Quote:
Originally Posted by tryfuhl
You've just taken the argument to another dimension.
You don't think that changes that might have less of an impact on the climate, increase domestic production, etc are beneficial, whether global warming is as pronounced as they say.. or not at all?
I don't get it.
|
I understand why you don't get it, because I can't explain it in a way that you will, because--- you fundamentally trust science/government. (yes I am making a guess about that).
If you realize that government is run by people, specifically people who want to guide (or control) your life, and they will use science as a new religion (science proves it, hence it must be so) to that end then you may start to see a reason why some people don't like ceding even more national rights to the world quasi -government or the world politicians.
It's not that the changes are in and of themselves bad, but instead that the motive behind them is covered over and made to look sweet, when there is a bitter truth behind much of it.
I am not saying govt should not exist, only that its authority and extent of control should be extremely limited. That is what our constitution as originally written created. It is not what our government - which sees 90+ year old men holding on to their powerful senate seats, or the federal government forcing the state, and thus the individual to abide by a restrictive law ie seatbelts (not a "bad" or evil law, but certainly restricting a decision that in and of itself has no bearing on our national security) - lives up to today.