jlc

I believe this article is misleading in important considerations. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BECAUSE I AM HEADING IN THIS DIRECTION.

There are two fallacies that I see in the article: one is the overall cost and one is an artificially-posed binary choice between having battery and being on the grid. Let me deal with these issues separately.

Overall cost. Dozens of companies will install grid tied solar for free (the company retains ownership of the panels). The company gets the rebate from the state. You pay out of pocket for the battery. So this cuts the price for your solar system plus battery down to $7K.

Not binary choice. You can both have the battery and be on the grid. This is actually what you want to do preferentially - it lowers your profile and it lets you have a big party once in a while. The sun shines, the grid produces energy; you use some of it and store the rest in your battery. When the battery is topped off, you send the rest of the energy out to the grid. (The next sunny day (after your battery is filled - unless you party hearty that evening and night) most of the electricity will go out onto the grid.) When there is an earthquake and the grid goes down, you use your indogenous panels for sun power during the day and the battery for power at night.. and waste the rest of the energy the panels produce (which you would have normally sent out into the grid). When you have a big party, you draw extra energy from the grid and pay the electric company.

This seems reasonable to me.

Jan

I suspect that that percentage is the result of the social unacceptability of non-normative social behavior. I hypothesize that future generations will find more like 20-30% of gay and bisexual members of human societies.

Jan

Influenced by an anteater...

I will have to remember that phrase. Point.

Unfortunately, I think that Hitler was supported by a majority.

Jan

I believe the English "faggot" comes from a similar basis.

Jan

You are correct and with the crucial proviso: as long as the government is involved.

The point of commonality (that I think many people have) is to get the gov out of personal decisions. The explicit rules for non-prejudice behavior need to apply to the government, military, judicial, voting, legislative, etc arenas and not the personal ones.

Thank you for being bold enough to support freedom even when it may cause you personal inconvenience.

Jan

Yes! This is the crux of the situation. Since - as khalling says - "no one starts from fundamentals" what we are seeing is an elaboration of personal-case exceptions to various laws.

Of course most gay folks are rational. Of course they have, since they are non-normative, been treated in an unfair manner by society. They do not like it any more than I would or have. (Have I ever told you about not getting my expert ribbon in the USAF?)

As I see it, people should be able to interact with whomever they want, but they should have to abide by the repercussions of their decisions. For example: A baker should not have to let someone who is gay buy stuff at his bakery. But if a major bakery chain is thinking of buying his business, they should be able to find out that this has been the bakery's policy. If the CEO of the big chain is gay, then she should be diss the baker because of his prejudice.

All of this is pretty obvious, and with Yelp and similar apps it certainly be done. (We introduced a S African gentleman to one of our employees - who happened to be big and black - to see if he would shake hands with him - before we would even discuss letting him invest in our company.)

As khalling has so clearly delineated, we have caught ourselves in a morass of special situations instead of clarifying basic rights and freedoms.

Jan

Ewww. Did not need image. Drinking coffee - also brown.

Jan

Wonderful keystone discussion, 3j. I am typically more interested in 'what' a person does than 'why' they do it. (Most of the people I know are intelligent enough to rationalize a connection between any two known points in the universe. This makes 'why' discussions moot with them.)

What you point out is that in this case the 'why' is the crucial aspect of the difference between Obama and Galt. I would like to suggest that the parameters for regrowth are also different: A totalitarian autocrat wants to destroy the current structure so that they can force the exacting top-down rebuild of it into the image they design. A freedom fighter wants to destroy social structure to remove the constraints to personal decision. He is willing to take the chance that free choice will cause a better (bottom up) system to be rebuilt.

The totalitarian autocrat carefully makes certain that any alternative systems cannot compete and that only his philosophy is included in the restructuring. A freedom fighter smashes the bars and handcuffs that prevent choice and then lets the individuals choose their own path.

After Galt destroyed the motor of the world, people could decide that they want to freely choose socialism - and Galt (by his own philosophy) would have to suck it up and let them make their decisions. Stalin would never do this; he would eliminate anyone who disagreed with him.

Jan
(see also my reply to sjatkins post in this thread)

While the phrase itself was coined by Machiavelli, the philosophy was put most pointedly into practice by the Jesuit order.

Jan

I think that 'grow in ones own image' can mean different things.

One meaning is 'use my philosophy as a rigorous template' the other is 'remove the impediments to growth and allow a bottom-up regeneration which I am willing to bet will spontaneously follow my philosophy'.

Once again, the touchstone of inclusionary vs exclusionary is helpful here: Stalin wants to Include only his directives (and everything else is illegal); Galt wants to break the back of the suppressive power structure that is preventing prosperity - excluding it from the geo-political canvas. He is willing to wager that what grows back will be a system that values freedom and the individual. He will seed the regrowing culture with productive individuals and a worthwhile philosophy, but (once the strongarm restrictions are excluded) everyone can make their own decisions.

Jan

That was my observation too, Lucky. I wondered if I had missed something. I saw no evidence that PC investing has beaten S&P; I saw no evidence of anything, actually.

One of Matt Ridley's articles was on this recently (here, let me include the link: http://rationaloptimist.com/blog/fossil-...). In this article he points out that apparently the Church of England made a big splash about selling a small number of shares in coal...and got some good publicity but did not really hurt its investment portfolio.

Huh, what a game.

Jan

I have read the thread of comments, and I think it is worse than that. The chain of events that Obama is postulating (according to some liberal interpretations) is that: Global Warming caused desertification. Desertification caused famine. Famine caused the increase in militant Islamic groups who promised that by Allah and killing rich people, prosperity would return to the Middle East.

What is unfortunate is that this hits enough buttons with most people that they will support it. It is very much like the 'blank slate' the progressives were rabidly adherent to in the 1970's - the idea that a baby was nothing inherently, but was totally formed by his environment. This 'blank slate' has been disproven in biology but now it seems to have been transferred to politics in that there is nothing inherent in what a nation _is_ that matters, everything they do is the result of circumstance.

Jan

Oh Thank you!

When you did not immediately respond to cut me down to size for dissing your fave, I felt lonely and ignored! And no, of course I have never known anyone like that. Ever. (Ahem.)

I listen to other people talk about the book, which means that I do not have to become personally involved in the characters.

Interesting thread - and useful to me (because I get to be a total parasite and listen to what everyone else says without contributing.)

Jan, making trouble today (for no good reason)

This is one of those 'schadenfreude' correct times.

Jan

That is why I tried to read it several times...

Jan, did not succeed

I have tried to read The Fountainhead a number of times - and bounced. I do not like the characters and I do not care what happens to them. This is especially true of Dominique. Not only did her internal wars not give me a sense of identification or pathos, but they made her a symbol of what is repulsive to me - someone who destroys wantonly.

So The Fountainhead is not for me.

Jan

The most concise evaluation of this plan yet.

Jan

Well, not actually. The functional bureaucracy - the civil service - would not be effected. As a matter of fact, they would become more powerful because an average lack of experience in a lottery-chosen representative would make the new rep lean on their experience more.

Think of it this way: a new lieutenant is assigned to a squadron. The veteran Master Sgt calls him "Sir" and obeys his commands - but actually runs things. If the lieutenant has brains, he functionally understudies the MstrSgt. "Well, sir, I don't think you really want to give That order, I think perhaps you want to give This command instead."

This would continue in perpetuity, with the lotto-leaders becoming even more explicit puppets to the clerks and functionaries. These are the people who would now control all of the partisan threads.

Jan

This is the way to do it. I have no objections to paying someone $15/hr...I just object to having to do that if they are not actually producing more than that amount. (I think one has to produce about $27/hr in order to break even on getting paid $15/hr. This is from a quick Search - if someone knows a more accurate ballpark figure, please advise.)

Jan

I am back in California now - I was just visiting in MO for a week.

Jan

Most of your criteria cycle around the concept of 'understanding', freedomforall. The above-stated criteria would not eliminate any of the liberals of my acquaintance: they are intelligent and productive people. They are also people who have never been taken out of the 'context' of their lives - they have always lived in a peaceful and affluent part of the country.

Right now, we are concentrating in eliminating the deadwood from the voting population, but I think that slfischer has a good point: Once we start putting in barriers to voting, people are going to 'game' the system to prevent their opponents from voting.

I think that a very open and experience based requirement is where I would like to go: I agree with jbrenner that some sort of service is a reasonable requirement, but I would like to open the concept of service so that it is not just the military. I am thinking of something like the Swiss system, but with some changes: where at age 18 you but invited (but not required) to enlist in the military or in some other form of service. (The hidden agenda here is to get people out of their home environments and moved around the country and/or the world. I hope (unproven) that this may give them a grounding in reality.) There would have to be a provision for people older than 18 to enlist as well, of course, but the native path would be to finish HS, do service, come back and get a job and/or go to college. (The service enlistment could also serve as job training.)

No one would be required to participate in service in order to be a citizen or to participate in any way in the USA except that if you had not done service (a) you could not hold office, and (b) you could not vote.

Admittedly, on even days I think that any infringement of the right to vote is a bad idea...but the more I read on this list the more I wonder if setting some sort of requirement for 'doing' (as opposed to 'thinking') is not the best idea.

Jan, of two minds

I watched part of the video (tho I am at work) and what I got from it was that people did not read their contracts closely, talk to other people in their prospective industry before they decide to get into it, and that the reason to fear 'poorly bred' chickens is because you will loose out on the incentive payments if you get inferior chicks.

I agree that the big chicken companies are not behaving in a scrupulous manner, but think it through: Would you pay for a tough chicken in the market? (Apparently sunshine and running around makes chickens tough - and I can verify that anecdotally.) Would you pay more for the same chicken? How do you feel about chicken with a side of salmonella?

The solution to the chicken farm question has to include all of these elements. kevinw and Mammaemma are right in asking why we believe that a politician will be an 'angel', but we also have to deal with the fact that businessmen are not 'angels' either.

Probably the best solution is the "UL" (Underwriters Laboratory) plan: let anyone farm chickens in any way they want with no Federal oversight, but have one or more independent accreditation companies grade the product before it gets to market. Markets can refuse to accept chicken that does not have a 'passing grade' (eg has salmonella). This keeps the gov out of it (or minimizes the federal role - I am open to the idea of the gov monitoring the accreditation companies - qui custudio etc)

Jan

Good metaphor.

Jan, WBC

I do not like people who 'sell fear', but I do like to hedge my bets. While the chance that a terrorist will set off a nuclear device in downtown LA is very small, the chance that _something_ will happen that will damage our infrastructure for at least a week is pretty high.

So prep for the latter and you will be in a better situation with respect to the former.

Jan

A politically incorrect vid on this topic, wiggys...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D05T5HXP...

Jan