses state boundaries. 1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Yea, the commerce clause is ridiculously overpowered. Radio Lab/More Perfect did a great episode (1) a while back on this very topic that's worth listening to. 1) https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/one-nation-under-money/ https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/one-nation-under-money/
greglindahl 8y ago
The point of requiring "green power" is to fight climate change. It is appropriate for governments to do something about that.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Not just climate change, but all sorts of nasty pollution. Burning more coal is going to kill people in the near term too.
  - parvenu74 8y ago
    That's public health, not energy policy. To the extent that green power is a public health policy question (let's not heat up the earth) then it should be addressed as such. The maxim is that your freedom to swing your fist ends where your neighbor's nose begins so if coal-burners are affecting public health then going after them on those grounds is appropriate (and I support that). But the article isn't about public health but energy policy.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      It’s about energy policy that affects public health. I don’t care what department is supposed to handle it, I just want my air not to be poisoned.

craftyguy 8y ago

On one hand there's the "no government involvement. period", but then we end up with companies clearly taking advantage of citizens and the environment without any repercussions. On the other hand, there's the "regulate all the things", which is almost always abused by those in power to take advantage of citizens and the environment without any repercussions. Can we not have a mixture of the two, where there's just enough government involvement to keep us from destroying ourselves and each other, but not too much such that we destroy ourselves and each other? Back on topic: this instance of government involvement is purely political, at the detriment of the environment and those in it, and should not be legal. I hope this, if it's implemented, is immediately challenged in court.

jjoonathan 8y ago
No, we can't, because "more vs less government" is an almost purely synthetic wedge issue that is purpose-built to be an ambiguous and adaptable distraction. If you so much as implicitly acknowledge its legitimacy by using it to frame your discussion, you have already lost.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  There's very clearly a "more vs less government" stance being taken here. OP very clearly takes the side of "less government". Other comments on HN, reddit, on the street are very typically (when on the topic of regulation) either "regulate everything" or "regulate nothing". If you believe otherwise, then I would LOVE to know where I can mingle with folks who don't see things as one extreme vs another, because that's literally all I see here.
wallace_f 8y ago
Good points. So what's wrong with seperation of powers? As you said, when too much power is concentrated, people will suffet. The commerce clause was obviously never intended to allow the federal government the powers it has today. At least in the case where state A is pointing a gun to your head and sending you to jail for growing medicinal marijuana for only personal use, when your state allows medicinal marijuana anyways, at least you can move with your feet to state B. As it is now this is not possible, because SCOTUS says that this falls under regulating commerce between states, somehow[1]. The only thing which the federal government should be allowed to do here is regulate the pollution externalities and commerce which literally crosses state boundaries. 1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- craftyguy 8y ago
  Yea, the commerce clause is ridiculously overpowered. Radio Lab/More Perfect did a great episode (1) a while back on this very topic that's worth listening to. 1) https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/one-nation-under-money/ https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/one-nation-under-money/

greglindahl 8y ago

The point of requiring "green power" is to fight climate change. It is appropriate for governments to do something about that.

mikeash 8y ago
Not just climate change, but all sorts of nasty pollution. Burning more coal is going to kill people in the near term too.
- parvenu74 8y ago
  That's public health, not energy policy. To the extent that green power is a public health policy question (let's not heat up the earth) then it should be addressed as such. The maxim is that your freedom to swing your fist ends where your neighbor's nose begins so if coal-burners are affecting public health then going after them on those grounds is appropriate (and I support that). But the article isn't about public health but energy policy.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    It’s about energy policy that affects public health. I don’t care what department is supposed to handle it, I just want my air not to be poisoned.