Green Laws. Constitutionality. Does it all matter?
I heard on the Adam Carolla show that he thought building codes should enforce the installation of energy saving devices such as water heaters and double paned windows. After all, what is a few more building codes since we already have so many? I can identify with the point Adam is making and I recognize that it comes from an honest and sincere thought. But it isn’t right morally. To justify the creation of new laws because we already have 1000 laws is dangerous on a multitude of levels.
What do these laws do? Certainly require enforcement and cost money for all those involved. But that isn’t why I would object. I am happy to pay for the enforcement of some laws that make life safer in ways that I myself cannot control, such as speed limits, BUT I am not happy with laws that control actions that don’t make life safer. Installing a high efficiency water heater or double paned windows is something I can do. I don’t need building inspectors to make the decision for me. If the “product” is really a energy saving and therefor cost effective then I should have the freedom to make that decision.
But then that is a personal preference. I like being able to make my own decisions. If I am required to install double paned windows what stops lawmakers from slipping a little farther into “Buy one of those Toyota Prius’”. For some that would be awesome, even you might see this as a way to save the world. But how would you reconcile violating other people’s freedom? Would that dampen the achievement?
I am trying to understand this new movement to determine what I should believe. Currently I do not understand the attraction to green laws or the desire to enforce these life choices on other people. Of course I also come from a perspective that is skeptical of the science behind climate change.
But then, what if it were worth it to force decisions on the unconvinced? What if the benefits did outweigh the moral inconvenience and made the world a better place? What would that look like? How much cleaner can the world get? That is not a sarcastic or uninformed question. Or perhaps it is.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Fallacy #1: Your argument assumes green laws do NOT make life safer. If they did, you say, you would be willing to foot the bill. Instead you call green practices matters of preference.
The fact of the matter is that green laws based on sound science can make life a crucially safer. I am willing to argue for this claim if need be. Let me know.
Fallacy #2: You say “If I am required to install double paned windows what stops lawmakers from slipping a little farther into “Buy one of those Toyota Prius””. Please cf. Slippery Slope. Let me know if you have any questions.
The reason we have to enforce these practices on other people is twofold:
1. We share the environment. If you want to poison your immediate environment in a way that doesn’t violate my right to life, go ahead.
2. Green laws based on sound science may be more than life safening, they may be life-saving. You yourself admit the benefit of enforcing speed limits! Why not pollution limits?
August 29th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
that hyperlink is to http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html