Libertarianism, split from America is now in fascism's legal phase

[thalassa]

I'm curious how much power people are generating via solar in the state. For example, I was recently quoted 30x 360-watt panels for my roof. I ask him if he had any others in the area that had used these panels and could comment on how much they actually generate in a year but he could not. So I'm reaching out to see if anyone can comment on yearly averages of how much they actually generate. If you don't mind letting me know how much you generate and the size of your system, I'd really appreciate it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm curious how much power people are generating via solar in the state. For example, I was recently quoted 30x 360-watt panels for my roof. I ask him if he had any others in the area that had used these panels and could comment on how much they actually generate in a year but he could not. So I'm reaching out to see if anyone can comment on yearly averages of how much they actually generate. If you don't mind letting me know how much you generate and the size of your system, I'd really appreciate it.

You're looking for the wrong information here--you might not get the same power from those panels as someone else. It's a lot more complex than that.

1) The angle at which the panels are mounted matters. This is generally your roof pitch as it looks a lot better and the engineering is simpler (and thus the costs lower) if the panels are flush with your roof. Maximum overall efficiency is attained when the angle of your panels matches your latitude. For off-grid applications you might do better with a higher angle, trading lower summer power for higher winter power.

2) The orientation of your roof. We have looked into solar here, we have little useful southern exposure, panels would have to be either east-facing or west-facing. West-facing is normally the better choice, but I'm aware of two nearby houses with east-facing panels, I do not know why. I am suspicious this was salesmen trying to do something that looked good rather than worked the best.

(Note that at large scale sun trackers are generally used to keep the panels pointed ideally, but that is normally not done at residential scale.)

3) Your local weather. You can look up the average sun hours for where you live. This gives a reasonable comparison between cities. (Somebody with twice the sun hours should expect twice the power from the same panels in the same setup.)

4) Note that the inverters always have a minimum power. Until enough light is hitting the panels you get zero power from them. This minimum scales at the size of the inverter and is unrelated to the panels themselves. A few east-facing panels on an otherwise west-facing setup will generate substantially less power than one would expect because of this. (This can be overcome by using separate inverters for separate facings, but that increases the system cost.)

Beware that salesmen will like to sell as much as they can, whether that's ideal for you or not. They're also bad about discussing the actual effect of the utility paying less for power than you pay them for power. (This varies widely--in a fair system they would pay you no more than wholesale, but generally it ends up being either retail or somewhere between retail and wholesale.) The guys I talked to were either unable or unwilling to discuss this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

• Fiscal Conservative - Someone who wants you to pay taxes instead of him.
• Libertarian - A fiscal conservative who likes to smoke dope.

Disagree--the fiscal conservative wants low taxes and a small government. Note that we have no substantial fiscal conservative groups at this point.

And the libertarian isn't specifically about dope, but rather avoiding the social crap the right wing favors.

I've never smoked dope and never will. I think it should be legal, though--it's nowhere near as dangerous as tobacco so there's no risk-based argument against it, and I think the laws against it do far more harm than it does.

 

[Worldtraveller]

• Fiscal Conservative - Someone who wants you to pay taxes instead of him.
• Libertarian - A fiscal conservative who likes to smoke dope.

Disagree--the fiscal conservative wants low taxes and a small government. Note that we have no substantial fiscal conservative groups at this point.

And the libertarian isn't specifically about dope, but rather avoiding the social crap the right wing favors.

I've never smoked dope and never will. I think it should be legal, though--it's nowhere near as dangerous as tobacco so there's no risk-based argument against it, and I think the laws against it do far more harm than it does.

You even miss the point when posts are mostly sarcasm and humor.

Well done. You're really showing us hust how smart libertarians really are!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is the best part of Libertarianism... the importance of a right varies from time to time, and usually when most needed to make a point in an argument.

You believe you can simply make up what Libertarianism is.

Ain't me that is doing that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

• Fiscal Conservative - Someone who wants you to pay taxes instead of him.
• Libertarian - A fiscal conservative who likes to smoke dope.

Disagree--the fiscal conservative wants low taxes and a small government. Note that we have no substantial fiscal conservative groups at this point.

Yeah, a fiscal conservative is like Sasquatch, as it has never actually been observed.

And the libertarian isn't specifically about dope, but rather avoiding the social crap the right wing favors.

Well, there are socially liberal libertarians (the government should allow all people to have liberty) and not so socially liberal libertarians (the government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with my discrimination of others). Kind of like how the Bible was used to support and argue against slavery.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is the best part of Libertarianism... the importance of a right varies from time to time, and usually when most needed to make a point in an argument.

You believe you can simply make up what Libertarianism is.

Of course he can. You do, so why not him?

That's not the definition I use. The problem is the actual definition doesn't agree with YOUR definition, so of course the actual definition is "made up" and your definition is "autoritative".

Libertarian - A fiscal conservative who likes to smoke dope.

That's a perfect example of people making up definitions in spite of what the actual definition is.

Why not "a liberal who likes guns"? It is just as accurate, but it doesn't fit your agenda. But since I use the actual traditional definition, and it doesn't match your definition, that makes the actual one wrong.

This is the best part of Libertarianism... the importance of a right varies from time to time, and usually when most needed to make a point in an argument.

You believe you can simply make up what Libertarianism is.

Ain't me that is doing that.

Yes you are.

 

[Swammerdami]

That's a perfect example of people making up definitions in spite of what the actual definition is.

"THE actual definition IS." This is a perfect example of over-certainty, and over-reliance on an authority. And who is our authority here? Merriam-Webster? I'll let you poll the dictionaries; I see no reason to waste a click.

I called myself a "libertarian" back in the 20th century but do not anymore. Why not? The word no longer means what it used to. I'll demonstrate this with a specific example: The Clean Air Act of 1990. This law developed a "Cap and Trade" program which created a free market for trading rights to pollute! The program does limit pollution, but at the same time uses free market forces with the goal that what pollution does occur, occurs where it makes most economic sense.

@Jason - You're a Libertarian? (Do you prefer the capital L, or lower-case?) What do you think of Cap'n'Trade?

I'm sure such a system has flaws, but at least it was able to pass Congress! Many of the Ds and the Rs are in the pockets of Big Sulfur; how were they even able to pass such a law? It was passed via a coalition of Greens and Libertarians. Those in the latter group were fans of Adam Smith et al, and saw the beauty of a free-market solution to "external costs."

But those were 20th-century libertarians. Today's libertarians have swung 180 degrees on such issues. Those articulate to even give a reason say "Teh gummint is teh Evull. Jes keep its hands off'n our regulators."

I "debated" Libertarians at The Other Message Board. The above quote is a paraphrase of the response from one who was pretty sure he was the greatest genius since Richard Feynman. If we had a Joke Forum I'd recall the views of some of the stupider Libertarians there.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's a perfect example of people making up definitions in spite of what the actual definition is.

"THE actual definition IS."

If you look, you will eventually find that words mean things.

Those articulate to even give a reason say "Teh gummint is teh Evull. Jes keep its hands off'n our regulators."

There you go again, making shit up to fit your narrative on what those evil liberartarians believe.

 

[Swammerdami]

@Jason - You're a Libertarian? (Do you prefer the capital L, or lower-case?) What do you think of Cap'n'Trade?

If you look, you will eventually find that words mean things.
...
There you go again, making shit up to fit your narrative on what those evil liberartarians believe.
...
The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.

I'm not making shit up. The remark I paraphrased was one of the SMARTER things said by the self-professed libertarians on that board.

For someone seeming to be eager to help us understand "liberartarians" (whether evil or not), it's odd you couldn't answer a simple question. I've reddened it and increased the font in case you couldn't see it before.

 

[Swammerdami]

@Jason - You're a Libertarian? (Do you prefer the capital L, or lower-case?) What do you think of Cap'n'Trade?

If you look, you will eventually find that words mean things.
...
There you go again, making shit up to fit your narrative on what those evil liberartarians believe.

If it makes you feel better, I regard most libertarians as too stupid to be "evil." But you do you, and keep your tunnel vision.

...
The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.

I'm not making shit up. The remark I paraphrased was one of the SMARTER things said by the self-professed libertarians on that board.

For someone seeming to be eager to help us understand "liberartarians" (whether evil or not), it's odd you couldn't answer a simple question. I've reddened it and increased the font in case you couldn't see it before.

Mister Harvestdancer doesn't seem eager to answer questions narrowing the definition of "libertarian" so I'll report some of the views from the other message board.

I labeled some of these people "hyperlibertarian" but in the absence of Jason's permission I'll just follow their self-label "libertarian."

One was a disciple of Murray Rothbard. (Though born in the Bronx, he was a leader of the "Austrian school.") In Rothbard's view police should have the Freedom to torture suspects. If the suspect withstands the torture without confessing and isn't convicted then he has the Freedom to sue the police for torturing an innocent. IIRC Rothbard gives parents total control over their non-adult children, including right to murder.

The Rothbard disciple wasn't quite sure whether police should be allowed to torture, or that there would be no need for police at all! The one thing he was sure of is that police, if any, should be private profit-making enterprises. Food inspections, courts of law, etc. were also private profit-making enterprises in his utopia. Before entering a restaurant, a customer would read up on which food inspection agency, if any, the restaurant used, and which private court would handle subsequent litigation. You'd Google on your smart-phone to see what your insurer thought about these agencies; though of course the restaurant would have the Freedom to operate a local DNS to reroute your Googlings. Ain't Freedom wonderful!

I used smallpox eradication and flood control in a large plain as examples where government proves helpful. One said he should have the Freedom to decide whether his kids got vaccinated for smallpox (but HE was going to vaccinate HIS kids). Smallpox eradication seemed like tragic Naziist over-reach to him.

My question about flood control drew several hilarious responses. Perhaps the funniest of all came from a libertarian who didn't see floods as a threat to farmers: the farmers simply needed to place bets on rainfall at the Chicago Board of Trade. With careful design of hedging bets, floods should become a don't-care for the farmer.

Rothbard and Friedman are two famous "libertarians," but I think they hated each other' guts. Friedman originated the whole "QE" concept (a form of money creation via printing presses) which many "libertarians" denounce as Bolshevist or "Let's Go Brandon" or whatever their latest gibberish meme is. If you Google present-day American politicians who self-identify as "libertarian," you'll mostly find dope smokers ... or people for whom dope smoking would be an improvement.

So how about it, Jason? Which of these libertarians fit in with your views? I can't guess. Jason won't even answer the very simple question above. I've increased the font size and changed the color from red to blue. Will that help?

 

[Swammerdami]

If you look, you will eventually find that words mean things

I think I've shown that "libertarian" is an exception to this rule.

Many libertarians abhor government fiat money — instead gold, silver, bitcoin, beanie babies, ... ANYTHING is better than government-imposed paper money. Yet the very first Google hit on "libertarian economist" is Milton Friedman, the major inspiration for present-day central bank policies, and perhaps the very inventor of "quantitative easing"!

In my list of differing ilks of "libertarian" encountered at the other message board, I forgot one offering: According to one guy, a Libertarian is somehow who wholeheartedly embraces government regulations which are GOOD, but staunchly opposes government regulations which are BAD.

I suppose this political philosophy is one we might ALL be happy to endorse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you look, you will eventually find that words mean things

I think I've shown that "libertarian" is an exception to this rule.

Many libertarians abhor government fiat money — instead gold, silver, bitcoin, beanie babies, ... ANYTHING is better than government-imposed paper money. Yet the very first Google hit on "libertarian economist" is Milton Friedman, the major inspiration for present-day central bank policies, and perhaps the very inventor of "quantitative easing"!

In my list of differing ilks of "libertarian" encountered at the other message board, I forgot one offering: According to one guy, a Libertarian is somehow who wholeheartedly embraces government regulations which are GOOD, but staunchly opposes government regulations which are BAD.

I suppose this political philosophy is one we might ALL be happy to endorse.

There seem to be two separate branches of the libertarian position.

There are the hardline types who want an absolute minimum of government. Their positions are generally unworkable.

Then there are those of us who are far more moderate--for example, I favor cap & trade. I would prefer to replace it with a pollution tax but that isn't tax neutral (I would reduce corporate taxes to keep it tax neutral) but it's better than trying to come up with acceptable pollution limits. As much as possible make the financial situation favor the good behavior rather than trying to prohibit bad behavior.

If you regulate pollution there is no incentive to improve pollution control technology. If you make pollution cost there's a lot of incentive to develop better technology. And it avoids the problem of regulators going too far or not far enough.

 

[Swammerdami]

I favor Cap & Trade, and in the 20th century I called myself a "libertarian." But that label has warped its meaning. Can you name a 21st-century "libertarian" politician who supports Cap & Trade? For that matter, just show one who even understands the question.

And I also agree that a tax would be better than the Cap. But I think that such a tax was and is politically infeasible.

I think "tax neutrality" is a bugaboo that impedes policy optimization and thought. (For starters, are you suggesting that all tax changes should leave the gross federal deficit unchanged? Or that that deficit should be zero?) That debate would take more than a few paragraphs ... But ...

... this whole discussion of libertarianism is off-topic in this thread. Maybe one of the Mods will have the kindness to separate this into two threads!


Done

 

[funinspace]

I favor Cap & Trade, and in the 20th century I called myself a "libertarian." But that label has warped its meaning. Can you name a 21st-century "libertarian" politician who supports Cap & Trade? For that matter, just show one who even understands the question.

And I also agree that a tax would be better than the Cap. But I think that such a tax was and is politically infeasible.

I think "tax neutrality" is a bugaboo that impedes policy optimization and thought. (For starters, are you suggesting that all tax changes should leave the gross federal deficit unchanged? Or that that deficit should be zero?) That debate would take more than a few paragraphs ... But ...

... this whole discussion of libertarianism is off-topic in this thread. Maybe one of the Mods will have the kindness to separate this into two threads!

I would only use the term 'libertarian' with moderate in front of it. And even with that I would consider probably 70-80% of all Libertarians to be little beyond fruit cakes within their rigid ideology. I guess I could use the term 'fiscal conservative', but would that be any more informative? Either way, I don't often bother with the label anymore. Too many political terms are dogma more than a vague indicator of how one thinks about issues.

As far as politico's that might claim the term, I find it really weird for someone to claim the term, but not strongly support gay marriage, and also to not be against a huge military budget as well as an aggressive military posture. So on the Repug side, I am not aware of any DC figures that would even come close to what I would consider a 'libertarian' of any stripe.

I have been strongly in favor of a heavy petroleum and heavier coal tax for a long time now. With that I would I would dump CAFE standards as well as electric car subsidies. And like other pollution restrictions I would be more concerned about what comes out of the tail pipe, than what controls are under the hood. And I wouldn't cry into my milk about making sure it is tax neutral.

One of the things I find funky in most political debates/arguments is the notion that only one way is the right way on issue XYZ, and all others are terrible. While I might prefer solution A to an issue, I can certainly see that solutions B & C are also reasonable, while most of the Repug Y & Z solutions are closer to bat shit crazy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I favor Cap & Trade, and in the 20th century I called myself a "libertarian." But that label has warped its meaning. Can you name a 21st-century "libertarian" politician who supports Cap & Trade? For that matter, just show one who even understands the question.

And I also agree that a tax would be better than the Cap. But I think that such a tax was and is politically infeasible.

I think "tax neutrality" is a bugaboo that impedes policy optimization and thought. (For starters, are you suggesting that all tax changes should leave the gross federal deficit unchanged? Or that that deficit should be zero?) That debate would take more than a few paragraphs ... But ...

I'm removing a big objection to a pollution tax.

... this whole discussion of libertarianism is off-topic in this thread. Maybe one of the Mods will have the kindness to separate this into two threads!

Yeah. Lets see if I can figure out the splitter on this new software....

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Describing Libertarianism is complex, but one Libertarian I know of said this, "The age of majority is an issue that divides libertarians and we have not reached any sort of consensus on it."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you look, you will eventually find that words mean things

I think I've shown that "libertarian" is an exception to this rule.

Yes, you "think" you've shown something.

So, since you think that the only difference between Libertarians and Republicans is marijuana, you therefore think that the Republican Party supported gay right as early as 1971. You also think the Republican Party is pro-choice and anti-war.

Those are some interesting positions you hold.

 

[Swammerdami]

So, since you think that the only difference between Libertarians and Republicans is marijuana, you therefore think that the Republican Party supported gay right as early as 1971. You also think the Republican Party is pro-choice and anti-war.

Those are some interesting positions you hold.

... The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.

THAT's the conclusion you reached from my posts? Literally astounding. For your sake, I hope you skipped or skimmed all my posts. Otherwise the conclusion one draws about your cognitive power is very dismal.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If you look, you will eventually find that words mean things

I think I've shown that "libertarian" is an exception to this rule.

Yes, you "think" you've shown something.

So, since you think that the only difference between Libertarians and Republicans is marijuana, you therefore think that the Republican Party supported gay right as early as 1971. You also think the Republican Party is pro-choice and anti-war.

Those are some interesting positions you hold.

Ashli Babbit was not pro-choice or anti-war.