I'm not aware of any gun control enacted under Obama - perhaps I missed something he did.
It really depends on what you're talking about. In general, I disagree with this. As an example, I work with an environmental group in my town. We live in a cute wine country tourist town that has regular events downtown on our large plaza. The members of our group were tired of seeing single use plastics overflowing out of trash cans at these events. Plastic wine cups, plastic water bottles, plastic tableware, etc. So we pushed for a ban on single use plastics on City property. We got some push back but had the ability to show the reality of plastic waste to our City Council. They adopted the ordinance and all events this year have been plastic-free. Not all vendors are happy, but they're all complying.
I agree. I've tried to explain my belief that there are two forces. Market forces and will of the people.
Nice job! What did they do about replacing the power? Hopefully not keeping a different coal plant.
You've successfully named those items a few times, but to me, you haven't successfully explained or supported how they supplant government action. I'll agree that market forces can often be stronger than government, but government comes first in establishing a groundwork for the market. And there are plenty of examples where market forces are contrary the best interests of the environment, human health, and preservation of resources. In those cases, we must rely on some other mechanism for positive change. When preservation of health and the environment is detached by a few degrees of separation from the actions that are causing the issue, humans are less likely to have the will to fight for their change. It's worse than that, though, because in a lot of these cases there's an ask of reduced convenience or comfort on top of it, which is even harder to make happen.
The problem is that the last thirty years have been spent tearing down government so it can no longer do its job effectively. And in many places to get a change the people would have to get about 90% of the vote because of redistricting. Can progress be made, yes but it will be long, hard, and painful.
Nice religion you have there.They can do a lot, in fact. You can control and manipulate markets to some degree (more or less depending on nature of market), your fervent denial notwithstanding. Of course, it is not always enough, but it worked nicely to prevent such wonders of free market as child labor working 12h per day for pittance in cobalt mines or rivers that can be literally set on fire.
In majority of cases, they work to some degree. You latched on few cheerpicked examples and you think it is convincing?
I have no interest in moronic strawmans.
How it is different from oil/coal/gas infrastructure? Maybe you are one that think oil magically appears in tank of gas station.
Newsflash for you: there are tons of countries in world where having gun is privilege, not right, yet somehow they are not totalitarian.
The "protection from government" argument is about the silliest thing I've ever heard. It was valid in 1776 when there wasn't much difference in weapon technology between civilians and military, and if you needed cannons you could always raid and get them. It became much more difficult by 1865 when the Gatling gun was invented. By WWI it would take a very poor military to be overcome (like Russia before the revolution). Today when your house can be pinpointed by drones, missiles, or someone sitting in a tank several miles away, having a basement full of assault weapons and thinking that will protect you from a tyrannical government is not very logical.
I've always said the same. I feel similarly about most arguments. Jim Jeffries' famous standup bit concludes there's only one honest argument: "I like guns."
I agree. But there is a limit to the effectiveness of government in enacting policies that are contrary to market forces.
I agree mostly - I just think there is a limit to government's ability to implement policy that works against market forces. Rich self interested people (Al Gore, Bernie Sanders) have been unwilling to give up luxuries for the greater good; poor public-interested people will be unwilling to give up their lifestyle (food, shelter, clothing, cell phone) for the greater good (France yellow-vests).
The only modern example I know of where civilians took on the government was Waco. Didn't turn out well for them. Or the government.
Seems odd they would want to build power generation capacity that was not needed. Not sure what was driving that, but you probably saved them from themselves.
Good example of will of the people. When the people had finally had enough, the government had the power to do something that went against the economics of the powerful entrenched industry.
Cherrypicked?? Coal and carbon is central to the GND and the future of the planet. Not some inconsequential fringe issue.
It is not. That was the entire point of the article - no free lunch.
That darned Constitution again!! So inconvenient.
So it was perfectly effective. The goal of the plastic bag ban was to keep lightweight plastic bags from entering the environment outside of the waste stream. They blow away easily, they end up in streams, and eventually in the ocean. They also break down with UV and scatter micro plastics into the soil. You are still putting the same amount of plastic into landfill, but it's going directly into the landfill, where it is contained. And there are many who aren't like you, who had a huge cache of bags that eventually were trashed without reuse.
Indeed, it was quite maddening. They wanted to build NG peaker capacity, with no pipeline in place, and truck in NG until a pipeline could be built, which of course caused a lot of protests. I did some digging through the various holding companies that owned the power plant and they traced back to a fossil fuel industry supply company. I think they were trying to create a market for their products. I would have liked them to install Powerpacks and solar to fill the peaker demands but the data center with solar was an acceptable result.
2nd Amendment was a huge mistake, poorly worded, and probably has cost more U.S. lives than any other Amendment. I'm sure if the Founding Fathers could see the results they would have chosen differently. Remember the Constitution was supposed to be a living document, able to be adjusted, hence the "Amendments".
I always though the main problem was that people ignore the "well regulated militia" part and turned it into free day at the zoo.
Yes, costs more but not a big budget item. Hefty is very happy.
It can be adjusted. Legislation can be enacted. The problem with a democracy is you need to get those darned votes to do it.
