Stone: Do you think itâ€™s fair to send people to jail who donâ€™t buy health insurance?
Pelosi: â€¦ The legislation is very fair in this respect.
An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with “extravagant lifestyles” would be affected by the carbon allowances.
He said: “A lot of people who cycle will get money back. It will probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out.”
However, some have criticised the move as “Orwellian” and say it will have a detrimental impact on business.
Ruth Lea, an economist from Arbuthnot Banking Group, told the Daily Mail: “This is all about control of the individual and you begin to wonder whether this is what the green agenda has always been about. It’s Orwellian. This will be an enormous tax on business.”
Under the Climate Change Act, Britain is obliged to cut its emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. This means annual CO2 emissions per person will have to fall from about 9 tonnes to only 2 tonnes.
Do you have an “extravagant lifestyle” as defined by the Holy Church of the Environment & Mother Gaia?
You could have ended the sentence thus: “you cannot efficient-ize the government.” Even if the liberty/efficiency tradeoff did exist the point would be moot because government is not capable of increasing efficiency. Policymakers simply face the wrong incentives, lack the competence, and cannot process the information required to increase the efficiency of anything.
So there’s no trade-off in which government policy could somehow increase efficiency at the cost of liberty. If they’re taking your liberty, they’re doing it inefficiently.
If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.