Comments on: Rand Paul’s toilet http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/2011/03/rand-pauls-toilet/ Schrodinger's tagline is both clever and banal at the same time Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:56:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: WeeDram http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/2011/03/rand-pauls-toilet/#comment-13240 WeeDram Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:23:10 +0000 http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/?p=2091#comment-13240 “And no that’s not something that can be left to individual choice, because we humans are disinclined (and perhaps unable) to fully consider how our actions affect the others.”

Hence I am a Buddhist. That actually IS the human nature, but we are separated from it and can get back.

]]>
By: dof http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/2011/03/rand-pauls-toilet/#comment-12999 dof Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:31:14 +0000 http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/?p=2091#comment-12999 Yup, I meant it to be a coefficient, but I doubt that Rand Paul knows what either one does in a story problem…

]]>
By: Cujo359 http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/2011/03/rand-pauls-toilet/#comment-12998 Cujo359 Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:22:39 +0000 http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/?p=2091#comment-12998 I think “n” is a coefficient, WeeDram, not an exponent. At least, it should be. For talking purposes, you can probably assume n is about 1.5 or thereabouts. Depends on how far the power has to be carried, how much energy the plant that generates it needs to run itself, etc.

When you add in the energy cost of producing it in the first place, then things really seem exponential. I doubt there are many power plants that are even 50% efficient at creating electricity. Plug that into the ~ 1.5x we said is needed to get x to you, that means that you need to burn something like 3x the energy required to deliver it.

]]>
By: Cujo359 http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/2011/03/rand-pauls-toilet/#comment-12997 Cujo359 Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:12:43 +0000 http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/?p=2091#comment-12997

First … To equate the choice she faces with your dislike of efficient light bulbs is just sickening.

You probably could have stopped right there. But, thankfully:

Here’s a thought exercise: suppose Japan were run by Libertarians who insisted the free market should determine what Earthquake resistance standards should prevail. Maybe consumer choice should dictate whether public funds were spent on tsunami evacuation drills. What do you think the Japan fatality rate would be?

That’s one of the problems with “free market” ideology. A market only takes consideration of the things the people in it are aware of, and even then, considerably less efficiently than any sane person would like. No one thinks “Oh, it’s possible that a quake that happens once a millenium will happen in the ten years I probably will be in this house. Maybe I should pay lots of money to reinforce it.” Building codes provide a somewhat level playing field there, assuming someone cares to enforce them. Yet the potential tragedy of not having those building codes is immense for a quake like this one.

]]>
By: Paul Sunstone http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/2011/03/rand-pauls-toilet/#comment-12948 Paul Sunstone Tue, 15 Mar 2011 06:34:12 +0000 http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/?p=2091#comment-12948 There’s a Libertarian on a forum I frequent. I don’t know how representative he is of all economic Libertarians, but you could not possibly want a less knowledgeable ideologue than he. He even comes close to reminding me of Ayn Rand herself.

]]>
By: dof http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/2011/03/rand-pauls-toilet/#comment-12917 dof Mon, 14 Mar 2011 02:59:24 +0000 http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/?p=2091#comment-12917 Almost any ideology has something useful we can learn from it. The big mistake lies in believing we have stumbled on some pure principle that relieves us of the obligation of thinking.

I am socially libertarian; the government shouldn’t interfere with how we pursue happiness as long as it doesn’t harm others. But economically (and thus environmentally) I think we shouldn’t take our eyes off the interests of the others. The tricky part is achieving a balance between the two. And no that’s not something that can be left to individual choice, because we humans are disinclined (and perhaps unable) to fully consider how our actions affect the others.

]]>
By: Sheryl http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/2011/03/rand-pauls-toilet/#comment-12916 Sheryl Mon, 14 Mar 2011 02:43:43 +0000 http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/?p=2091#comment-12916 I know I’ve missed a lot of your posts, as I’m not a regular reader – but I thought you were a Libertarian? This has changed?

I linked to this post on my Facebook page. I don’t know if it will change anyone’s way of thinking, in fact, I am afraid that this country is so polarized in opinion that it may very well be useless… Still, I keep trying. Thank you for writing this.

]]>
By: WeeDram http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/2011/03/rand-pauls-toilet/#comment-12915 WeeDram Mon, 14 Mar 2011 02:37:05 +0000 http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/?p=2091#comment-12915 As to your last bullit point … you are using math with exponents on Rand Paul. Now that’s funny! Er … sad.

]]>