Comments on: Energy Crisis Solved

By: steve

steve — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:21:25 +0000

or in carefully meting them out in a way that serves all the people and stops some from trampling on the rights of others?

Man I always get crap for using strong language. All people? Every single one of them?

In both of the examples you give, im willing to bet that if we fleshed out the history of the legislation, more of the laws passed would of been supported by you than me. Especially the airwaves.

Just as side note, mega farming corporation are made up of voters which support polices that help their company but hurt local farmers. Corporations are not these massive entities that lack human beings. Often times these corporation are full of people and many of them are willing to politically support the corporation they work for as a means to make more money.

By: darwin

darwin — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:56:28 +0000

Basically, the Libertarian position has problems with thing sthat are federally owned, such as airways, federal land, rivers, and oceans. Is there more liberty in basically giving these away free to corporations with no regulation or restrictions, or in carefully meting them out in a way that serves all the people and stops some from trampling on the rights of others? Clearly there’s nothing in the constitution that says farmers have a right to the rivers that flow onto their lands, but does that mean we should allow agribusiness corporations to divert rivers away from small farmers? There’s nothing in the constitution saying that everyone has a right to a portion of the ariwaves, but does that mean we should allow the few largest cell phone and radio companies to monopolize the entire broadcast spectrum, or send out interference on any spectrums they’re not using in order to prevent competition?
In the current case, there’s nothing in the constitution saying that condo owners have a right to clean, swimmable water and a nice view of the ocean on their privately owned beachfront property, but does that mean we should let oil companies dig along the coast, ruining their investments?

By: Trampage

Trampage — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:41:42 +0000

Let the market decide the price…FREE WILLEY

By: steve

steve — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:35:47 +0000

I’m not sure what you are asking me.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:03:37 +0000

So if California or Florida decided that offshore drilling would hurt their economy but service the fed, what should you do? Is it unconsitutional for them to declare that they aren’t interested?

By: steve

steve — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:08:05 +0000

How does one mediate between state and federal demands? Honestly, in most instances I would argue that the state government should have more to say. I follow the proposition that laws should be as local as possible so at to better account for idiosyncrasies found within differing regions. If the federal government does away with restricting offshore drilling, but a state still implements such restrictions the property owners must abide the state law.

There are several exemptions to preferring state law over federal law. States that pass laws that blatantly violate our constitutional rights should be made invalid. I also think the federal government should take the primary role in nation’s interaction with other countries. This goes for diplomacy, trade, and most obviously, war. I can see exemptions being made when the federal government is used to mediate discrepancies between state governments. This last exemption, known as the commerce clause, should be used sparingly. Unfortunately this exemption has been repeatedly abused at the federal level to force legislation on citizens who voted at the local and state level against those laws.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:17:26 +0000

Oh, and “solution” to the energy crisis this is NOT. We’re still gonna run out of oil sooner or later. I say we let the price of oil continue to rise and let alternative energy infrastructure come in to take its place. Better now than later IMO.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:10:08 +0000

Just to add to my original thought…. The original legislation against offshore drilling was signed by a Republican president (George senior). This was no doubt to protect business and individual investments. Indeed shoreline properties is a huge boost to our economy. It sets a high bar on property investments from individuals and pays huge dividends to investors looking to make a buck off the tourism industry. This bill was signed back on by Bill Clinton as the economy from such ventures was strong.

Are you, or are you not asking the Fed to take this back for the greater good of society? Even if it means screwing the private investor. Are you suggesting that we punish good investors simply because big business didn’t provide appropriate alternatives to the energy crisis that was bound to happen?

Just pretend I’m Darwin for a few minutes so you’ll actually decide to respond appropriately.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:58:53 +0000

I was just wondering if the Fed government’s monopoly on coercion effects people’s personal wealth and finances. Or if it can undercut the wishes of the States. Both governors of the states effected by offshore oil drilling (california and florida) are against it. I’m sure the property owners are as well. Where do you draw the line? Are you in favor of a federal government that can undercut state rights and the rights of the people for the greater good? Who is the liberal now?

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:57:42 +0000

While we’re at it let’s send them all to a class on the U.S. Constitution.