I know you aren't, just had to throw it out there since it's been brought up as a defense of personal liberty intrusion twice now.
Sign a document saying that you will be responsible for your own injuries and ride helmetless and seatbeltless for all I care.
The utilitarian argument is cool, but doesn't jibe with our history of personal liberty protection. I understand that we've put it asunder and we conveniently use the utilitarian view when it suits our worldview, but it's still crap in this instance. The way you used it to seamlessly support cronyism made me want to hurl. I assume IP, Unilib and Jayvols vehemently agree with me. Ha.
Unilib is actually fine with dumb mother ****ers not wearing seat belts or helmets not facing legal issues. Well, partly. Children should be required by law to be in restraints, but that's a different deal.
I value personal freedom, but in my eyes, it's impossible to have total freedom AND live in the type of society that we do. The question then becomes what level of limits does one find satisfctory. That's where we get all the varying opinions.
I don't disagee as much as you'd think. A corporation bribing the government isn't a good deal at all. It just so happens that in the bulb case, there's at least some value in the law as far as energy savings. The 'opening the door for more intrusion' can be made as well.
That's the pattern of every great society that builds on the foundation of freedom. They get to a point where society slowly exchanges freedoms for security, and ultimately loose both.
But the crony capitalism should be vilified. Screw the silliness about outcome. Hell, the outcomes when Walmart gets help are massively better, but you don't like their getting benefit.
How? You're saying cronyism is cool as long as it has a nearly meaningless liberal leaning outcome on the other end?
I said that in the same way that you think cronyism is fine if it is for the Defense Department, subsidizing Walmart's labor force, or retarding environmental regulation. Which is to say, I didn't say cronyism was cool. My above comment was in response to you thinking Walmart's outcomes are massively better. My original comment was in humorous disbelief at freaking energy-efficient light bulbs that pay for themselves in two years being where the line on cronyism is apparently crossed.
Walmart the enormous employer and driver of thousands of local economic areas in America? That Walmart? You think a positive for them is a bad thing but this meaningless bullshiz that merely enriched light bulb manufacturers is the same? I'm not OK with cronyism in either case. It's the vote buying I consistently rail against. Pay for themselves in two years made me laugh. You obviously don't use them.
Every bulb in my house. Are you saying they aren't more energy efficient? Are watts a vote-buying conspiracy?
