End government since it is siphoning public money.

Fallacy; I even stated in the same post that I believe the state should regulate other aspects of society. Believe it or not it is possible to be against subsidies and support other programs. If you weren't lazy, illiterate, or (most likely) a combination thereof you would have reached this conclusion.

while we're at it, since we're going back to nature, let's stop wearing clothes and end government.

Same deal here, slippery slope fallacy. No platform may have a sensible balance of playing to human nature and offering some societal organization, every idea MUST be taken to the extreme, or, is wrong because it CAN be taken to the extreme.

^weak mind and poopy tongue fallacy.

but much what you're saying is either short-sighted, or sinfully selfish, I only mean this as a truth.

Do you know how many folk die each year from causes from lack of environmental regulation in America? About 400k from air pollution alone. Who knows how many more folk got sick or were born with birthdefects? That's a worse death toll than all those in wars killed by American strength and all Americans killed by murders.

As for natural selection, it's cruel, and I'd highly doubt that you'd follow through with it if it was you on the other end. Would you kill your child (assuming it was legal) if he was born with some kind of rare genetic defect?

I'm for eugeny and there are much better ways of doing it than condemning folk to death.

Your other points were in a like thought.

thats what the government wants you to think

I don't want the US to end up like Venezuela in ten or fifteen years. Millions starving is not a fun thing to mess around with.

Renewable energy is also heavily subsidized. Energy subsidies need to be abolished because they are siphoning public money. Without subsidies energy companies could compete and reach the most efficient solution instead of bringing in the government dollars are not having to innovate.

Well, what's most profitable for a company doesn't take into account how much damage it does to the environment. If a wind turbine can produce electricity at 10 energy units per money unit invested, but coal can produce 12, coal may be able to offer cheaper prices, but it may also cause 3 money units worth of environmental damage per energy unit produced. However, those who run the company won't feel that damage - it will be distributed across all of society, or the world.

It's a typical capitalist fallacy that what's most profitable, is the best for society.

And regarding renewable energy, many technologies aren't that inefficient anymore. Now USA isn't a huge interest to me as I don't live there, but in Denmark, analysis from the energy department shows that wind turbines on land are more efficient than other technologies, including coal, per energy unit produced.
http://www.ens.dk/info/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/ny-analyse-vind-billigst
Wind on land: A bit over 0.3 DKK/kWh
Wind on sea, coal and natural gas: ~0.6 DKK/kWh
By the way, Denmark has built up a large export sector of wind turbines and is among the leading countries in that area because of public subsidies going back to the 1980's, which the economy has benefitted from.

And non-renewable energies are also heavily subsidized in USA btw.

Edited 9/1/2016 05:52:50

Magic is the work of Queen Elizabeth II and her fellow Reptilians.

Guys, you are really missing the point.

Dirty commies...

Well, what's most profitable for a company doesn't take into account how much damage it does to the environment

Doesn't always take into account*

It's a typical capitalist fallacy that what's most profitable, is the best for society.

Usually is; sometimes it isn't, but that can be done in through non-state means.

And regarding renewable energy, many technologies aren't that inefficient anymore

This is pretty good; non-area specific resources are much better than area specific resources.

^


Ehrmawgad rmmbr chrnbyl11!!11!

Just because some sub-human commies blew up a reactor by being incompotent doesn't mean nuclear is bad.

Edited 9/1/2016 17:08:16

nuclear = renewable > fossil fuels

that simple

nuclear = renewable > fossil fuels

that simple

nuclear is worse than most renewable forms of strength. It's better than petrol, though.

Edited 9/1/2016 20:26:53