New School Politics

Perhaps HR2415 introduced by Congressman Ron Paul last month will open doors for building more refineries. I think it also addresses a handful of gas-price issues, too.

They were trying to get the attention of voters. Why would there be so much price gouging, especially now, when the majority of the public is blaming a few cases for all our problems? They have to stop whining and realize that oil isn’t going to work.

Why investigate? It’s simple supply and demand… there is a limited supply of crude oil, so the price goes up. Even more importantly, there is a limited supply of processed oil in the United States, so the price is sure to go up. In fact, I hope it goes through the roof… maybe then people will realize we should be using renewable resources.

The way to decrease the price of gas is to reduce demand. The only thing the politicians seem to know how to do is raise the average MPG requirements. Why not just make people that use more gas (ie, drive big gas guzzlers) pay more per gallon at the pump? A $.50-.75 per gallon premium to put gas into those gas guzzlers will encourage people to conserve, thus bringing down the price. (Americans are cheapskates) And theres no government regulation involved. Of course you cant expect a politician to pass up a golden opportunity to regulate some more.

No. The way to decrease the price of gas is increase supply. Currently the government places an enormous burden on the producers of gas ranging from taxing them up their ass; to not allowing the companies to drill in oil rich places; to effectively not allowing a new oil refinery to open up in the US in over three decades.

Look into almost any sector of the economy that suffers a disproportionate amount and you will find that the government is in up to its eyeballs in that very sector. How long does it take you to connect the dots?

No matter how you look at it, there is a limited supply of oil. Even if the government didn’t regulate anything, the supply would eventually run out. Since oil is a consumable (rather than renewable) resource, there will come a time when there is none left to be consumed and the oil companies must go bankrupt. Honestly, “increase the supply” of oil? How do you propose to do that, search other planets?

How about, SEARCH THIS PLANET. The US government seams to be going out of its way to stop companies from searching THIS PLANET for oil. THey ban drilling in ANWAR, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, on the pacific continental shelf, and effectively towards the deeper parts of the ocean.

the supply of resources on earth is for all intensive purposes unlimited–after all the earth is nothing more than a giant ball of resources–and our companies if left freely will discover an utilize the best energy sources available. all they need is for the government to stay out of their way.

So, you’d tear apart our planet just to allow for a few more years of oil dependence? Sure, we can keep on lookming more and more, but we will eventually use all the consumable resources. You can’t deny that. Instead of tearing up our planet in pursuit of fewer and fewer resources, we should be utilizing the powerful energy sources given to us by the sun and wind. I don’t see other animals digging up the Earth of resources. Plants use photosynthesis, why don’t we? Engage in some positive biomimicry.

Yes.

Yes, i can.

No, we shouldnt.

Because we’re not plants.

Well, if you want to live on a desolate, scarred planet, please move to Mars. The rest of us have some appreciation for natural beauty and the environment… and economics of supply and demand.

O boy. im the one who doesnt appreciate supply and demand now? you are the one who does not appreciate nor recognize the fact that supply and demand exists only because of the free market and because individuals are allowed enter into exchange voluntarily. where government exists, supply and demand does not. government distorts supply and demand becuase it works by compulsion which is obviously adverse to freedom of choice and exchange.

in energy governemnt has distorted supply and demand in the past (price controls in the 70s which went hand in hand with massive shortages of gas). and if socialists like yourself have any say government will distort supply and demand again by placing price caps on oil which will only make it harder for energy companies to produce energy because the govnerment will not allow them to collect the reward they disserve for their noble, productive activity.

as to the environmnet, youre right, i really dont care much about the environment. i care about economic progress, i care about property rights, and i care about standard of life. so long as those concepts im good.

the environment is good for one thing: human exploitation thereof. either its the environment or its us. take your pick.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.