LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 664
1 members and 663 guests
Tyrone Slothrop
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 03-01-2007, 08:08 PM   #11
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,203
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That had to be one of the more asinine position pieces I've read in a while.

On 1, it's the antithesis of true conservatism. It's why a lot of catholics are democrat--because they believe there's some obligation to the community that conservatives don't wish to impose. Unless, of course, conservatives now are becoming communitarians.

On 2, all that is is providing incentives for people to engage in conduct they otherwise wouldn't. BP and Shell pursue alternative energy because there are subsidies to do so, or because they see a market. If the latter, what needs to be done? If the former, well, other than massive pork, when were R's in favor of subsidies?

On 3, see 2.

So, he talks all nice, but what it comes down to is this: If the free market provides incentives to protect the environment, then people will. If the market does not, then they should do it out of the goodness of their heart. Well, it's pretty clear only Al Gore does things out of the goodness of his heart, so that's not a very viable solution.
There's triangulation... That gibberish was hexagonalization. Crap - incoherent semantic noodling with no conclusion.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:36 PM.