The internet is full of conspiracy theories about the blackouts being used to destroy evidence against the Libs, Epstein, etc.
I didn't realize Cali had had so many.
Any thoughts?
I didn't realize Cali had had so many.
Any thoughts?
Power Outages
- Thread starter Robinjopo1
- Start date
Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:
Kevin L
A True Doomsday Prepper
I agree with you.
I believe blackouts happen because it's not a perfect world, people sometimes don't do their jobs, and population is growing faster than the energy supply.
I think of blackouts--under most circumstances--as an opportunity for romance with my sweetie.
Arcticdude
Top Poster
You need an excuse to rut around with your sweetie Kevin?
I do agree that growth will/is out pacing energy production. I also believe that some day energy, especially electric, will be used to control the masses. Currently electric production is by mostly private companies, but some politicians would like to see the(ir) government take total control.
Kevin L
A True Doomsday Prepper
I'm divided on this issue.
I have the opinion that when the government tries to control any kind of utility, they screw it up. Socialized medicine is screwed up in places like Britain, we hear that a toilet seat in the Pentagon costs thousands of dollars, and that one dollar out of every four spent by the government is waste.....and a private business would never tolerate any of this.
Yet.....I got concerned when I hear about the power company shutting things off in the winter and entire families freeze to death. I know it's easy for us to dismiss this and say "it's their fault....pay your bills and get a job.....have a work ethic" and so forth.
I may not meet the definition of a Christian person, but I do have some Christian values (I actually tend to buy into Judaism more than anything else), and this part of me recoils at the idea of people dying because of not paying $60.00 worth of utilities.
I don't have an answer, and I wish I did.
I do think that there is a responsibility for the poor in a capitalist society, and I don't believe that this qualifies me as a socialist.....and don't wave the 'slippery slope' thing at my statements, because I've always believed that the slippery slope objection is a fallacy.
And when I say that there's a responsibility to the poor, I don't mean that the government should be an enabler.....like the dynamics in a relationship with an alcoholic or a drug addict. Enabling always encourages a disease or a condition to get worse, and that's not what I'm talking about.
Last edited:
Arcticdude
Top Poster
It's been a long time since I've had any utility bills, but when I did there was "tax" on my bill that went to help those that couldn't pay their bill, electric or phone. No, I'm not going to get into wether this is right or wrong, but there are many places that do help people with their utilities. In my town, for example, there is a logging company that donates several log truck loads of logs. Volunteers cut and split the logs and deliver the fire wood to people who can't pay to heat their homes.
My first wife worked for a private organization that offer assistance to those who had trouble paying their utility bills.
I guess my point is, there are already lots of non government help available to those truly in need.
This is another reason that I like producing all of my electric; no bills and no tax on my power consumption.
Last edited:
Kevin L
A True Doomsday Prepper
I agree with your outlook.
Still....as a paramedic, I believe we can do better.
I'm not a socialist, but I still get royally pissed off when people (especially children) die because no vaccines, freezing to death in the winter because of a late utility payment, and stupid things like that.
Prove to me that people freeze to death because they didn't pay a $60 utility bill?. Give me one example of this in the last 20 years?
tmttactical
A True Doomsday Prepper
There is NO HUMAN right to anything except, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and those can be taken away at the governments choosing. . . That is a false concept. I do not owe anybody, anything but I can CHOOSE to help somebody, if I want to. The government has no HUMAN RIGHTS obligation so support anybody for any reason.
"Rut around" lol
Arcticdude
Top Poster
Yeah I know, kind of crude.
going to be a HUGE test of the national grid for the next half week - besides the other usual mid-summer strain from the summer hot spots >>> the Upper Midwest is getting hit with heat & humidity - upwards of 115F on the index charts ....
Kevin L
A True Doomsday Prepper
I agree with you. I don't believe that the government should be in the business of supporting people. I'm not a socialist.
There is a huge difference between acknowledging a responsibility for helping the poor.....and saying that we should be supporting them.
There is a difference between helping people who need it, and enabling them. I do recognize that boundary between these two concepts can be a very grey area and somewhat indistinct, but I think that it's worth it to explore this grey area and figure out exactly where the line should be to distinguish between helping people and enabling them.
If we send huge amounts of foreign aid to other countries, then we can certainly figure out how to help (not enable) people here at home.
And yes, there are reasons why foreign aid helps us here at home.
As an example, a poor country might be next door to a nation that's hostile toward the U.S., so foreign aid can be compared--in this example--as something akin to an ongoing bribe that keeps that government friendly so that they are on our side....an ally next door to the hostile nation. I imagine that South Korea falls into this category, as does Israel.
I do understand that much of our foreign aid supports corruption*, but I'm talking theory here in order to make a point.
My ultimate idea is that helping (again, not enabling) the poor would have a return on the money that everyone would benefit from.
My issue is that I don't see how to go about doing it. I guess that social scholars would have to study game theory and run different scenarios to see how things would play out so that--finally--we can figure out how to benefit everyone from helping the poor.
As an example of how capitalism can be used to fix social problems, I tossed out an idea in a different thread that I'll bring up again here.
Great white sharks are endangered from overfishing. In Australia, a great white shark might bring in about $20,000.00 in terms of fees paid to fishing charters, meat, hides, shark fins, and so on.
This is a big incentive to keep fishing--sometimes illegally--which (while bringing in money) will ultimately lead to this animals' extinction.
I just so happens, however, that each great white shark can bring in over $100,000.00 if we support ecotourism, and people get to take pictures while in a shark cage, and the shark doesn't have to die. There is now a financial incentive to keep these animals alive, and people police themselves and don't fish illegally. There is also a huge return in terms of the local economy, and everybody wins....including the sharks.
This is the type of mentality that I'm speaking of when I talk about helping the poor and addressing poverty.
I sometimes have problems communicating, but can you guys see my points even if you don't agree with me?
-----------------------------
* The best example of this corruption is Haiti. I know people who are deeply involved in Haitian politics, and you can assume that almost all foreign aid sent to Haiti will automatically end up in the pockets of high-ranking government officials. Haiti has an extremely kleptocratic government.
Last edited:
Kevin L
A True Doomsday Prepper
I'll have to look and get back to you later, but it's happened.
Kevin L
A True Doomsday Prepper
I don't know how to post links, as I'm computer-challenged, but I found an example in CBS news from Bay City, Michigan, from January 27, 2009.
A 93 year old man quietly died in his home from hypothermia when his power was turned off in the winter.
There are many other examples, but--in fairness--some states have statutes that say power can't be turned off during certian times of the year.
Look into the circumstances. I bet someone was responsible with caring for the 93yo and was negligent. I bet the power company was unaware of the situation. You were attempting to use an extremely rare case as an example of why government should be in control of utilities. Your trying to convince everyone that the government would be more efficient and have less people die from having the power disconnected? Seriously?
Kevin L
A True Doomsday Prepper
I never said that I thought that the government would be more efficient--quite the opposite, actually. If you look at my earlier post, I gave the example of a toilet seat in the Pentagon costing thousands of dollars, and how one dollar out of every four spent by the government is waste.
Given these facts, with something as vital as public utilities (like electricity), I suspect that the government would mess it up as well, and then people will really be screwed.
I also said that I don't have a ready answer to what I perceive as a problem....namely that people have died from hypothermia by having their utilities turned off. I specifically said that I don't have an answer, beyond the vague idea that capitalism might be utilized and harnessed (like my example with the great white shark in Australia) to make sure that everyone--including the power company--has a win.
TexasFreedom
A True Doomsday Prepper
AD, I'm not sure that path is possible any more. With so many people having solar/wind/water production on their own properties, they will remain 'free'. Now I agree that 98% of people are energy dependent, but not everyone.
And Kevin, if you have to go back 10 years to find a death from shutting off power, really? BTW, you keep saying 'taking care of the poor'. I know plenty of happy poor people. They don't need anything, being poor is not a problem. First, let me change your working from 'poor' to 'the truly needy'. Those truly not able to provide for themselves (widows, orphans, etc).
You seem determined to find a way for gov't to take care of all of these. Why? Do you have so little trust in your fellow Americans that you don't think they will provide for the few truly in need?
Kevin L
A True Doomsday Prepper
I accept your modification of changing my definition from 'poor' to the 'truly needy'. That's actually a fair criticism, and I accept it.
The sticking point between is--I believe--the difference between 'taking care of' and 'helping'. If the government gets in the business of 'taking care' of everyone, then we have socialism. I view a socialist government as being something like the enabler in an alcoholic relationship, and enabling always allows the problem to get worse.
As an example of enabling, consider the welfare system. I do believe that the government has an obligation to assist the truly needy (to use your distinction, which I admit is an important one), but I know several families that are 4th generation (and in some instances, even 5th generation) welfare recipients.
This means that people have gone four generations without working, without careers.....and without a sense of honest accomplishment that brings a feeling of satisfaction to one's existence.
No wonder drugs and alcohol are so seductive under the circumstances, and when these crutches are used....the problem gets worse and poverty deepens.
The loss to humanity from this process cannot be calculated. How many people in these multi-generation welfare families could have been doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. if they hadn't been enabled?
So I don't think that the government should 'take care' of the truly needy. I--again--want to distinguish between 'helping' and 'enabling'.
As an example, I have a friend who is a bad alcoholic.
If he gets drunk and spends his paycheck in the bar, and I loan him money to cover his rent.....I'm enabling him, and I play a role in making his alcoholism worse.
If, on the other hand, he loses his license to a DWI and he comes to me to ask for a ride to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, then I'm helping him when I drop him off.
This is the kind of distinction that I'm making.
Helping the truly needy would pay dividends in the way that a long term investment pays off down the road.
I'm not talking about anything other than short-term vs. long-term and gains vs. costs.
Last edited:
Most of the country will be at least 95°. I'll just stay hydrated and hit the pool or water hose.
Similar threads
