He then added, "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."
What's not leadership? What's not going to happen? We're not going to drive the vehicle that we choose? We can't eat what we want? We can't keep our homes at a comfortable temperature? What happens if we do? And the idea of "the world's energy?" This energy we produce -- FOR US...are we under some obligation to give that away?
"Of the People, By the People and For the People"
First things first, he is very clearly advocating the desire for our personal decisions to pass an international test. If they don't, then it's "not going to happen." But he can't actually be advocating government control of our choice of vehicles, or how much we eat, or how we manage our thermostats, can he? That would be absurd. Who would take such a position?
- Existing laws in Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and Pasadena, although largely unenforced, effectively prohibit most large SUVs on all residential streets.
- Lawmakers in Mississippi this year proposed legislation that would prohibit restaurants from serving anyone determined by the state to be obese.
- And your thermostat? Back to California...2008 proposed changes to efficiency standards require radio controlled thermostats that shall respond to commands from the state including changing the setpoint by any number of degrees or to a specific temperature setpoint. The thermostat shall not allow customer changes to thermostat settings during override periods.
These ideas are absurd on their face, and laugh in the face of liberty. It is disheartening that they are given traction by a presidential candidate.
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
-Louis D. Brandeis
