Eu power regulations

[ban-all-sheds]

It's not a Bosch then.

Yes, it is.

 

[JohnW2]

Would you favour, or even regard as acceptable, Big Brother intervening in relation to energy-wasting activities such as those?

For as long as people are so lethally selfish as to carry on buying and using them, yes and yes.

Fair enough, but if he wanted to intervene in relation to everything which was (what you would regard as) equally "lethally selfish" as the examples you mentioned, Big Brother would presumably have to take control of our lives, and limit our freedoms, in a pretty massive way. From what you say, I presume you would regard that as 'the lesser of evils'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It looks like you believe that people should be allowed the freedom to hasten the deaths and/or displacement of large numbers of people on the grounds that preventing them would be some kind of oppression.

I don't.

 

[ericmark]

What ever it is there are normally plus and minus points. I have three cars, one is used to transport my mother in a wheel chair, the other to tow the caravan and the third for everything else. The last is very small.

However since I do have a big car can I really criticise others that also have big cars and the way cars are taxed clearly the government is not interested in mileage it's having one that matters.

I look at mothers carrying their kids to school in huge cars but have to admit caravan holidays are great for kids and I can understand why they just have one huge car rather than use two cars.

Yes there are people who don't need a big car other than so in a crash I'm all right jack but you can't ban big cars just because of the few with that attitude.

I suppose what we should do is hire a car for the weeks we tow the caravan. Ever tried hiring a car with a tow ball. Last time I needed to I hired a Land Rover.

As to caravan v air-plane big debate which uses more fuel and resources per person.

But we lived through 1984

 

[JohnW2]

It looks like you believe that people should be allowed the freedom to hasten the deaths and/or displacement of large numbers of people on the grounds that preventing them would be some kind of oppression. I don't.

No, I don't necessarily believe that. I accept that there is a balance to be struck between 'two evils', and believe it is very difficult to know where we (society, either locally or globally) want that balance to be struck.

What I do believe is that, since it's the fate of people that we're talking about, any such control should be with the consent of those people (in general) not imposed by 'a few', contrary to the wishes of the majority.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I accept that there is a balance to be struck between 'two evils', and believe it is very difficult to know where we (society, either locally or globally) want that balance to be struck.

I don't find it at all difficult.

What I do believe is that, since it's the fate of people that we're talking about

Indeed it is - I'm glad that you realise it.

any such control should be with the consent of those people (in general) not imposed by 'a few', contrary to the wishes of the majority.

But it's OK for the selfish majority to impose societal, cultural, environmental and physical destruction on others without their consent?

 

[JohnW2]

... the government is not interested in mileage it's having one that matters.

I suppose that fuel excise duty does a lot to take care of an interest in mileage - indeed, there has always been a body of opinion that 'car tax' should be eliminated, with a corresponding increase of (usage-related) fuel duty.

In any event, I suspect it has only been practicalities which have prevented government imposing road-usage-related taxation on vehicles. We may possibly see that happening once Big Brother's technological capabilities make it practical for him to accurately monitor the usage of every vehicle on the roads, not to mention the administration and policing of the horrendous billing operation that would be involved!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

But it's OK for the selfish majority to impose societal, cultural, environmental and physical destruction on others without their consent?

For better or for worse (and you highlight the main downside), democracy is widely believed to be desirable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Could also put an end to speeding that way.

Ooh-err - maybe I shouldn't have said that - you probably regard the removal by jackbooted Big Brother of people's freedom to drive too fast as another oppressive move.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

For better or for worse (and you highlight the main downside), democracy is widely believed to be desirable.

Desirable for whom?

The selfish and ignorant and deliberately obtuse, or the people who are going to die in their millions because of selfishness, ignorance and deliberate obtuseness?

 

[JohnW2]

... you probably regard the removal by jackbooted Big Brother of people's freedom to drive too fast as another oppressive move.

I think you probably under-estimate your fellow man, who is generally not all that stupid. Much as most (all) of us exceed speed limits, I very much doubt that a democratic decision (i.e. based on a referendum) would result in the abolition of speed limits.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

For better or for worse (and you highlight the main downside), democracy is widely believed to be desirable.

Desirable for whom?

Democracy, if you believe in it, means 'desired by the majority'. That's clearly not necessarily always ideal, but if you don't believe in democracy, then you'll have to propose a workable (and safe) alternative. Considering only the interests of minorities, at the expense of the majority, is probably even worse.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

How many millions of people have to face death before you no longer consider them a minority whose fate can be ignored so that we don't have to stop people from behaving selfishly and ignorantly as that would be "undemocratic"?

Do you consider a government which was chosen by less than 25% of the electorate to be a democratic one?

 

[JohnW2]

Do you consider a government which was chosen by less than 25% of the electorate to be a democratic one?

Not particularly. If you're interested in pursuing such discussions, I would suggest that you find a Political Philosophy forum - it's hardly an electrical topic!

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Or rather than asking questions, propose a solution.