Yet another anti-free trade attack by degenerate statists: Flat-Screen TVs Must Use Less Energy: Calif.

Move over Hummer, there's a new energy-hogging villain in town—flat-screen TVs. California yesterday became the first state to mandate better energy efficiency for televisions, reports the San Jose Mercury News. All sets sold there must reduce consumption 30% by 2011 and 50% by 2013. The industry is outraged, but advocates point out that televisions and their assorted gadgets now make up 10% of the average electricity bill, a huge jump from the good old days of cathode ray tubes.

"Our concern was that with 35 million televisions in California, and 4 million new ones sold every year—the majority of which are flat-screens—electricity use is increasing," said a spokeswoman for the California Energy Commission. The standards should be finalized in November and are expected to make a big enough dent that the state would have to build one less major power plant.

http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_13369646?nclick_check=1

CovOps wrote:: Move over Hummer, there's a new energy-hogging villain in town—flat-screen TVs. California yesterday became the first state to mandate better energy efficiency for televisions, reports the San Jose Mercury News. All sets sold there must reduce consumption 30% by 2011 and 50% by 2013. The industry is outraged, but advocates point out that televisions and their assorted gadgets now make up 10% of the average electricity bill, a huge jump from the good old days of cathode ray tubes.

"Our concern was that with 35 million televisions in California, and 4 million new ones sold every year—the majority of which are flat-screens—electricity use is increasing," said a spokeswoman for the California Energy Commission. The standards should be finalized in November and are expected to make a big enough dent that the state would have to build one less major power plant.

http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_13369646?nclick_check=1

hmmm. this is a tough one.

they are all wrong in one way or the other.

the state shouldnt be implementing it

the companies should be making more efficient tv's.

not sure if it is really a trade issue however since all the telelvisions in california are probably made in another country.
so trade is not the problem. Just the quality of the goods being traded.
the extra power televisions use hampers the consumers finances through the powerbill, and the state which further has to attempt to pass on the expense to the complaining public.

the only person not effected, or who gains in unefficient televisions is the country exporting them to the united states. since they dont pay the added costs of operating them.

almost a consumer protection issue. similiar to the automobile development issues.

seems that many electrical appliances have been ul listed and required to meet certain standards over the decades in effect becoming more "energy efficient" which is not necessarily a bad thing and spur technological innovation, helps the consumer, and helps reduce energy expense and increase overall efficiency.

perhaps flat screen televisions, being failry new in concept just have not been forced to aspire to the same requirements as most other electric using products have. And since the popularity of them has increased they are now being scrutinized more. And not necessarily singled out but being forced to be as all other products manufactured and required to maintain some sort of efficiency standard.

hmmm.

do you think it is okay for china to sell toys with led paint to children in the united states?

some standards should be kept shouldnt they? If the free market and capitalism was one hundred percent efficient then the televisions would be made more efficient would the not?

they actually would. but only in a closed loop. the televisions being made leaving the county in export makes them part of a open loop or perhaps no loop at all. It cannot be efficient because those producing them absorb none of the costs of running them.

i couldnt get the link to work.

Anyone has a right to sell whatever they please. Outside interference by a third party, is anti-free trade, since it uses force to affect the outcomes, between voluntary buyers and sellers.

Cost of running an appliance is irrelevant. It's the responsibility of the purchaser and no one else.

Yes, China can sell toys with lead paint to children, since it's done on a voluntary basis.

You can't outlaw everything that's bad for us. If you don't want it, you don't buy it, that's it.

Freedom for all...

PS. I can't get the link either... maybe their site is down...

CovOps wrote:: Anyone has a right to sell whatever they please. Outside interference by a third party, is anti-free trade, since it uses force to affect the outcomes, between voluntary buyers and sellers.

Cost of running an appliance is irrelevant. It's the responsibility of the purchaser and no one else.

Yes, China can sell toys with lead paint to children, since it's done on a voluntary basis.

You can't outlaw everything that's bad for us. If you don't want it, you don't buy it, that's it.

Freedom for all...

PS. I can't get the link either... maybe their site is down...

but your assuming it is free trade. which it isn't.

did the consumer have a choice in getting televisions that used thirty percent less more power?
did the consumer have a choice on the increase in overall electricity supply and know in advance the increased costs, and future costs of electricity?
did the state know, in advance the increase in demand of flat screen televisions?
Did the consumers know the toys had lead paint? Did the manufacturers of the toys notify the consumers that the toys had lead paint and lead was harmful?
Did the manufacturers of the telelvisions notfiy the consumers of the costs associated with their operation, give them a choice in operating costs stating what costs could be over time, or tell the consumer they could make the same television thirty percent more efficient at the added costs of x?

see. i dont believe in absolute free trade. Because i dont believe it is really free and the traders can be equally knowledgable, and equally willing.

IF one party is not informed properly then it cant really be a willing trade. Or if one party isn't given opportunity at different items and is only offered similiar items. Then there isnt equal competition.

Quote :: but your assuming it is free trade. which it isn't.

did the consumer have a choice in getting televisions that used thirty percent less more power?
did the consumer have a choice on the increase in overall electricity supply and know in advance the increased costs, and future costs of electricity?
did the state know, in advance the increase in demand of flat screen televisions?
Did the consumers know the toys had lead paint? Did the manufacturers of the toys notify the consumers that the toys had lead paint and lead was harmful?
Did the manufacturers of the telelvisions notfiy the consumers of the costs associated with their operation, give them a choice in operating costs stating what costs could be over time, or tell the consumer they could make the same television thirty percent more efficient at the added costs of x?

see. i dont believe in absolute free trade. Because i dont believe it is really free and the traders can be equally knowledgable, and equally willing.

IF one party is not informed properly then it cant really be a willing trade. Or if one party isn't given opportunity at different items and is only offered similiar items. Then there isnt equal competition.

Basically, everything you just wrote is false.

It ought to be free trade, the fact that it isn't, is what's wrong with the marketplace and why we have booms and busts.

It's irrelevant if the consumer knew anything, let alone in advance You know, buyer beware and all that... The seller owes you nothing but what he is offering, take it or leave it, that's it.

Equal knowledge is an impossibility, so you have no right to demand the irrational.

You don't seem to understand what competition consists of, so no, similar items are in fact, part of the competitive marketplace. If you don't like the choices offered, you are free to go and build and manufacture your own.

Finally, if a trade has voluntarily taken place, then it's self evident that it was freely conducted, otherwise it would not have occured. ie. Free trade

CovOps wrote:

Quote :: but your assuming it is free trade. which it isn't.

did the consumer have a choice in getting televisions that used thirty percent less more power?
did the consumer have a choice on the increase in overall electricity supply and know in advance the increased costs, and future costs of electricity?
did the state know, in advance the increase in demand of flat screen televisions?
Did the consumers know the toys had lead paint? Did the manufacturers of the toys notify the consumers that the toys had lead paint and lead was harmful?
Did the manufacturers of the telelvisions notfiy the consumers of the costs associated with their operation, give them a choice in operating costs stating what costs could be over time, or tell the consumer they could make the same television thirty percent more efficient at the added costs of x?

see. i dont believe in absolute free trade. Because i dont believe it is really free and the traders can be equally knowledgable, and equally willing.

IF one party is not informed properly then it cant really be a willing trade. Or if one party isn't given opportunity at different items and is only offered similiar items. Then there isnt equal competition.

Basically, everything you just wrote is false.

It ought to be free trade, the fact that it isn't, is what's wrong with the marketplace and why we have booms and busts.

It's irrelevant if the consumer knew anything, let alone in advance You know, buyer beware and all that... The seller owes you nothing but what he is offering, take it or leave it, that's it.

Equal knowledge is an impossibility, so you have no right to demand the irrational.

You don't seem to understand what competition consists of, so no, similar items are in fact, part of the competitive marketplace. If you don't like the choices offered, you are free to go and build and manufacture your own.

Finally, if a trade has voluntarily taken place, then it's self evident that it was freely conducted, otherwise it would not have occured. ie. Free trade

so your saying that even if the seller misrepresents what he is selling. And the buyer has the wrong belief of what they are buying. it is still a willfull free trade?

In the early times of the united states. All kinds of fake contraptions, medicines, inventions that didnt work, were sold to unknowing individuals under unrealistic and inacccurate claims.

Many of these products were actually harmful.

Because of individuals being dishonest and misrepresenting products is why many of the statist laws originally came into being.

Not to defend the statist by any means.

But to rely on pure capitalism is to rely on basic human decency and honestly.
And individuals to represent products honestly.

Because of the nature of capitalism, or probably more so the nature of human beings. Greed interferes with any belief of the fair and free exchange.

I do not think people could exist without some sort of repercussions for those that operated dishoneslty. Harmful things would be created and promoted, and continued to be sold (like asbestos but much, much worse) because the difference between past centurys and now is the development of technology and mass production. So rather than a small population being killed by the misrepresentation of a product a vary large one would be. Not to mention the effects of some of these things on the human dna.
It could actually make us extinct by tampering with our gene pool.

Quote :: so your saying that even if the seller misrepresents what he is selling. And the buyer has the wrong belief of what they are buying. it is still a willfull free trade?

You have to stop conflating honest free trade with fraud. One is business, the other a criminal enterprise.

Quote :: Greed interferes with any belief of the fair and free exchange.

Not necessarily. 'Greed' is just a derogatory term for self-interest. What really counts if if your self-interest is rational or irrational. And I would argue that engaging in fraud is not a display of rational self-interest.

Quote :: I do not think people could exist without some sort of repercussions for those that operated dishoneslty.

Fine, but let the market decide, so no government interference.

CovOps wrote:

Quote :: so your saying that even if the seller misrepresents what he is selling. And the buyer has the wrong belief of what they are buying. it is still a willfull free trade?

You have to stop conflating honest free trade with fraud. One is business, the other a criminal enterprise.

Quote :: Greed interferes with any belief of the fair and free exchange.

Not necessarily. 'Greed' is just a derogatory term for self-interest. What really counts if if your self-interest is rational or irrational. And I would argue that engaging in fraud is not a display of rational self-interest.

Quote :: I do not think people could exist without some sort of repercussions for those that operated dishoneslty.

Fine, but let the market decide, so no government interference.

:D now we are getting somewhere....

tell me how the market decides.

Keep in mind cigarettes were harmful long before anyone admitted what was in them or that they were harmful. Same with countless other products. The reality is sometimes it is cheaper to manufacture something and lie about it because the profit off the sale is more than the fines and repercussions of misrepresenting the products. Also corporations are separate from those that work there. so a corporate officer will have in his best interest for his own paycheck, keeping negative product on the market as long as possible until he is nolonger in that position. with the future corporate officers and shareholders the ones that may reap the consequences at a future date. A corporate best interest, corporate employee or ceos best interest, shareholders best interest, consumers best interest, and general public best interest are all different things.

so whatver market is deciding it should be as quick as possible.

First, the anarcho-capitalist position is: No force, fraud of coercion in human relationships. Those that violate individual rights, forfeit their own.

It follows from this, that one should trade honestly on the open market. Those criminals which violate this basic code are opening themselves to retaliation.

However, this does not mean that people can't produce and sell dangerous items. So you can still sell the carcinogenic cancer sticks, called cigarettes, and I as well as others can buy them if we want to consume them. Since no force/fraud/coercion was used, the trade is moral and legitimate.

And the same goes for other similar products. Another thing to bear in mind is this: Just about any physical object can harm a person, that being the case, there is no rational basis, for banning some and not others. ie. Knives, forks, guns, machinery, medicines, cars, etc... Besides, in a free market, there is no authority to ban anything outright.

CovOps wrote:: First, the anarcho-capitalist position is: No force, fraud of coercion in human relationships. Those that violate individual rights, forfeit their own.

It follows from this, that one should trade honestly on the open market. Those criminals which violate this basic code are opening themselves to retaliation.

However, this does not mean that people can't produce and sell dangerous items. So you can still sell the carcinogenic cancer sticks, called cigarettes, and I as well as others can buy them if we want to consume them. Since no force/fraud/coercion was used, the trade is moral and legitimate.

And the same goes for other similar products. Another thing to bear in mind is this: Just about any physical object can harm a person, that being the case, there is no rational basis, for banning some and not others. ie. Knives, forks, guns, machinery, medicines, cars, etc... Besides, in a free market, there is no authority to ban anything outright.

hmmm. this is interesting.

so how do you find out a fraudulent act has occurred.
how do you find the person that committed the suspected act.
how do you prove the person really committed the act.
how to you force the person to be punished for the act.
how do you prevent the act from happening again???

Quote :: so how do you find out a fraudulent act has occurred.
how do you find the person that committed the suspected act.
how do you prove the person really committed the act.
how to you force the person to be punished for the act.
how do you prevent the act from happening again???

A free society, is a contractual society... so:

Has there been any breach of contract? Misrepresentation? Contractual non-performance? Deception, etc...

Since there's no official "law," people would be far more responsible and diligent, when doing business with others.

Presumably the standard contract you entered with someone, has clauses which cover disputes and the resolution procedure to affect. ie. Private, independent arbitration.

And nobody can prevent people from doing bad things in the future, since people have free will... but they can be held accountable.

CovOps wrote:

Quote :: so how do you find out a fraudulent act has occurred.
how do you find the person that committed the suspected act.
how do you prove the person really committed the act.
how to you force the person to be punished for the act.
how do you prevent the act from happening again???

A free society, is a contractual society... so:

Has there been any breach of contract? Misrepresentation? Contractual non-performance? Deception, etc...

Since there's no official "law," people would be far more responsible and diligent, when doing business with others.

Presumably the standard contract you entered with someone, has clauses which cover disputes and the resolution procedure to affect. ie. Private, independent arbitration.

And nobody can prevent people from doing bad things in the future, since people have free will... but they can be held accountable.

can you provide more detail.

i am just thinking of the people that have contracts now that break them and it is a chore to get them to comply.
having sued someone myself for contract violation, winning in court, and still not getting a dime paid to me (hard to even enforce contract law and court decisions now) i am not quite sure how you mean by use of contracts or enforcement.

Everything is more difficult now, because of statism.

Currently statists protect criminals at the expense of the innocent. ie. It's against the law for you to exact retribution upon the guilty.

Now in a free society, there is no such perversion. Anyone who fucks you over and violates your rights, then refuses to pay compensation, is open to a direct attack. Few will risk ripping people off, knowing that they may get their scull cracked open in return.

Gotta go for now... but you'll cover all this, in due course, with Rothbard...

Yet another anti-free trade attack by degenerate statists: Flat-Screen TVs Must Use Less Energy: Calif.

Yet another anti-free trade attack by degenerate statists: Flat-Screen TVs Must Use Less Energy: Calif.

Anarcho-Capitalist Categorical Imperatives

AnCaps' Laissez-faire Free Trade Zone