I hate it when someone opposes government subsidization of their competitors. Our benevolent overlords clearly know what's best for us, and if they want to pick and choose winners and losers in a market it is entirely their prerogative. I think any time someone opposes this we should make childish jokes about their names and intentionally misrepresent their views. That would be the most reasonable, logical response.
Lysander totally loved Spooning with goats and hated the idea of people being allowed to communicate with one another, amirite?
In all seriousness, if you really want to understand the situation I'll provide some better context. In Oklahoma, energy utilities are compelled by law to purchase back at a retail price any excess energy generated by solar power users on their grid, which is immediately transferred to their neighbors. However, the solar power energy is itself indirectly subsidized by government, and it's unreliable and can't be stored on the grid. This creates a situation where not only are the taxpayers indirectly (and sometimes directly) subsidizing solar energy themselves, but the energy utilities are compelled by law to directly subsidize their competitors by being forced to give up all profit from their service in situations where their competitor also provides the same service, while also put into a situation where it becomes difficult to maintain a safe margin for energy on the grid without wasting it. They want this surcharge in order to help combat this.
Since this is Gamespot I'll put it into console war terms for you. Let's assume Sony was subsidized in part by government benefits, and Microsoft was required by law to modify its XBOX to allow Playstation games to be played on it. Then if you get tired of your Playstation titles you can just trade them back in to Microsoft for the full retail price of a comparable XBOX title. Don't you imagine Microsoft might have a rightful complaint about this?
Most of your comments belie a complete lack of knowledge of this situation, instead preferring a knee-jerk parroting of the hyperbole you're told you're supposed to believe, often delivered in the form of penis jokes, without doing the adequate research yourself to understand what's going on.
Now, full disclosure, I personally oppose any such surcharge on solar power. I oppose all such surcharges as well as sin taxes on principal. I also oppose government subsidization of one company or industry over another competitor, but while this is ostensibly aimed at combating that subsidy I do not accept the argument that *yet more government* is the appropriate means of fixing problems inherent in *too much government.* I will grant exceptions to this non-solution in only a few situations, such as state recognition of gay marriages where I don't think it's the state's god damned business who is getting married and it's not the state's job to regulate or grant special privileges to marriages; but if the state insists upon doing this it should do so equally for those of all sexual orientation. In the case of this surcharge I don't think it is an overtly beneficial change, though, and it opens the door to a lot more future harm and loss of liberty.
Log in to comment