First Floating Wind Farm Starts Delivering Electricity

M

monkeymagick

[H]News
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
480
Off the coast of Scotland, there is a 15.5 mile wind farm built by Statoil, a Norwegian-based offshore drilling company that started delivering electricity to the Scottish power grid. Floating in water attached to three giant suction anchors, there are five turbines generating 6MW each, able to produce electricity to power 20,000 nearby homes at peak capacity. In comparison, the Statue of Liberty is 83m, each turbine stands 176m above water and goes another 78m deep into the ocean.

Hywind Scotland began producing power in September, and today it starts delivering electricity to the Scottish grid. Now, all that's left is for Statoil and its partner company Masdar to install a 1MWh lithium-ion battery, charmingly called "Batwind," on shore. Batwind will help the offshore system regulate power delivery and optimize output.
 
I predict an ecological disaster within 10 years. Those wind farms annihilate Birds and when they break ooze toxicity to the surrounding area.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
I predict an ecological disaster within 10 years. Those wind farms annihilate Birds and when they break ooze toxicity to the surrounding area.
Click to expand...
Yup "Our bird population has been decimated, we want to blame this oil pipeline that hasn't had anything happen in the past 10 years, because clearly there are no bird carcasses anywhere near the turbines!"

Problem will be tracking the damage done to populations of flying creatures...which may be part of the plan in building it over open water.
 
Last edited:
Makes me wonder if they couldn't also add water turbines to take advantage of the ocean currents as well.
 
Not sure I understand it, but how does it not sway? What if a major storm rolls through? Looks unstable, but I'm no engineer.
 
travisty said:
Trolling due to ignorance i think.

I am all for making it illegalize for cat owners to let their cats outside without being on a harness+leash in the US - domesticated cats are an invasive species.

As for the wind farms, this is very exciting. All coastal cities where wind is strong should look into this.
Click to expand...

I agree it is a "good thing" but I also respect that it adds something to the landscape that people are not used to or understand. If you spent your whole life looking at something one way and appreciated it and then somebody changed it..you might not take it so lightly. Also, offshore wind is about a 5x cost of energy compared to land based. In some cases it may be worth it..but mostly, for most countries, it is not.

I feel that the most popular will become wind/solar hybrid systems where they share the line connect power conversion stage. Thus when no wind + sun = energy or wind + no sun = energy. If both, take the one that cost you the least maintenance wise. If neither..well, that is typically very rare.
 
redmasc said:
Not sure I understand it, but how does it not sway? What if a major storm rolls through? Looks unstable, but I'm no engineer.
Click to expand...

Engineers figure these things out in advance. But there are also anchors which keep it stuck to the ocean floor and keep it from tipping. (Provided the tether line doesn't break)
 
redmasc said:
Not sure I understand it, but how does it not sway? What if a major storm rolls through? Looks unstable, but I'm no engineer.
Click to expand...

the linked article actually talks about how its all setup. they are built by an offshore oil company that has experience in building deep water oil platforms. kinda interesting
 
jcollett69 said:
Given that the linked study's data is from 2003, it is possible that wind turbine aviary deaths have increased with the increased deployment of wind turbines. However, it is doubtful that the numbers even approach the deaths caused by windows and feral cats.
Click to expand...

2 grains of sand vs 20 when you have a 50lb bag next to you isn't exactly a good reason to shift the argument..
 
serpretetsky said:
cool stuff. hope it works better than land wind mills.
Click to expand...

Off shore is a natural place as winds are common place close to shore. During the day the land heats up faster than the ocean. This causes wind to travel outward from land. During the evening the land cools faster than ocean. So by morning the ocean is generally warmer than land causing the winds to flow back inward.

As someone brought up (and it was a smart idea) tidal power to these things would only add to their output.

Hurricanes aren't prevalent that far north as there's a lack of a central low pressure area to make for a strong hurricane. However North Sea storms can be very strong just the same. All this is factored in by engineers during worst case failure scenario analysis. It's not perfect as Fukashima and Three Mile Island point out to us. But this isn't an ecological disaster either if they fail.
 
Trepidati0n said:
I agree it is a "good thing" but I also respect that it adds something to the landscape that people are not used to or understand. If you spent your whole life looking at something one way and appreciated it and then somebody changed it..you might not take it so lightly.
Click to expand...


Yeah... How dare we "destroy the landscape" with wind turbines or solar panels... Such an unhealthy eyesore!
DGZ1_iCXYAgogcb.jpg
 
20,000 homes at peak capacity? So 6,666 homes at average capacity. How much did these cost ($253 million)? How long will they last? All relevant questions.

Chunder said:
Yeah... How dare we "destroy the landscape" with wind turbines or solar panels... Such an unhealthy eyesore!
DGZ1_iCXYAgogcb.jpg
Click to expand...
I think you are mocking the nuclear power plant in the foreground, but you probably don't realize that you would need about 1,065 more of the 46 story tall turbine way in the distance to equal the output of the two nuclear reactors in the foreground. You would only need 18 more of those to power all of California - ~20% of the US population.

That's assuming that actually is a 46 story tall Enercon E126 - it may be something much smaller and less power efficient, which would require even more!

Here are a few ingenuous pictures of Germany screwing up their countryside with giant windmills: https://hardforum.com/threads/germa...ord-breaking-weekend.1933815/#post-1042998606

No thanks.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: c3k
like this
Zion Halcyon said:
I predict an ecological disaster within 10 years. Those wind farms annihilate Birds and when they break ooze toxicity to the surrounding area.
Click to expand...
Nah they're in the ocean, the wind turbines will just chum the oceans, and then our apex predator's population will grow, and things will be good in the oceans once again!
 
sleepeeg3 said:
20,000 homes at peak capacity? So 6,666 homes at average capacity. How much did these cost ($253 million)? How long will they last? All relevant questions.

I think you are mocking the nuclear power plant in the foreground, but you probably don't realize that you would need about 1,065 more of the 46 story tall turbine way in the distance to equal the output of the two nuclear reactors in the foreground. You would only need 18 more of those to power all of California - ~20% of the US population.

That's assuming that actually is a 46 story tall Enercon E126 - it may be something much smaller and less power efficient, which would require even more!

Here are a few ingenuous pictures of Germany screwing up their countryside with giant windmills: https://hardforum.com/threads/germa...ord-breaking-weekend.1933815/#post-1042998606

No thanks.
Click to expand...
screwing up their countryside? I guess if you're really picky about only wanting to see trees, a few windmills doesn't exactly destroy the view for me.

Of course could be like the Altamont pass where it's basically a freeway that connects the bay area with the central valley and there are something like over 5000 windmills along the mountains there, the mountains that have a green period when it's rainy and a brown period the other 300 days of the year, hardly destroying a picturesque landscape.
 
Yeah, I don't understand the argument that windmills look bad. I mean, i personally think they look kind of neat (like sfsuphysics mentioned, the windmills between bay area and central valley really fascinate me when I see them). But regardless if you think they look nice or not, it's a powerplant. It must be cost effective to build and maintain for the power that it produces and have some limitations on environmental impacts. How it looks? not relevant.

On that point if that is indeed a picture of a nuclear power plant I have no problems with all of those clouds pouring out since in that case they are just water vapor. Although I don't know if that is a nuclear power plant.

edit: it might be Kraftwerk-Weisweiler? Which is a coal plant. Still not sure, looks similar.
 
Last edited:
sleepeeg3 said:
20,000 homes at peak capacity? So 6,666 homes at average capacity. How much did these cost ($253 million)? How long will they last? All relevant questions.
Click to expand...
Most windfarms in EU are built due to tax breaks and subsidies and are often ineffective on land. Look at how often you see them spinning, let alone they are not torn down once they fail as it costs too much.
Pretty sure if not subsidised, they are often not even worth the cost considering the energy output! Crazy eh.


Epic| said:
Nuclear kicks ass.
Click to expand...
Sure does. Wherever those hot particles land they work wonders!

hot-particle-lung-tissue19972.jpg
 
I think this windfarm story may be linked to the story about a 75% reduction in insects. Those spinning blades are probably huge scythes meting out indiscriminate insect justice. Just sayin'...
 
jcollett69 said:
Given that the linked study's data is from 2003, it is possible that wind turbine aviary deaths have increased with the increased deployment of wind turbines. However, it is doubtful that the numbers even approach the deaths caused by windows and feral cats.
Click to expand...
I think you meant to say avian deaths, because aviary deaths due to wind turbines would be an entirely different context :D
 
sleepeeg3 said:
20,000 homes at peak capacity? So 6,666 homes at average capacity. How much did these cost ($253 million)? How long will they last? All relevant questions.
Click to expand...
Actually money is the least relevant question of all. In the long term all that matters how does it impact the environment, and how much actual resources does it take to run? If in its predicted lifetime has a smaller impact than alternative viable sources of energy for that area, then it is absolutely worth it.
 
I mean, installing a wind turbine inside your aviary does seem a little cruel.
 
M76 said:
Actually money is the least relevant question of all. In the long term all that matters how does it impact the environment, and how much actual resources does it take to run? If in its predicted lifetime has a smaller impact than alternative viable sources of energy for that area, then it is absolutely worth it.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, that is how you place a valuation on a product. Many leftists try to impose their valuations upon others. I'm not saying you're doing this...you're saying you're doing this.

Maybe those who have to pay the increased bills would disagree. Maybe those who are struggling, paycheck to paycheck, would disagree. Maybe a retiree, living on a fixed income which is eroding due to inflation (cue the central bank theme), gets hurt worse by the increased electrical bills.

If it is really worth it, would you donate your money to help defray the cost that others have to bear? Seriously: look up the address for the appropriate electrical authority and send them some cash. Make it "absolutely worth it".

Money is the MOST relevant question of all. In exchange for labor, money is earned. (I'm intentionally ignoring the cases where the State, using its powers of coercion, steals money from the earners and gives it to others.) That money is the same as labor. Why should someone work for your ends? They should have total control over where the fruits of their labor are allocated. That's the free market. If the free market does not support something, then that means that the individuals do NOT want to labor for that object. Forced labor for your goals is slavery. Many leftists claim they are anti-slavery while they assiduously work to enslave entire populations. (No, free market does not mean anarchy, so don't go there...)

Set up a monthly payment, and start underwriting your beliefs rather than imposing them on others. Put your labor behind your goals.
 
The problem with wind power is they really can't sell more than their expected average. So while they can have a cap of 20MW, your average cap might be 10MW or less.

Alternate power sources have to be available to make up for any shortage of demand. If company x promises 10MW and can only produce 9MW then they have to buy power from company supplier y and that can be very expensive. That is what broke Cali power one year.
 
c3k said:
With all due respect, that is how you place a valuation on a product. Many leftists try to impose their valuations upon others. I'm not saying you're doing this...you're saying you're doing this.
Click to expand...
Why is it that when people say "with all due respect" what they actually mean is "screw you"?
Money is how you put a monetary value on things. As in the bottom line. But there are other considerations as well. Monetary value is only concerned with one single thing, how much money, and that's it.

Maybe those who have to pay the increased bills would disagree. Maybe those who are struggling, paycheck to paycheck, would disagree. Maybe a retiree, living on a fixed income which is eroding due to inflation (cue the central bank theme), gets hurt worse by the increased electrical bills.
Click to expand...
Maybe mentioning other problems doesn't make environmental considerations go away.

If it is really worth it, would you donate your money to help defray the cost that others have to bear? Seriously: look up the address for the appropriate electrical authority and send them some cash. Make it "absolutely worth it".
Click to expand...
Is it worth it to rob a bank? Absolutely. Is it right to do it? no. The same principle applies here. Just because something is more profitable doesn't make it the right solution.

Money is the MOST relevant question of all.
Click to expand...
Money is an arbitrary metric we put on things, that has absolutely no connection to the actual resource capacity of the Earth. If all you consider yourself with is money then you're not just short sighted but selfish as well.

In exchange for labor, money is earned. (I'm intentionally ignoring the cases where the State, using its powers of coercion, steals money from the earners and gives it to others.)
Click to expand...
Ah so you're one of those guys who thinks taxes are stealing. And not the financing of institutions and services that are otherwise not profitable but necessary. It is another argument that how and where governments overstep or misuse tax money, questioning the mere existence of taxes however is an entirely different level of ignorance.

That money is the same as labor. Why should someone work for your ends?
Click to expand...
The environment is not my end. It is "our" end. As in the collective responsibility of all humans.

They should have total control over where the fruits of their labor are allocated.
Click to expand...
Yeah that should work out fine. Just look at how many fake shit people spend money on. Just because people don't want to spend on sg. that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. And vica versa. Hell most people can't operate simple kitchen appliances, and you want to put them in charge of how all of the earth's resources are used?

That's the free market. If the free market does not support something, then that means that the individuals do NOT want to labor for that object.
Click to expand...
Almost no-one labours because they want to. They do it because they're forced to. Otherwise they don't get to have a living. Wage slavery, or slavery the only difference is that the slavers don't even have to provide food and housing now.

Forced labor for your goals is slavery. Many leftists claim they are anti-slavery while they assiduously work to enslave entire populations.
Click to expand...
I actually want to free people from being wage slaves. And give everyone a living based on the fact that they're human and they exist. It's not the left who goes full berserk mode when someone mentions getting something for nothing. In reality everyone gets lots of things for nothing, but they take it for granted so easily that they don't even realize how they're benefiting from things that they never paid or worked for.
(No, free market does not mean anarchy, so don't go there...)
Click to expand...
And what does the free market mean to you? No government? No Taxes? Asserting "no it's not anarchy" is not an argument. It's a meaningless statement that conveys no information. And no free market is not anarchy. It's an utopia that only exists in the minds of a few misguided individuals. I've never seen anyone demonstrating how the free market would stay free. It's only free until the first two corporations decide to collude to form a monopoly, or as they used to call it "interest group" to force their will on other players of the market, and to keep new players from undercutting them.

Set up a monthly payment, and start underwriting your beliefs rather than imposing them on others. Put your labor behind your goals.
Click to expand...
I probably earn a fraction of the money compared to most people on this forum, because I live in a shoddy ex soviet block country run by idiots, but still I give to worthwhile charities from time to time. Meaning you're banging on open doors, and you should stop ferreting around in my pocket and look at how can you help. Oh sorry, You already declared you don't want to pay for things if it doesn't benefit you directly. What a great world this would be if everyone thought like that.
 
M76 said:
I probably earn a fraction of the money compared to most people on this forum, because I live in a shoddy ex soviet block country run by idiots, but still I give to worthwhile charities from time to time. Meaning you're banging on open doors, and you should stop ferreting around in my pocket and look at how can you help. Oh sorry, You already declared you don't want to pay for things if it doesn't benefit you directly. What a great world this would be if everyone thought like that.
Click to expand...

This one sentence shows how utterly you have misunderstood what I wrote.

Money earned IS labor. Until you understand that, you will forever be locked into a socialist dystopia. The market values my labor and, in return for that labor, I get money. I do not get more than I am valued and I do not work for less than I value my labor. Would I like more? Of course.

Now, I am not putting my hand in your pocket. Quite the contrary. Leftists are always trying to take someone else's money...and therefore their labor.

There are certain requirements for a functioning society. The US Constitution did a wonderful job of delineating those roles. ("Did", because it has been morphed by leftwing progressives, financed by central banks, over the last 100 years.)

If something does NOT benefit me directly, why should I be forced to pay for it? Or, are we about to enter the world of sophistry where cow farts are deemed an imminent threat to the globe? Does a well-ordered society benefit me directly or indirectly? I don't know how you define it, but I say that's direct. I'm happy to pay for that...within reason. You have already taken up the typical leftwing "if you say free market, I say anarchy" argument, despite my saying that's not the point. If I don't agree with your level of intrusive government, the only solution is nihilism??? Typical.

Let's take this to another level. Let's say a group of 100 live in a village. If 90 of them vote to take over the property of the 10, is that "fair"? What rights do those 10 have against the will of the majority? This is the basis of the inalienable rights clause to the preamble. If a group votes to put windmills offshore, is that "fair" to those who do not want to pay the increased rates? If the cost of supposed environmentally friendly solutions is higher, who determines if that is "worthwhile"? The majority? That's taking from the minority, just as assuredly as if they took their property. That is, after all, what money represents.

Liberalism depends upon slavery.
 
Last edited:
c3k said:
Maybe those who have to pay the increased bills would disagree. Maybe those who are struggling, paycheck to paycheck, would disagree. Maybe a retiree, living on a fixed income which is eroding due to inflation (cue the central bank theme), gets hurt worse by the increased electrical bills.
Click to expand...
I'm going to run with this statement, since I hear it on an absolute constant basis due to me living in San Francisco, and the out cry for affordable housing, and that there is a "housing crisis", amongst other things. My response is that there is no housing crisis in San Francisco, if someone wanted to live here, they could provided they could pay for it, which is the real crux of the problem, there's a crisis of people wanting to do things (e.g. living in an expensive city) but they can't so it's some other entities fault. Look I get it, going paycheck to paycheck, I'd like to see some statistics of those who are fiscally responsible while also doing that, the retiree on a fixed income, seriously what the hell does that even mean, my income is pretty fixed too, but regardless the end result is being old is expensive, I often view these people as like those who lose a house due to a fire they cry that they didn't want to pay for fire insurance earlier so someone else should take care of them (yeah that's my view of seeing social security as your retirement)

But the whole point of the original quote I think is there needs to be a level to which you need to say "uh no you're not fucking going to do that regardless of it being your only means", whether it's burning coal in your backyard to cook food, taking a shit on the sidewalk to save on your water bill, or living in RV on city streets instead of in an RV park. And yes the opposite is certainly true, there is a level of "dirtiness" that can be acceptable if the cost of not being "dirty" is cost prohibitive.... at least if the level of "dirt" is not causing catastrophic damage (which is another completely different topic, which I already know how it turns out on these message boards)
 
redmasc said:
Not sure I understand it, but how does it not sway? What if a major storm rolls through? Looks unstable, but I'm no engineer.
Click to expand...

Name ONE instance where nature was able to beat mankind's ingenuity.

Ok, better make it name a million times...then I will win.
 
I still wonder what the passive effects of absorbing this energy will be. The wind mills absorb the wind energy, but there is no way to calculate the weather pattern changes that it will cause. Like the butterfly flapping its wings in Scottland causes a rain storm in Africa type thing.
 
sfsuphysics said:
I'm going to run with this statement, since I hear it on an absolute constant basis due to me living in San Francisco, and the out cry for affordable housing, and that there is a "housing crisis", amongst other things. My response is that there is no housing crisis in San Francisco, if someone wanted to live here, they could provided they could pay for it, which is the real crux of the problem, there's a crisis of people wanting to do things (e.g. living in an expensive city) but they can't so it's some other entities fault. Look I get it, going paycheck to paycheck, I'd like to see some statistics of those who are fiscally responsible while also doing that,
Click to expand...


Have you ever tried to do the average family budget up with just over $50K/year. Its pretty dang hard to do time you add in health insurance, utilities, insurance, and house payments. And if you have a car payment, forget about it. Insurance will cost you about $1000/month+ under Obamacare. And you still have an obscene deductible.

One could argue electricity is almost a necessity these days. Especially if you have electric heat or suffer repertory problems (during the summer). So these people are especially susceptible to heat. How many elderly people have you heard dying from heat stroke every summer. The main reason being they don't want to pay for the Air Conditioning bills. Then there's stoves, ovens, hot water heaters, refrigeration?

While you might be altruistic and wish to select a renewable power source, not everyone has that option. And if we weren't so concerned about cost, we wouldn't receive flyers advertising "lowest cost electricity" coming to your power deregulated state.

To be honest with you, I'm not so much worried about the O-C-O. I'm worried more about Mercury, Lead, Sulphur and nasty carcinogens dumped into the air. Then there is the disposal of the sludge and ash which is full of nasty heavy metals and chemicals..


That said, wind power and solar are pretty unreliable as a steady power source, even with careful placement. (The exception being solar in the desert.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
c3k said:
This one sentence shows how utterly you have misunderstood what I wrote.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you didn't say you don't want your taxes spent on things that you don't benefit from? Then what is it that you said? Please explain.

Money earned IS labor. Until you understand that,
Click to expand...
I understand perfectly that that is the world view you have. I just happen to be thinking outside that box where everything is about the market and what the market wants.

you will forever be locked into a socialist dystopia.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by socialist? It's not a cuss word, you can't just throw it around and expect to win an argument all by throwing it out there. It's the same as when SJW's call you racist. Well free market proponents call you a socialist. But I don't know what is it that actually bothers you about what I've written.
The market values my labor and, in return for that labor, I get money. I do not get more than I am valued and I do not work for less than I value my labor. Would I like more? Of course.
Click to expand...
The market is self serving. It doesn't concern itself with the preservation of the environment and in turn the preservation of the human species. Whatever value the market puts on your labour is only representative on how much value your work has to the market. And the market is only an arbitrary set of rules people have invented. So it has no bearing on things that actually matter. Like long term ecological sustainability.
There are tons of highly valued jobs that do nothing to benefit humanity or to 't improve anything, hell they don't even have any meaningful product apart from generating income to those engaged in those occupations.

Now, I am not putting my hand in your pocket. Quite the contrary. Leftists are always trying to take someone else's money...and therefore their labor.
Click to expand...
You asked me to give money, what is that if not putting your hand in my pocket? I want to end labour for a living. I want people to labour for recognition on things that actually matter. We have the technological capacity to automate most jobs yet we can't do it, because people cry "We need our jobs" when in reality they don't need jobs, they just need food and shelter and the means to a living. It's the industrial revolution all over again. Only this time it is a technological revolution, that makes human labour obsolete. And that would be a good thing if only we could come to terms with it.

There are certain requirements for a functioning society. The US Constitution did a wonderful job of delineating those roles. ("Did", because it has been morphed by leftwing progressives, financed by central banks, over the last 100 years.)
Click to expand...
You can't keep using archaic rules of conduct indefinitely. The US constitution is hundreds of years old. And so it no longer applies to society as it is today. It's like trying to use the rules of the first olympics on the olympic games today. Now I'm not familiar with the current Us constitution. But I'd like to ask. What are the amendments to it that you think morphed it to not serve it's original purpose?

If something does NOT benefit me directly, why should I be forced to pay for it?
Click to expand...
Because like it or not, your quality of life is directly interconnected with the people around you. You can't have a better life until the people around you also have access to a decent quality of life. If you have a mansion and the rest has nothing they'll revolt and try to take away your mansion. The pattern is repeated trough history numerous times. Everything is related. And we have to look at long term solutions and not short term countermeasures. If crime increases increasing the size and power of the police force is not a solution, because crime will continue to rise. But this is part of another discussion.
But It's not just about personal wealth. Are you saying that people who don't suffer from cancer shouldn't pay for cancer research? Or people whose house was never on fire shouldn't pay the wages of firefighters? And the list could go on for hundreds of pages.
Or, are we about to enter the world of sophistry where cow farts are deemed an imminent threat to the globe? Does a well-ordered society benefit me directly or indirectly? I don't know how you define it, but I say that's direct. I'm happy to pay for that...within reason. You have already taken up the typical leftwing "if you say free market, I say anarchy" argument, despite my saying that's not the point. If I don't agree with your level of intrusive government, the only solution is nihilism??? Typical.
Click to expand...
Don't misdirect. I asked how do you define the free market. You don't seem to be doing that. I specifically said the free market is not anarchy did you even read my entire comment? I also explained why I don't think a free market is sustainable, but you don't address that either.

Let's take this to another level. Let's say a group of 100 live in a village. If 90 of them vote to take over the property of the 10, is that "fair"? What rights do those 10 have against the will of the majority? This is the basis of the inalienable rights clause to the preamble. If a group votes to put windmills offshore, is that "fair" to those who do not want to pay the increased rates? If the cost of supposed environmentally friendly solutions is higher, who determines if that is "worthwhile"? The majority? That's taking from the minority, just as assuredly as if they took their property. That is, after all, what money represents.
Click to expand...
No-one should vote about anything, because people have demonstrated over and over again that they're not well educated enough to have an informed vote on things. Especially not on how we generate electricity. The only things that matter in this case are scientific. Environmental impact, carbon footprint, viability and sustainability. All proposed solutions have these metrics, so the right solution can be selected without any person needing to make an arbitrary choice. Our problems are not political, they're engineering problems. And this is where I say I'm actually against overly intrusive government, the government shouldn't rule over the people it should be a service to provide regulation and infrastructure for the things that are necessary for a modern civilization. The government should be made up of engineers and scientists as the majority and not politicians who know nothing about how to actually solve the problems. And decisions should not be made arbitrary by politicians or by making dumb people vote. They should be arrived at based on the available facts.

Liberalism depends upon slavery.
Click to expand...
Well now it is liberalism, I thought it was socialism. The world is more complicated than "socialism = bad" and " free market = good" If you want to convince people of the free market start by explaining how the free market prevents monopolies and the barring the marketplace from new players. If it is a truly free market, then nothing prevents established players on the market from lowering their prices to bleed out small upstarts. That's why it seems to me that a free market is a fast lane to a Corporatocracy, where all aspects of life would eventually end up controlled by a few huge corporations. As they either buy up or eliminate all their competition. And when 99% of the market is controlled by one entity there is little chance to enter that market.
 
You tire me. Again, you say free market equal anarchy. I specifically said it does not. A well-regulated (meaning regulated in a "good" manner, not overly regulated) market provides the opportunity for every individual to make their own choices. The sum of each individual's choice is the free market. If I cannot choose, it is not a free market.

The US Constitution applies to the US federal level of government. (SFSUPhysics is free to live in San Fran...with its rules (um...they DO allow public defecation in San Fran, despite his writing the opposite. I see it there every day I'm in San Fran.). The federated system of the US allows individual localities to draft laws which apply to their unique situation. If you don't like it, move to another locality.

You state that people "...are not well educated enough to have an informed vote on things." That is classic liberalism. The elite (of which you count yourself a member) know better than the hoi polloi what is good for them. Therefore, for their own good, they must be led to the right path. That is modern liberalism. It frequently hides behind socialism. Remember those socialists who believed in their country? They were National Socialists. You may know them as the Nazis. They were doing the same thing: leading the uneducated to the right path. If some had to lose so the rest could benefit, well, that's just the price paid for a progress. Hence "progressivism" and how it is linked to liberalism and socialism and how all of them are faces of tyranny.

You FORCE the "ignorant" to rise above their station. They should be grateful, shouldn't they?

The free market robs the socialist of power. That's why, in all things, the socialist fights to control the market. Obamacare? Yeah.

Let's take this to the GD forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top