Comments on: “Democrats-On gas prices”

By: Chou

Chou — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 01:07:18 +0000

a) A corporation does not have rights. People in the company have rights, and the people who work for, own, purchase, and sell things in the company all have rights. Thus, they are the ones that are recieving the benefits/losses of any regulation.

If nuclear power wasn’t as obsessively regulated, as is nearly every single good thing in America, maybe we wouldn’t have the power issues that we have today.

By: Arthus Erea

Arthus Erea — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:15:36 +0000

The environment does not have rights. It is not a person.
Why should corporations have rights, then? A corporation is not a person.

I support the use of nuclear power in combination with other energy sources. Unfortunately, due to the large amount of regulation, nuclear power is very expensive. Still, it is better than fossil fuels.

By: Chou

Chou — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:01:45 +0000

The environment does not have rights. It is not a person. Then again, we need the environment for several reasons, or else we’ll end up killing ourselves by lack of oxygen. The environment does provide lots of good things for us. For instance, plants produce oxygen, food, and medicines. Animals provide us with food. We can also use it to produce energy.
Why don’t we legalize nuclear power then, so we can a) use hydrogen cars for combustion b) protect the environment? It is because there are strong environmental lobbies whom think that a small amount of radiation is going to be a big problem.

By: Arthus Erea

Arthus Erea — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 05:12:30 +0000

Who says you have to be human to receive rights?

If corporations can have rights, why can’t a mountain lion? At least the mountain lion exists in the physical world. (Or at least used to)

I support the rights of the environment, that does not mean the environment has limitless rights. I do not feel immortal simply because I walked on the grass, just as I do not feel immortal because I yawn at somebody’s presentation… neither of these are covered under their rights.

The rights of the environment and people should be equally weighed in. Science and the economy could continue to advance without destroying the environment. If you truly believe in the power of science, then you would realize that renewable energy is much more powerful and scientific… we’ve been using oil for decades. The entire model of human advancement depends upon the continued evolution of science and technology. It is time we realized oil is outdated and moved to cleaner, more efficient sources.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:55:01 +0000

ps. biking is good exercize. i am staunchly pro-bike.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:54:03 +0000

the environment doesnt have rights. it is not human.

something doesnt just have rights becuase it was there first. if you were to take your conception of rights to its logical conclusion you are perpetually violating the rights of the environment becuase with every step you take you are trampling on land that was there before you. how immoral of you!

but if such a concept of rights was manifest in our law, humans could not survive. the human race would suffer immensely–advanced, industrial civilization would not be possible if humans were restricted from exploiting the environment. the practical problem of human existence is one that exists inside the context of the phisical world–our environment–and that means humans must adapt to their environment and live in a manner that makes their environment optimal in order to thrive. this process is known as economic production and human life cannot exist without it. if you place the alleged rights of the environment over the rights necessary for human production you will be punishing man for a committing no real crime.

By: Arthus Erea

Arthus Erea — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:49:43 +0000

Well, maybe we shouldn’t even be having the government setting aside the land. I think that might be better done by private groups who are using their own fund raising efforts to conserve land that they feel is sacred… this ensures that their opinion isn’t forced on the taxpayers.

p.s. I would do what I have been doing: biking everywhere and living in a renewable energy powered house.

By: Arthus Erea

Arthus Erea — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:39:49 +0000

Well, at least you’re honest that you’d kill a beaver, cut down a forest, or mine a mountain just to make a quick buck. It’s all been here long before us, so why do we have the right to exploit the environment for short term profit?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:38:49 +0000

ill applaude you and note my error if you believe that the propper political solution to energy is a free market one.

however i think it is a contradiction for you to likewise be for using government force to conserve land. if exploitation of any “common” land is justified then why not all land? who determines which land is sacred? why do they get to determine what happens to the property; why not let people bid for it on the open market…you know, supply and demand?

ps. you think oil companies are not noble? what would you do without them?

By: Arthus Erea

Arthus Erea — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:31:38 +0000

noble, productive activity
Oh boy, they’re noble now?

If you will notice, I never supported government’s investigations into price gouging or other regulation. I believe in the free market where prices are controlled entirely by supply and demand. Government should sit back and let people chose whether they want to support the destruction of the environment or whether they will use renewable resources… that should be a choice made by individuals. Besides setting aside land possessing extreme natural beauty of phenomena, government should allow supply and demand to determine the products and their prices.