Government controlling your home

Ivan Seeking

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/...rica/calif.php


The obvious problem is that the government never keeps its promises - anyone who thinks it will stop here is incredibly naive. Eventually they will try to take over your home entirely. It's how the simple minds of bureaucrats work - take away liberty for the public good.

Already we find places around San Diego where you can't smoke in your own back yard if it bothers the neighbors, which is rather absurd when we consider the popularity of BBQing in sunny Ca; or considering that many who support this law drive Hummers or other pollution spewing gas hogs.

I also predict that it won't be long before smart toilets will be reporting your diet and other activities to employers and insurance companies via the internet.

out of whack

I wouldn't mind if the government limited my overall supply of electricity in times of emergency, but how I use it inside my home is not their bizwax. Lower my thermostat and I will compensate by turning up the space heaters. What about air conditioners? They can use up just as much as heaters.

A legislated solution to the real problem would impose a usage limit per household in times of emergency. This is done at the meter with a breaker. Let homeowners use their quota as they see fit: heat, or lights, or humongous TV with giant sound, or personal supercomputer busily recalculating all events since the Big Bang, whatever. Adjust the source breaker (and let me know) instead of the thermostat.

falc39

hey Ivan, great quote in your sig. To me it shows that no matter what the politicians keep telling us, we are ultimately losing the war on terror.

Anyway, this is absurd, and I live in california too.

nanny state here we come!!!!

Hurkyl

Surely you could come up with a criticism of what's actually happening, rather than trying to convince everyone the sky is falling?

Ivan Seeking

This is yet another intrusion, pure and simple; just one of many many intrusions that I find completely unacceptable. If you wish to deny the obvious, that's your problem.

waht

It's probably never going to kick off. It would take years to implement.

Hurkyl

Ivan, you are being ridiculous. You haven't even said anything about the issue from the article; you're simply spouting ye olde government conspiracy rave! And you're doing that stupid "jump to conclusions about anyone who doesn't immediately agree with me, so that I don't feel guilty when I refuse to evaluate my own writings" thing that crackpots do.

(For the record -- my position is 'tentatively strongly opposed'. Let this thread be proof that I don't accept the kind of nonsense in the opening post, no matter what my actual position is on an issue, if any)

Ivan Seeking

It is just another example of government assuming it has the right to invade our lives. What is absurd is the defense of this nonsense.

I see this as an example of the core battle for liberty, and nothing less. Liberty is lost by baby steps. It is important to try to understand this.

Cyrus

I dont see whats wrong with what Ivan said Hurkyl. I dont want the government controlling anything that goes on inside my house.

Ivan Seeking

Hurkyl, you accused me of claiming that the sky is falling. And as far as I can tell you did so because I see this is part of a much broader problem. But instead of trying to understand the connection, you chose to take the low road and make personal attacks instead. You being unable to understand that connection doesn't make me a crackpot.

Ivan Seeking

Your statement here is false.

TridenTBoy

I'm sure there would be a way to override what they are doing even in emergency. (If it is just the thermostat they control) I don't mean like built in either, I mean through other evil ways.

Hurkyl

I chose the analogy because of the (apparent) vast leap in logic, the fearmongering quality, and the frequency which which you assert it.

No it doesn't. However, the quality and style of 'argument' does point in that direction, as does your response to criticism.

(I put argument in quotes because it reads more like a rant than any sort of coherent argument)



I don't want the government controlling my thermostat either. What's wrong with Ivan said is:

(1) Ivan is distracting from the issue. He doesn't seem to have any interest in thoroughly rebuking this move -- instead he's using it as a springboard for anti-government ranting.

(2) When the vocal opposition is simply limited to ranting (on-topic or otherwise), it creates the apperance that the opposition has no sound basis.


As I usually do in this subforum, I'm criticising form, not content.

Cyrus

Well, I think there are bigger things to worry about Hurkyl....like the government taking control of what goes on side our house.

Economist

I hear ya man. I think it's a clear example of the Government controlling peoples lives in areas they have no business being in. I also agree with you that these sorts of things can be a slippery slope.

Aren't they doing this because they think people are using "too much" energy? Furthermore, aren't the prices of electricity/energy determined by the Government (because utility companies are usually Governmentally controlled/operated)? Anyways, if I am right on these 2 accounts, then they should just raise the price and people will use less. This would likely be more efficient as people will decrease their use on the margin.

Yonoz

That should be your signature.

Art

No, actually you are just missing the point... yet again

Why not test a new paradigm on yourself that it is perhaps you who has a problem in being unable to connect dots which are clear to everybody else and remember if you have a problem and don't know you have a problem you actually have two problems