Are you For or Against an increase in domestic drilling?

[Reya]

Yeah, but they're cute and they make a glorious sound when chomping their hay!

 

Really, I am kidding... I don't think I'd so much like the smell of the neighborhood! :blink:

 

Yeah, we had neighbors who boarded horses. Now that was pretty bad...

[Amy in NY]

It's the only way to bring down the price of oil. We are currently at the mercy of a cartel.

 

As for ethanol....it goes against all of my common sense to burn food. And when all is said and done, it's really no better for the environment.

 

Amy

[Amy in NY]

I, personally feel that the Middle East currently has a monopoly on our oil supply. Therefore, they can charge whatever they want. They KNOW that we will not drill because of our environment. It doens't matter if no one can afford to go see these pretty places, or if we cannot afford to feed our families. And they are probably laughing at us.

 

I just read an article that someone posted. It noted that during Katrina, there were no oil spills. ALl of the rigs in the gulf held up very well. So, whats the problem with a few more rigs? Especially up in Alaska, as someone pointed out, the Chinese are drilling just beyond our waters? Why should they be able to pollute/destroy our enviornment, and reap all the benefits?

 

If we started drilling, even just a couple of new places, the Middle East would realize that they can't sc&ew us as much, and would probably loosen their grip on our oil. They would realize that they are not going to get our money forever. There might even be, COMPETITION????? and lower prices. THEN some of us might be able to feed our families something besides beans and rice, and go to these beautiful places that everyone wants protected. Cause right now, I am not planning on ever seeing the north shore of Alaska. Where all the other drilling is taking place, just not the most efective one.

 

jmho, :leaving:

 

This is what I meant.

[Amy in NY]

What we need to do is cluster the houses together, so it is cost-effective to run buses.

 

I live in a rural area now but once lived in a very suburban community that had shifted to cluster housing in new developments. While some may choose that, I would not and should not have the government telling me what type of home/land/car to own.

 

Mandating lifestyle choices will not fix the current oil price. Competition will.

[teamturner]

I, personally feel that the Middle East currently has a monopoly on our oil supply. Therefore, they can charge whatever they want. They KNOW that we will not drill because of our environment. It doens't matter if no one can afford to go see these pretty places, or if we cannot afford to feed our families. And they are probably laughing at us.

 

I just read an article that someone posted. It noted that during Katrina, there were no oil spills. ALl of the rigs in the gulf held up very well. So, whats the problem with a few more rigs? Especially up in Alaska, as someone pointed out, the Chinese are drilling just beyond our waters? Why should they be able to pollute/destroy our enviornment, and reap all the benefits?

 

If we started drilling, even just a couple of new places, the Middle East would realize that they can't sc&ew us as much, and would probably loosen their grip on our oil. They would realize that they are not going to get our money forever. There might even be, COMPETITION????? and lower prices. THEN some of us might be able to feed our families something besides beans and rice, and go to these beautiful places that everyone wants protected. Cause right now, I am not planning on ever seeing the north shore of Alaska. Where all the other drilling is taking place, just not the most efective one.

 

jmho, :leaving:

 

:iagree: I think we should drill domestically and do it responsibly. It is possible! Take the business away from the monopoly in the middle east!

[Teddi]

I completely agree with what I've highlighted in red.

 

"New Urbanism" should NOT be mandated to save fuel. Some of us don't care to be packed in like sardines.

 

I live in a rural area now but once lived in a very suburban community that had shifted to cluster housing in new developments. While some may choose that, I would not and should not have the government telling me what type of home/land/car to own.

 

Mandating lifestyle choices will not fix the current oil price. Competition will.

[Colleen]

I respectfully think public transportation is foolish. we know that any govt owned and operated enterprise will be inefficient and wasteful.

 

Nope, "we" don't know that. I've seen and used enough excellent, government-run public transit systems to disprove your assumption.:)

[Colleen]

We simply need to use a lot less fuel.

 

You win!:D The mistaken assumption that domestic drilling is the "only" way to lower oil prices overlooks the obvious: Decrease demand.

[Caroline]

 

You win!:D The mistaken assumption that domestic drilling is the "only" way to lower oil prices overlooks the obvious: Decrease demand.

 

I agree totally. It also overlooks the fact that we don't have the refining facilities to deal with more oil. Our refineries are out of date and are not big enough to keep up with production. We need to fix the refining problem more than we need to drill for more oil. More efficient refining is the way to go.

[cornopean]

 

Nope, "we" don't know that. I've seen and used enough excellent, government-run public transit systems to disprove your assumption.:)

First, why do you think more public transit will bring down the cost of gasoline?

Second, all govt spending is third party spending. This means that the govt is spending someone else's money. All govt spending is this way and since they aren't spending their own money, the spending is inherently inefficient. It's just a fact of life. Noone spends someone else's money as efficiently as they spend their own. Here is Milton Friedman (of happy memory);

 

 

There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!

Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.

 

[cornopean]

 

You win!:D The mistaken assumption that domestic drilling is the "only" way to lower oil prices overlooks the obvious: Decrease demand.

Well we all agree that there are two ways to lower prices. increase the supply or decrease the demand. the question is which is the wisest choice. I would suggest that decreasing demand is going to have a very adverse effect on our economy.

but if we simply removed the govt restrictions on drilling for oil, we could increase the supply of oil, which would lower the price, and we would all be happy.

so I suggest drilling.

[Melinda in VT]

I completely agree with what I've highlighted in red.

 

"New Urbanism" should NOT be mandated to save fuel. Some of us don't care to be packed in like sardines.

 

And some of us don't care to watch the most fertile farmland in the area be gobbled up by street after street of new houses. Or watch our tax dollars be spent on more and wider freeways instead of on public transportation systems. ;)

 

I don't think the government should mandate where individuals live, but I do think local governments should (indeed, must) begin forcing new development to be done with an eye toward responsible land and energy use.

 

This issue is particularly in the forefront for me right now, as we just returned from a trip to Utah. They have a few surprisingly progressive ideas (some new urbanism communities, a light rail system, a new commuter rail system) but the suburban sprawl is out of control and shows no signs of stopping. Clearly, the people in charge are not worried about peak oil.

 

(Just to clarify tone--I am passionate but not angry.:D)

[Melinda in VT]

First, why do you think more public transit will bring down the cost of gasoline?

Second, all govt spending is third party spending. This means that the govt is spending someone else's money. All govt spending is this way and since they aren't spending their own money, the spending is inherently inefficient. It's just a fact of life. Noone spends someone else's money as efficiently as they spend their own. Here is Milton Friedman (of happy memory);

 

 

There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!

Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.

 

 

Are you in favor of privatizing the road construction and maintenance?

[Amy in NY]

 

I don't think the government should mandate where individuals live, but I do think local governments should (indeed, must) begin forcing new development to be done with an eye toward responsible land and energy use.

 

 

 

Can you tell me how to do this without laws/rules that prohibit my freedom to choose my lifestyle because I can't figure that part out.

 

Are you in favor of privatizing the road construction and maintenance?

 

Most definitely. Then, when the job isn't done right or is over budget, the crew can be fired and replaced with someone more efficient. There will be more incentive to do the work right the first time because the company will know that they will lose the contract if they don't. (And this opinion is from experience - dh is involved in the construction business.)

 

 

And, as you so eloquently said, I am passionate but not angry. (And I'm not picking on you....:001_smile:)

[Margaret in GA]

But in the meantime, I will tell you what I think here (for about the 100th time).

 

Read the book Energy Victory. It is an excellent, market-based approach to our crisis. Yes, I believe we are headed toward a crisis thanks to

ineffectual leadership. NPR quoted someone today that said oil will hit $200/barrel

 

The basic premise of this book is this: if we all drove flex-fuel cars we could switch to whichever fuel happens to be cheapest that day. Today that fuel is ethanol/methanol. Here in Georgia, we can make cellulosic ethanol from tree parts (the leftover bits when pine trees are used for lumber). That's just *one* thing we can make fuel from. We are building a plant right now that will give Georgia hunderds of jobs.

 

I cannot bear to hear one more time that making ethanol from "food" is killing people in India. It is simply not true. Please check your source. While ethanol from corn is not very efficient, but it isn't driving the price of our food up. In fact, we are growing more corn than ever before (even when you adjust the amount that goes toward ethanol.)

 

Someone said we need to protect farmland. Amen! What better way than to make farming profitable again? Let's keep our money here at home and not in the pockets of sheiks in Saudi Arabia! All we have to do is this: Mandate that every car built and sold in America be Flex Fuel. It doesn't cost you or the car companies anymore. If we had done this 5-10 years ago, think of where we'd be. And BTW, there were groups calling on the govt. to do this and they refused-- both Clinton and Bush.

 

Margaret

[Kelli in TN]

In areas with a smaller population base, like the one I live in, it doesn't work that way. You wait for the next bus in the cold or heat or drizzle a very long time. No thanks!

 

It can't work in every community, I do realize that. But it could have worked in my community if our city leaders had thought things through as the community grew. And we could have had trains from our surrounding "bedroom" communities into our city, if someone would have had some foresight.

 

And I really wish our city had a train to Memphis.

[EKS]

Actually, oil prices in and of themselves aren't my main concern. What worries me (terrifies, if I think about it too long) is what is going to happen when the oil starts to run out if we don't make major changes now, while we have a chance to change the infrastructure while we still have oil. If we don't, it will get very ugly. Wars, starvation, the US as a nation could very well collapse. I'm serious. Think about everything (it's not just driving the kids to baseball practice or husband to work) that needs oil to run. Then take the oil away, without any preparation for it being withdrawn, and see what you get.

 

That's why I get cranky when people focus on oil prices. This is about something far more than prices. It's about our way of life going down the tubes. But it doesn't have to be this way.

[Kelli in TN]

I want horse and buggy to come back in style!! Then we could all not only save a whole lotta gas but we could have really nice and green lawns from all the free fertilizer our transportation sources would produce! :tongue_smilie: Seriously... The Amish are onto something.

 

 

Horse and buggy people. That's how I want it... but I live on a tiny city lot the size of an outhouse (okay, so it's a wee bit bigger) so there's no room for my horses. :glare:

 

 

I think you are overlooking another benefit to this plan.

 

When I was a child I lived on a road where everyone had horses. Old Mr. Spralling had several teams of horses and big wooden wagon. This was his only mode of transportation. He was an excellent driver and his horses were perfect. He drove his big wooden wagon up and down the busy highway that connected to our little gravel road. He took a team of horses out pretty much everyday. They would clomp past my house on the way to the highway where they would head off....

 

 

to the bar.

 

 

And at the end of a long night of drinking Old Mr. Spralling would not remember where he lived, how he came to be at the bar, or even who he was. The folks at the bar would load him into his wagon, put the reins in his hands and send him home. Those horses would bring him safely home and stop in the front yard. He would either sleep it off in his wagon or someone from his family would unload him and put the horses up.

 

How about that for a value added mode of transportation!:auto:

[Melinda in VT]

Can you tell me how to do this without laws/rules that prohibit my freedom to choose my lifestyle because I can't figure that part out.

 

Those who don't want to live in a new urban community (or an old urban community) will have ample choices from our existing housing stock.

 

Most definitely. Then, when the job isn't done right or is over budget, the crew can be fired and replaced with someone more efficient. There will be more incentive to do the work right the first time because the company will know that they will lose the contract if they don't. (And this opinion is from experience - dh is involved in the construction business.)

 

In this sense, public transportation (what little we have) is already privatized. The government hires private companies to build the lines, build the buses or trams, etc. Just as the government currently controls where roads can and cannot be built, and which roads are built when, so the government needs to control where public transportation lines are built and when.

 

:)

[Sweetpeach]

I am against an increase in domestic drilling -- oil & gas companies are all about the bottom line -- $$$. They care very little about run-off, ponds of sludge, wild-life habitat, people -- it's all about $$.

 

If, IF IF, big O & G corporations found a way to balance their bottom line with a sincere desire to work within the fragile environmental eco-systems, than maybe I could support that.

 

As the industry currently operates -- no.

[Tammyla]

:iagree:I have to agree here, it's a band-aid approach. :iagree:

 

 

I'm against it ~ no surprise there.;) It's on par with the band-aid approach to traffic congestion ~ simply adding more lanes.

[Colleen]

Actually, oil prices in and of themselves aren't my main concern.

 

It's not my main concern, either. My main concern, in addition to environmental factors, is exploring and expanding "alternative" energy sources such that we aren't hyper-focused on one, limited resource.

[Colleen]

Here in Georgia, we can make cellulosic ethanol from tree parts (the leftover bits when pine trees are used for lumber). That's just *one* thing we can make fuel from.

 

I cannot bear to hear one more time that making ethanol from "food" is killing people in India. It is simply not true.

 

Good points; I'll have to check in to your other thread later today when I have more time. One of my concerns is that the vast majority of corn and soybeans (for example) grown for biofuel production is GMO. Relying on GMO, Roundup Ready corn as an environmentally "sound" means to fuel my vehicle just...doesn't make sense, kwim?

[Colleen]

First, why do you think more public transit will bring down the cost of gasoline?

 

Where did I say that? I support public transit for a variety reasons, but I didn't specifically say I consider it a leading means of lowering the cost of gasoline. For the most part, I've not addressed the cost of gasoline here because ~ as I just replied (in agreement) to EKS, below ~ price isn't my primary personal concern.

 

Second, all govt spending is third party spending....

 

Right. As an economist, I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware of Friedman (*wink*), but I disagree that all government (third-party) is inherently wasteful, as you previously stated.

 

Gotta run...hope to get back to this later!

[Mamagistra]

One of my concerns is that the vast majority of corn and soybeans (for example) grown for biofuel production is GMO. Relying on GMO, Roundup Ready corn as an environmentally "sound" means to fuel my vehicle just...doesn't make sense, kwim?

 

AMEN, sista!! :iagree::iagree:

[cornopean]

Are you in favor of privatizing the road construction and maintenance?

Yes, I do. There are various ways of doing this. Prof. Becker wrote a very interesting blog post on this.

 

The advantages are obvious. you can control costs, fire the company that wins the bid if they mess it up, etc.

[cornopean]

I cannot bear to hear one more time that making ethanol from "food" is killing people in India. It is simply not true. Please check your source. While ethanol from corn is not very efficient, but it isn't driving the price of our food up. In fact, we are growing more corn than ever before (even when you adjust the amount that goes toward ethanol.)

 

Here is how I understand it. Govt mandates that ethanol be added to gasoline. demand for corn goes up, farmers plant more corn, which means they plant less of the other grains, which means the supply of other grains goes down, which means their price goes up. pork and beef and other meats go up in price b/c they eat corn. that all seems pretty logical to me. where do I err?

[cin]

One other thing that I don't think has been addressed here is the overall effect on the economy. Even if we do more with public transportation adn such, we still have to deal with increase oil prices and it's effect on the OVERALL economy. The increase in the fuel cost will eventually cause most everything else to go up too. These things have to be transported, either truck, rail, or ship. And in order to cover the increase in fuel prices, those prices will go up too. So essentially, the Middle East has the power to destroy our economy if our dependance on their oil is NOT broken.

[sdWTMer]

I am for restricting the production of SUVs in particular and for adding a tax on trucks that are non-work vehicles.

 

I disagree on the restriction of SUV's. I think that people should buy what they want to buy. I must say that our suburban is used for camping, we have that thing packed. We use it to help move ourselves and others. I don't know what we'd have done the last couple of times we've moved without it.

 

What about people who need bigger cars to store wheelchairs, are you saying that they will need some kind of an exemption or something? I don't think so, IMHO!

:auto: Plus, the funner cars are usually gas guzzlers! ;)

 

It surprises me how we are soooo okay with giving up freedoms these days.

 

As for the other things you stated. I agree. I'm for nuclear as well. I voted yes for more drilling. Why not?

[Retired]

I live of the Alabama coast where oil rigs are seen. I then go off the Florida coast which does not allow them. They are ugly and have the potential to leak. I just know in America we are spoiled andwill not change our habits I love to get in the car and go. So we depend onthe Middle Eastthat really don't like us. So we are basically a economic slave to them. I say we need to drill. I tried a 10%ethanol/gas mix and my 05 jeep ran terrible. I just don't think its the best way to go. I would prefer america start growing its own food, no just corn fields.

[Mrs Mungo]

Here is how I understand it. Govt mandates that ethanol be added to gasoline. demand for corn goes up, farmers plant more corn, which means they plant less of the other grains, which means the supply of other grains goes down, which means their price goes up. pork and beef and other meats go up in price b/c they eat corn. that all seems pretty logical to me. where do I err?

 

Where you err is what I said way back in the thread. We're still paying farmers *not* to grow rice and corn so that grain prices remain higher than they would otherwise be. Stop those programs, encourage farming instead of not farming and those prices will drop.

 

I do agree with Cin that part of the problem is the general economy. Prices have risen not just because OPEC controls oil prices but partly because of the weak dollar. When the dollar is weak everything will go up in price.

 

I agree with sdWTMer that cars other than SUVs have poor gas mileage.

 

Drilling is delaying the inevitable. We need to find other ways of weaning ourselves from foreign oil.

[Teddi]

:iagree: And what of those with larger (by number or body size) families? We tried to do the two-week vacation thing in a mini van and it was miserable.

 

I disagree on the restriction of SUV's. I think that people should buy what they want to buy.

 

What about people who need bigger cars to store wheelchairs, are you saying that they will need some kind of an exemption or something? I don't think so, IMHO!

 

 

I'm with you here, too. I don't understand why limiting consumer choice/freedom is such a popular answer to our energy problems.

It surprises me how we are soooo okay with giving up freedoms these days.

[cornopean]

I live of the Alabama coast where oil rigs are seen. I then go off the Florida coast which does not allow them. They are ugly and have the potential to leak.

Robert Samuelson recently wrote a column in which he writes:

 

 

On environmental grounds, the alternatives to more drilling are usually worse. Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food prices and used scarce water, with few benefits. If oil is imported, it's vulnerable to tanker spills. By contrast, local production is probably safer. There were 4,000 platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit. Despite extensive damage,

there were no major spills,

says Robbie Diamond of Securing America's Future Energy, an advocacy group.

 

[Margaret in GA]

" Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food prices and used scarce water, with few benefits."

 

 

I have to disagree with you on this. There are three reasons for the rising cost of food:

 

1. people in third world countries are now eating twice rather than once a day

 

2. the rising price of fuel for transporting our food.

 

3. Speculation in the marketplace. Investors are looking for a sure win and food commodities is where its at.

 

read more of the details here:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0506fuelmay06,0,481881.story

Margaret

[cornopean]

Where you err is what I said way back in the thread. We're still paying farmers *not* to grow rice and corn so that grain prices remain higher than they would otherwise be. Stop those programs, encourage farming instead of not farming and those prices will drop.

 

so can we agree that the best approach here is for the govt to take a completely laissez faire approach to all this? I would wholeheartedly support the govt not subsidizing anything. I am also for the govt eliminating all its tariffs.

[cornopean]

"Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food prices and used scarce water, with few benefits."

I have to disagree with you on this. There are three reasons for the rising cost of food:

 

1. people in third world countries are now eating twice rather than once a day

 

2. the rising price of fuel for transporting our food.

 

3. Speculation in the marketplace. Investors are looking for a sure win and food commodities is where its at.

 

Margaret

Ok...I do disagree. I believe this food crisis is almost entirely a govt engineered crisis.

 

Here is Prof. Becker. He writes:

Rather, the boom in petroleum prices and subsidies to ethanol and other biofuels are the most important forces explaining the recent increase in food prices. Both the sharp run up in oil prices, and the continuing subsides to ethanol production in the United States, and to a lesser extent Europe,

induced an increasing diversion of corn from feed and human consumption to the production of biofuels.

The main goal of the diversion has been to produce more ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. During the past year, one quarter of American corn production, and 11 percent of global production, was devoted to biofuels, and the US contributes a lot to the world corn market. The growth in demand for biofuels explains why acreage was shifted from other grains to corn-the acreage devoted to corn in the United States increased by over twenty percent in 2007-8, while that devoted to soybean production declined by more than fifteen percent. The reallocation of production away from other grains explains the rapid price increases for wheat, soybeans, and rice as well as for corn.

As for the reasons you list, the first one is undoubtedly a factor but a very insignificant one. I agree with #2. I really doubt #3. You are going to need to explain and establish that one a bit more.:bigear:

[Mrs Mungo]

so can we agree that the best approach here is for the govt to take a completely laissez faire approach to all this? I would wholeheartedly support the govt not subsidizing anything. I am also for the govt eliminating all its tariffs.

 

No, I disagree with subsidies that are causing food shortages.

 

However, I would be in favor of government subsidizing research of alternative energies. I'm also in favor of government coming up with zero emission laws as California did and slowly build up on those. eta: I'm not against big government, I'm just against poor logic.

[Mamagistra]

And I really wish our city had a train to Memphis.

 

A Houston-to-Galveston line would please me (and countless others) to no end. :001_smile:

[summer]

AGAINST!!!!

 

They want to do gas drilling right next to my house! And I do not even live in a rural area, I live in a suburb of a major metropolitan area (Dallas, TX area)

[summer]

I voted against. I would not so much have a problem with it if they were picking barren far out areas away from people, but they are not. They are drilling all over the metroplex here and there are now stories of cancers and lung problems coming out of it. They are not exactly the safest either. People have died in residential areas from those exploding. It just has to hit one pocket and it can be deadly. And the fumes and such are deadly. The increased traffic from the diesel trucks, it goes on and on and on.

 

http://www.stopthedrilling.blogspot.com/

[Colleen]

It surprises me how we are soooo okay with giving up freedoms these days.

 

And it surprises me you'd think that's the case. I'd be grateful if more people in our society were willing to consider the common good above individual freedom. (But you and I my very well disagree as to what constitutes the common good.;))

[cornopean]

No, I disagree with subsidies that are causing food shortages.

 

However, I would be in favor of government subsidizing research of alternative energies. I'm also in favor of government coming up with zero emission laws as California did and slowly build up on those. eta: I'm not against big government, I'm just against poor logic.

well at least we are clear on where we agree and disagree.

 

Disagree:

I think that govt governs best that governs least. I think that was the vision of our founders.

 

Agree:

We are both against poor logic.

:iagree:

 

 

In defense of my position on govt, what do you think of this Index?

[cornopean]

 

And it surprises me you'd think that's the case. I'd be grateful if more people in our society were willing to consider the common good above individual freedom. (But you and I my very well disagree as to what constitutes the common good.;))

I would be willing to argue that any society that bases itself on the common good will fail.

Those societies that base themselves on individual rights will prosper.

I think history bears that out.

 

at any rate, giving up our rights to SUVs and gas hog vehicles is hardly going to do anything for the common good.

[Mrs Mungo]

In defense of my position on govt, what do you think of this Index?

 

I'm not inclined to accept statistics from such a biased source, sorry. In fact, I'm against *any* private think tank that influences policy to such a large degree, that includes left-wing organizations like the Center for American Progress as well.

[cornopean]

I'm not inclined to accept statistics from such a biased source, sorry. In fact, I'm against *any* private think tank that influences policy to such a large degree, that includes left-wing organizations like the Center for American Progress as well.

First, is it your position that their bias precludes them from telling the truth?

Second, what is an unbiased source? Is there such a thing?

[Colleen]

I would be willing to argue that any society that bases itself on the common good will fail. Those societies that base themselves on individual rights will prosper. I think history bears that out.

 

A prosperous society, of course, gives weight to both individual rights and the common good.

 

at any rate, giving up our rights to SUVs and gas hog vehicles is hardly going to do anything for the common good.

 

I wasn't speaking to giving up our rights to SUVs, etc. I was addressing in general SDWTMer's assertion that we're giving up our freedoms all too easily. As it happens, though, I do believe giving up our rights to gas hogs would benefit the common good. Just have to figure out how to haul my family without the gas hog to further that goal:D

[cornopean]

 

A prosperous society, of course, gives weight to both individual rights and the common good.

what do you think of this quote (esp. the boldfaced part)?

 

 

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy

in

poverty, but leading or driving them

out

of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that

the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? -- On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent.

 

 

 

[sdWTMer]

A prosperous society, of course, gives weight to both individual rights and the common good.

 

What example can you give me for the above statement?

 

The common good is individual rights, that is what made America so great.

 

I hear that the common good says that we should have our kiddos in public school; it's good to give the federal government our money when our kiddos are there. How can one choose an individual right (homeschooling) in one case and not in the other? I just don't get it. But that's just me. ;)

[cornopean]

What example can you give me for the above statement?

 

The common good is individual rights, that is what made America so great.

 

I hear that the common good says that we should have our kiddos in public school; it's good to give the federal government our money when our kiddos are there. How can one choose an individual right (homeschooling) in one case and not in the other? I just don't get it. But that's just me. ;)

and me. :iagree:

[hsmom]

Now I did not read the 10 pages of posts.

 

I am for it 100%, but you also have to understand I am coming from the stand point that this is our lively hood. We are a family that is a bunch of "rig heathens". Dh works in the oil and gas fields, so I see how this effects stuff first hand.

 

As for us, our family would not survive where we live without the benefits of the drill industry. So, the more holes that are punched in the ground mean job security for us.

Now I know this is not the opinion of all, but it is mine and my reasons behind my answer.