|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Time for a little Bush bashing. | by Naruki | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Spinaroonie | by StoneColdgop | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
So how about this? | by BrainBug | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Rules | by StoneColdgop | 2003-08-26 18:03:49 |
| Answer |
by BrainBug |
2003-08-26 19:38:55 |
I'd like to answer on that in detail, but it's already 03:44 here and bed is calling. So a short answer point by point:
1. Not being an American I'm not too familiar with that. But it would be a pity for the Gov. not to have that right.
2. I am, too. But not surprised the least bit.
3. I don't think so.
Basically, the companies do what every company does: maximizing their winnings. And as long as there is no very good economical reason for them to do that in a more responsible way they simply won't. That's one part of why I think that any responsible Government should not only have the possibility but the duty to intervene. The other part, that goes hand in hand with it, is that, while deregulation and free markets are a good thing in most areas, it is the job of the Government to ensure a certain minimum of safety, living quality and social standards for its people. This does not only mean protection from physical violence. Among other things (like a guaranteed level of health care) it also means ensuring a supply of the resources needed as a living basis - like electricity. And it means ensuring that further generations will still have an acceptable living basis, which today requires things like resource saving and a responsible way of dealing with the environment. So if - like experience has shown - companies are not willing to do that on their own, it is IMHO the Gov's job to force them by regulating where necessary. I would compare that to safety regulations to a certain degree. To protect the people there are eg. certain criteria that a car must meet to be allowed on the streets. Similarly I consider it righ to have certain regulations to protect the people from not having a working natural environment in the future.
As for your customer ways:
1. Sadly, experience shows that however good intentions people have when talking about that, they usually end when it comes down to their money - and while "clean" energy is not widespread it is more expensive... You might say now "So what do you propose? Force people?" Yes, to a certain degree. Not by forcing them to buy solar panels or any such (Though I'd like that idea...), but by making cheap "dirty" energy unavailable (or by taxing it in accordance to the pollution it causes, thus making "dirty" energy more expensive than "clean" one)
2. Soory, you can't convince me of that. Companies aim for just one thing: Money. If that's not endangered (and most protests/petitions don't have that power, at least not for long) they won't act.
3. Well, might work in cases where a direct impact on a specific person can be proven. But overall - and especially in cases where only the environment is affected and that perhaps only in the long run - that might prove rather difficult.
As for vitacpp's rule: It's not exactly about winning or loosing the discussion. More about protesting and protecting against "war against terrorism" and emotions about Al Quaida being abused as (unfounded) killer arguments to drive home about every possible and impossible point over the current emotions (and not just in the USA)...
Gee, see what you made me do now? That's not the short answer I had in mind... *g*
4:38 now and I'm off for bed. Will check in tomorrow though. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Short Answer | by StoneColdGop | 2003-08-27 22:52:52 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
