RSS Feed MenuYesterday I spoke at Princeton University on a panel with Ross Douthat, Daniel Larison and Virginia Postrel to address this very question. You can read a real-time summary of the discussion on Fausta’s Blog here and near-real-time blogger reaction to the event on the League of Ordinary Gentlemen site here.
Among the very best moments:
Virginia Postrel produced a small quilted hatbox on stage, then opened it to reveal… an ordinary incandescent light bulb. Surely (she said) all strains of conservatism could agree that it was wrong for government to outlaw this bulb?
As a Princeton undergraduate, Virginia had sat in the very room in which we were speaking and been taught by some of the inventors of the cap-and-trade idea. They argued then that government should get out of the business of prescribing solutions to problems – like banning light bulbs to fight global warming – and instead set general rules that enabled people to experiment with the best solutions.
A generation later all that wisdom had been forgotten – and by a Republican administration. It was George W. Bush who had signed the ban. Twelve Republican members of Congress voted in favor of it.
I could add as a footnote that I understood why they had done it. It was a characteristic Bush administration maneuver: fight to oppose any large action on climate change (carbon tax, cap-and-trade) but yield on a small symbolic act. Yielding was all the easier since almost all the relevant major industry groups quietly favored the ban. The incandescent bulb is a low-margin item, usually manufactured in China. Very nice to have government prod every factory, shop and home into converting to a more lucrative substitute!
Cynically, some might wonder were the tea parties against this Republican-signed act of government outreach?
On the other hand: It’s not too late to organize them now!
spikeytx86 // Oct 14, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Do you honestly believe that having 50 different Food Inspection authorities wouldn’t inhibit interstate commerce? You don’t think companies like Tyson wouldn’t be impeded having to deal with 50 different food safety laws and fifty different inspection authorities?
As for energy supply, how are states without any abundant source of resources supposed to guaranty a secure and regular supply of energy?
Is Rhode Island supposed to patrol the Persian gulf on it’s own to secure it’s own supply of oil?
What your talking about isn’t Conservatism, it’s Libertarianism.
The founders did not intend for the Government to remain static in perpetuity. They knew as time passed and things progressed it would be natural for the Federal Government to grow, not to any where near the behemoth we have today, but they knew the Government would inevitably need to do more then run the SCOTUS, maintain a Navy, and maintain roads.
By your logic, we should immediately decommission the Air Force, and the Army since the constitution does not authorize them. The only standing defense the constitution authorizes is a Navy.
spikeytx86 // Oct 14, 2009 at 3:17 pm
WillyP!
I don’t believe we as a people are different then the Founding Fathers.
But we do live in a different time. And different times call for different answers. And the Founders new this. They did not believe we would live in a static world with a static Government. That’s why they developed a constitution that would provide checks and balances against Government power as the Nation grew and inevitably the Government as well.
LauraNo // Oct 14, 2009 at 3:29 pm
When a person is reduced to arguing whether government should ban light bulbs, because people won’t change on their own and it’s for the greater good, it seems to be they have no principle left on which to stand. Any reasonable person would acknowledge the need for government to be involved in some aspects of society – for the greater good, and if you instinctively oppose every little thing you just look the fool. Why don’t conservatives care about conserving? Energy, in this instance? Because they care more for a slogan “keep government out of my life”? than for real life practical problems or their attendant solutions? Silliness.
WillyP // Oct 14, 2009 at 3:55 pm
The confusion mounts.
Conservatives aren’t against conserving energy. This is silliness on stilts. They reject the notion that they need some group of overseers to tell them to conserve resources, as if they’re too stupid to know/realize this on their own.
The battle here is between those who believe government is already the source of too many of our problems in all sorts of varied areas: healthcare, banking, automobile production, chemical regulation, insurance, etc., and those who, instead of repealing the bulk of the New Deal, would instead impose a “New Patch” to cure what ills us. I maintain it’ll never work, just as the New Deal did not work.
sinz54 // Oct 14, 2009 at 4:54 pm
WillyP:
There’s no point in arguing with with you about this,
because you don’t believe global warming is even occurring.
This is NOT about “conserving energy”!!!
It’s about restricting the production of greenhouse gases, as an insurance policy against the future.
I’ll say it again and again: There is NO FREE MARKET INCENTIVE to restrict the production of greenhouse gases, since the cost to the earth’s atmosphere is not required to be paid by anyone. Yet.
In the 1980s, we faced a similar issue with the production of halocarbon gases. Then, halocarbon gases were destroying the ozone layer in the earth’s atmosphere. Then, there was NO FREE MARKET INCENTIVE to restrict this–because NO ONE owned the ozone layer! It’s a trust held by all mankind. So government action was needed.
Even President Reagan understood this. He was skeptical at first, but when his science adviser said it was necessary, he signed legislation phasing out halocarbon gases.
But you probably didn’t believe the ozone layer was being destroyed either.
The mindset seems to be that how can we puny human beings possibly damage the earth’s atmosphere? You can mention the ozone layer and nuclear winter again and again and again, and it just falls on deaf ears.
Scientific illiteracy is going to be the death of nations in the 21st century.
WillyP // Oct 14, 2009 at 5:57 pm
sinz, that depends on who you ask (whether this is about energy conservation)
As for global CLIMATE CHANGE, I repeat, again:
Has the fact that over the last 10 years earth’s average temperature has decreased while emissions have risen substantially ever given you pause? Do you not see a severe disconnect between cause and effect here?
WillyP // Oct 14, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Nuclear may well be our downfall. Scientific illiteracy, certainly not. Never have more people been more educated in scientific matters than today.
However, what will not kill us, but very well may enslave us, is monetary theory. cf The Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises.
aftermath609 // Oct 15, 2009 at 7:31 pm
As an aside from the energy debate, my favorite thing that Ms. Postrel said at that panel discussion went something like this:
On why conservatives should oppose a ban on light bulbs: “And the Burkean conservatives will find some intrinsic value and wisdom in the golden yellow light that [an incandescent light bulb] produces”
Starship Mechanic // Oct 19, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Don’t you find it tiresome to define “conservatism” by what it opposes, rather than what it promotes?
Starship Mechanic // Oct 19, 2009 at 2:55 pm
WillyP writes: “Has the fact that over the last 10 years earth’s average temperature has decreased while emissions have risen substantially ever given you pause? Do you not see a severe disconnect between cause and effect here?”
_______________
Question: if the stock market tanks, do you think this refutes the notion of long-term equity growth?