Global warming?

[Coign]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I see the expense as analogous to homeowner's insurance. You pay for it, not knowing what might happen, you may never need it, but if you don't spend that money, you might get fucked.

But this should be voluntary not mandatory. It is an invasion of my rights to require what and how much insurance I have. The Federal Government should have ZERO say in this. (Car insurance is a state law, not federal. And that is an argument on a whole different track.)

Federal Government should have just enough money to:

However, the Constitution assumes some civil duties, and these are inherent in the Constitution.

For example, the Constitution presumes lawfulness. It is a responsibility, then, to obey the law. For those who do not, there are protections, but the presumption of lawfulness is apparent.

The Constitution sets rules for a conviction for treason against the United States. This presumes loyalty to the United States. It is a responsibility, then, to be loyal to the United States

The Constitution presumes juries, particularly an impartial one. It is a responsibility, then, to serve as an impartial juror when called.

The Constitution presumes an army and a navy, and provides the Congress with the power to raise armies. Service during war is also mentioned. It is a responsibility, then, to serve in the armed forces when called.

The Constitution is peppered with amendments that expanded the right to vote - many people, over several centuries, have worked hard to bring the vote to as many people as possible. With few exceptions, all persons, 18 or older, can vote in any public election. It is a responsibility, then, to vote.

Every other dollar of funding should be removed from the Federal Government.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_resp.html

The Bill of Rights are there to protect us from the Constitution and Government.

They are constantly under attack by our Federal Government who thinks they know better than we do on how to live.

Here is another link you should watch on how we are slipping from a Republic and into a Democracy and this "green movement" is another lubricant making it happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQo...&feature=share

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Coign

But this should be voluntary not mandatory. It is an invasion of my rights to require what and how much insurance I have. The Federal Government should have ZERO say in this.

Your rights end where mine begin, and I have a right to not have my climate fucked up by you. You don't have the right to do any damn thing you please without regard for other people. If we could put a big bubble around you, you can pollute as much as you want, and you only hurt yourself. But since we can't, the government can regulate how much you pollute.

[Coign]

Originally Posted by glatt

Your rights end where mine begin, and I have a right to not have my climate fucked up by you. You don't have the right to do any damn thing you please without regard for other people. If we could put a big bubble around you, you can pollute as much as you want, and you only hurt yourself. But since we can't, the government can regulate how much you pollute.

No they can't. That is not their job, their right, or their responsibility. A bureau they created was given more power than our Constitution granted them. This country was built on the understanding of a limit of government to only do what they needed to keep our country running. But Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President keep pushing their power into the lives of the people and gain more control and more of a "nanny-state" with every passing month.

But let's take the above fallacy as a truth. Let's put us into a horrible nanny-state where we have lost the right to decide what to buy or how to live.

You think light-bulbs are the big majority of energy spending? This regulation is what will save us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_..._United_States

http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/190426

This is not a RIGHT of protecting people but a LOSS of freedom to enjoy our modern clearly lit life.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Coign

No they can't.

Well, since incandescent light bulbs are being phased out, it appears they can.

Answer this. Does one have a right to cause unlimited pollution in the environment that other people live in?

[Coign]

Originally Posted by glatt

Well, since incandescent light bulbs are being phased out, it appears they can.

The government does a lot they are not supposed to do. But there is nothing a "law abiding citizen" can do about it. Be it groping someone in front of hundreds at an airport, or an officer walking into your house because he can make up the excuse, "I thought there was an illegal activity going on inside." Doesn't mean I can't talk about it and declare it illegal and point it out to people.

Originally Posted by glatt

Answer this. Does one have a right to cause unlimited pollution in the environment that other people live in?

The right? Yes. Should they? Off course not. It is a matter of law versus morals. It is a matter of personal responsibility. But when the government removes personal responsibility they remove a person's morals that would govern that facet of their life.

Pollution and those responsible for it should be a civil matter, not a criminal matter. You take someone to civil court and fine them. You don't pass a federal mandated policy/law/regulation. It is NOT their right or job.

[glatt]

I'm not following you. If a person has the right to pollute as much as they want, then how can you stop them by taking them to court with a civil action? Their defense would just be "tough shit, it's my prerogative."

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Coign

The right? Yes. Should they? Off course not. It is a matter of law versus morals. It is a matter of personal responsibility. But when the government removes personal responsibility they remove a person's morals that would govern that facet of their life.

We live in a world where every action we take affects the world around us. If I decide to smoke cigarettes in an enclosed building, someone with asthma might suffer from my actions. I am not directly hurting them, my fist has not touched their face, but I am hurting them indirectly since we share the same environment.

One role of government is protect the rights of it's citizens, to a certain extent, from both direct and indirect attacks. If personal responsibility fails at protecting citizen's, which it has in many respects, then government needs to step in.

I ask you, Coign, what are your thoughts on the banning of DDT?