Re: THE DEMS ARE OUT OF GAS, AND COAL, AND WOOD

I see what you are saying and actually that was how I expected you to reply.

I see another interpretation.  If we have a right, or even an entitlement to
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, saying that the government
should facilitate our ability to pursue it by making sure energy sources are
available does not imply that the government must give us that energy for
free, which is how I would read energy as an actual Entitlement, call it a
capital E entitlement.

Same with health care really, saying we are entitled to adequate health care
does not actually necessitate making it free.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 10:47 AM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] THE DEMS ARE OUT OF GAS, AND COAL, AND WOOD

On Tue, 17 May 2011, Karl Swenson wrote:
> Why 'unsatisfying'?

Because he appeals to, if you will, a sense of entitlement:

> He has come up with a plan that starts from a radical proposition: the 
> people are entitled to live their lives the way they do and it's time 
> to ensure the energy supply needed to support them.

He doesn't *quite* say that people are "entitled" to an energy supply, but
he points in that direction, and to me that's kind of as absurd as saying
that people are entitled to good weather, etc.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot