• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California panel approves historic plan to require solar panels on new homes

Tanngrisnir said:
And? While things change, it's still the right wingers who cling to the social controls, and it's the social conservatives who dominate the republican party and who make policity.
Click to expand...

You said there is no credible evidence that the Right is trending less authoritarian and you previously cited Same-sex marriage and the war on drugs as reasons for the authoritarian nature of the Right. I just gave you two sources that show those policies have lost much of their support from those on the Right. As that trend continues those politicians will eventually need to represent those people or risk being primaried.
 
Nap said:
You said there is no credible evidence that the Right is trending less authoritarian and you previously cited Same-sex marriage and the war on drugs as reasons for the authoritarian nature of the Right. I just gave you two sources that show those policies have lost much of their support from those on the Right. As that trend continues those politicians will eventually need to represent those people or risk being primaried.
Click to expand...

The point is that those on the right who are actually in power are NOT trending less authoritarian.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The point is that those on the right who are actually in power are NOT trending less authoritarian.
Click to expand...

My statement was about the Right in general not about those currently in power.

Edit: Even those that are currently in power, there is more acceptance than there was previously due to the growing Libertarian movement within the party on top of deregulation having been a long time part of the platform.
 
Last edited:
Nap said:
My statement was about the Right in general not about those currently in power.

Edit: Even those that are currently in power, there is more acceptance than there was previously due to the growing Libertarian movement within the party on top of deregulation having been a long time part of the platform.
Click to expand...

That being the case, your statement about the left in general remains unsupported.

And there is no genuine Libertarian (or libertarian) movement w/in the party. It's a laughably cosmetic feint to fool suckers who don't actually understand (or care to understand) libertarianism.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
That being the case, your statement about the left in general remains unsupported.

And there is no genuine Libertarian (or libertarian) movement w/in the party. It's a laughably cosmetic feint to fool suckers who don't actually understand (or care to understand) libertarianism.
Click to expand...

For Republicans the answer to most problems is privatization and the free market because they believe that individuals should have the freedom to make their own choices.

For Democrats the answer to most issues is government mandate because the individual can't be trusted to make the Right decision for the collective.

Which of these is the more authoritarian world view?
 
Nap said:
For Republicans the answer to most problems is privatization and the free market because they believe that individuals should have the freedom to make their own choices.['/quote]

While that may be true in Fantasy Land, the free market simply doesn't exist and republicans are BIG supporters of playing corporate favorites.
For Democrats the answer to most issues is government mandate because the individual can't be trusted to make the Right decision for the collective.
Click to expand...

Going from Fantasy Land to outright delusional bull****. If you weren't interested in rational discussion of reality, why didn't you just say so?
Which of these is the more authoritarian world view?
Click to expand...

Neither are based in reality.
Click to expand...
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Nap said:
For Republicans the answer to most problems is privatization and the free market because they believe that individuals should have the freedom to make their own choices.['/quote]

While that may be true in Fantasy Land, the free market simply doesn't exist and republicans are BIG supporters of playing corporate favorites.

Going from Fantasy Land to outright delusional bull****. If you weren't interested in rational discussion of reality, why didn't you just say so?

Neither are based in reality.
Click to expand...

Both parties have plenty of people that like to play corporate favorites because the more government you have the more potential for corruption. This is why many on the Right find Bernie to be so hilarious because he rightly goes off on how corrupt the government is, but then turns around and says we need more of it.

You are correct that the free market doesn't exist, Republicans want to get as close as possible to it which is why they continually call for deregulation.

What is delusional about saying Democrats seek to regulate everything? We are literally in a thread about mandating solar panels on new homes.
Click to expand...
 
MrWonka said:
That's just the thing though. By requiring new homes to have them they are creating a massive demand which will now make the investment worth it to solar companies. What made solar panels expensive, and hard to manufacture in the first place is that the demand was so low. This law changes the equilibrium. Since you have no choice, but to put solar panels on your house now people will be looking for the cheapest solar panels not choosing between solar panels and something cheaper.

The mass manufacturing of these panels will drive down their cost, and within a few years, they will be more than competitive.
Click to expand...

Have you been to California lately? There's solar panels on at least 2/3s of the existing buildings. Builders already in the Central Valley install solar to make their homes more competitive with the used home market. They made this law because of not expanding the electrical grid and because the federal subsidies are drying up.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Good point, I would not say California should be forbidden from passing this law. I still think even ostensibly well-intentioned ideas like this should be carefully scrutinized for corrupt profiteering at ordinary Californians' expense. If banks and a select one or two solar companies benefit hugely from this, and the energy savings estimates are not really accurate, it's a bad deal. If it's not a government handout to the solar industry, the solar companies competing for installation business are competitive, and the long-term savings are very real, then it might only be rational to follow California's lead.

But a lot of people are behind it for really no other reason than it's California and is being done in the name of "clean energy." That's all they need to know to be huge fans.
Click to expand...

Solar makes sense for California mainly in Southern Cal and the Central Valley, the reason it does is because of the electrical rate tiers in California which is serviced by and large by PGE, and the amount of sunlight available to harvest. The pricing tiers vary by were you live, if you live on the Coasts such as Los Angeles and San Francisco you have 2 tiers of pricing. If you live inland as in the Central Valley then you have 4 tiers of pricing which is simply 2 more tiers stacked on TOP of the 2 the coasts get. The way they manipulate the tiers is such that most if not all people running typical electrical loads end up in top tier pricing about mid month or so. It is not uncommon of for people in the deserts and the Central Valley to have 400 dollar plus bills in the summer months if they are not enrolled in the CARE program. At that point it becomes a no-brainer to install a grid tied solar system of moderate capacity to at the very least mitigate rising electrical prices which in CA keep going up.
 
trixare4kids said:
I asked for your source, not your opinion.
I guess you don't have one?
Click to expand...

It is not my opinion that they are appointed by people who are on the ballot. It is a fact

But I am never surprised when a rightwinger has trouble distinguishing fact from opinion
 
Neomalthusian said:
Good point, I would not say California should be forbidden from passing this law. I still think even ostensibly well-intentioned ideas like this should be carefully scrutinized for corrupt profiteering at ordinary Californians' expense. If banks and a select one or two solar companies benefit hugely from this, and the energy savings estimates are not really accurate, it's a bad deal. If it's not a government handout to the solar industry, the solar companies competing for installation business are competitive, and the long-term savings are very real, then it might only be rational to follow California's lead.

But a lot of people are behind it for really no other reason than it's California and is being done in the name of "clean energy." That's all they need to know to be huge fans.
Click to expand...

I am sure that reasonable people could debate the merits of this proposal. However, in the end, these decisions get made through the democratic process. That is what is happening here.
 
sangha said:
Because they are accountable
Click to expand...

When is the next election for their position? Advising is one thing, but unelected officials making rules and regulations is one of the problems with our government as it allows politicians to deny responsibility.
 
sangha said:
It is not my opinion that they are appointed by people who are on the ballot. It is a fact

But I am never surprised when a rightwinger has trouble distinguishing fact from opinion
Click to expand...

Loosely translated:
You have no source.
 
sangha said:
I am sure that reasonable people could debate the merits of this proposal. However, in the end, these decisions get made through the democratic process. That is what is happening here.
Click to expand...

All decisions made by government are made through the democratic process. You could say this about anything involving any law or regulation. It's not really a conclusive comment.
 
Nap said:
When is the next election for their position? Advising is one thing, but unelected officials making rules and regulations is one of the problems with our government as it allows politicians to deny responsibility.
Click to expand...

The people of CA disagree
 
Neomalthusian said:
All decisions made by government are made through the democratic process. You could say this about anything involving any law or regulation. It's not really a conclusive comment.
Click to expand...

It is a conclusive comment. It refutes those who whine about collectivism
 
Nap said:
Why are unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people making decisions in the first place?
Click to expand...

Because some decisions need to be made quickly and intelligently. We can't wait for Congress to act on every little thing, and to be honest, most members of Congress aren't intelligent enough to truly understand the problems in the first place. Not to mention the reality that an increasingly ignorant populace would not be capable of holding them properly accountable and are just as likely to punish them for good decisions as they are for bad ones.
 
MrWonka said:
Because some decisions need to be made quickly and intelligently. We can't wait for Congress to act on every little thing, and to be honest, most members of Congress aren't intelligent enough to truly understand the problems in the first place. Not to mention the reality that an increasingly ignorant populace would not be capable of holding them properly accountable and are just as likely to punish them for good decisions as they are for bad ones.
Click to expand...

The position of President and Governor is there for decisions that need to be made quickly. As far as intelligently they can simply give the regulations they want to the elected politician and he can decide wether he wants to stake his position on that idea since he is the one elected to represent the people.
 
MrWonka said:
Because some decisions need to be made quickly and intelligently. We can't wait for Congress to act on every little thing, and to be honest, most members of Congress aren't intelligent enough to truly understand the problems in the first place. Not to mention the reality that an increasingly ignorant populace would not be capable of holding them properly accountable and are just as likely to punish them for good decisions as they are for bad ones.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you're really Libertarian? You speak Progressive so well. "we gotta act quick and intelligently", "ignorant populace can't be trusted"
 

[h=1]California’s Boneheaded Solar Remedy for Climate Change[/h]Good intentions can make for awful policies. by Steve Chapman In the world of government policy, two chief dangers always loom. The first is people with bad intentions using every available means to achieve their malignant goals. The second, more common but no less destructive, is people with the purest of hearts and the most…
Continue reading →
 
Yes Comrade Stalin, whatever you say Comrade Stalin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom