No, they are going to tax you for not improving your heating and insulation enough, whre enough is quantified as "almost, but not quite enough to avoid extra taxes and fees".
It's called neoliberalism and democratic capitalism, comrade, is best system always creating greatest profits, and therefore best.
There is a difference between profit from enterpreneurial activity, and from the rent-seeking and graft that comes from using socialist policies to fill your private pocket.
The economists call it 'rent seeking'. More at mises.org.
The excuses for this kind of plunder are always socialist, which is why that ideology is the mind virus we must innoculate against.
The difference is a purely semantic, not a practical one.
To not engage in rent-seeking behaviour, even if legal, almost risk-free and highly profitable means you have to make a moral judgement: capitalism is amoral and lacks any ethics at all, the concept doesn't apply. Hence, capitalists will always try to establish rent-seeking corporatist economic/social structures as the norm.
And the core tenet of capitalism is "Profit for me now equals good", nothing else.
von Mises, Hayek et cetera of the neoliberal prophets (which I have read, just as I have read Das Kapital, Wigfors, Keynes, Fukuyama, Huntington and many others) engage in the same oversimplifications and pure theory-craft as does all forms liberals: they do not start with the real, empirically observable world and try to deduce from there.
Instead they insist (just as marxists do) that if everyone just lived according to their theory, their theoy would work better than anything else.
You see the faulty logic in that, I'm sure.
Marxist and neoliberal economic (or political, all economic/financial politics are ideological) fails for the same reasons: they do not take actual human behaviour into account, nor do they use morals, ethics and behavioural models based on observation and proof.
The difference you speak of does not exist in reality, or ceases to do so as soon as one market actor can in anyway dominate others. Then, it immediately becomes corporatist, profiteering and indeed rent-seeking.
The only two checks on that is either all actors voluntarily and for moral reasons refraining from it (not very realistic I'm sure you'll agree) or an external force actively preventing it (which just leads to alloying that force - usually a state of some kind - to capital, i.e. corporatism yet again), or a combination of those.
The lithmus test of theory is reality, and the yardstick for pass/fail is whether or not something functions, at what cost and gains - not if laws and rules and so on are written according to theory and dogma. Sometimes and some places, the state being the sole proprietor of energy production/distribution is the best option - sometimes and some places it is the worst.
To think that you can sit in your chamber, as the likes of Marx and Engels and von Mises and Rothbard did and reason your way to truth by delving into first principles, and then that applying these will create the best solution is folly at best, disastrous at worst.
Remember, marxist ideologies initially gained traction because of how unfettered "lazy fair" capitalism had failed. If the rent-seeking, the grift and the greed hadn't been the dominant force, there wouldn't have been any fertile ground for communism - not even in Russia.
If you want an example of what I speak of, read about Gustaf Dahlén: when awarded the Nobel Prize he shared the prizemoney out to his factory workers. When he saw the poor living conditions and long travel routes his employees often had to endure, he instead built modern (for that time) apartment buildings for them, out of his own pocket.
Compare that to the capitalists that sent and still send children into mines. Or chimneys. Or refuse to invest in proper materials and machines, resulting in stuff like East Palestine.
Human action must always be founded and forged as a moral judgement, not devoid of it or enslaved to a Greater Good absolving all sins on the way to it.
Yes, I've been wrestling this topic on the micro level. What to do with our old house. These increased restrictions have been suggested for some time, the ideological Greens will push them through under cover of war and pestilence.
We bought an old house (logpiles from the 1920s, extended with more 'modern' methods in the 1970s), and we've been renovating ever since we moved here last June. The insulation is quite o.k., esp. in the house's logpile core. We invested in new windows (triple-paned), and the temperature is o.k., even though we had a few nights with -20 degrees Celsius this winter.
We have one electric wall-mounted heater and do the rest of the heating downstairs with wood (we live on a farm and can chop firewood ourselves).
This spring, I'll also get to insulating the earthen basement (c. 1m thick walls made of rocks with lots of cracks and holes, which I'll fill of with Portland cement); I've already built a new door, which was key, though: the temperature in the basement never fell below 3-4 degrees C. This year, I'll also insulate the floor = basement roof with rock-wool and wind-stopping materials. I suspect this will even increase the insulation. Also, I'll do this all myself, why not, but also: I like working with my hands.
But I agree, it's a trade-off. Property taxes are quite low (c. 60 € per year), but there's also the issue about what might come next. Given that Norwegians, in my estimation, are a bit like the Hobbits in the Shire (i.e., high, if misplaced, trust in authorities, an energy-exporting nation, and with the gov't trying to avoid having 'the talk' with the people), any reckoning will not come overnight.
The situation, as I see it, is quite different in Germany with its much, much higher share of ideologically-blinded morons (e.g., the Greens). I do think that your estimation--pushing these 'through under the cover of war and pestilence'--is correct. I also fear that 'even' a change of gov't will not do much about it.
Note: keep things on the sly, esp. having veggies and other foods stocked. Norwayhas laws similar to Sweden re: emergencies and part of that is the governement in a real crisis sending police and an official around to procure food, lodging and whatever else they feel "the community" needs.
For "equitable" sharing of course.
After the officials and the police have taken their legally mandated share, of course.
So keep such things on the sly and the down-low. Might consider a root-cellar undergound if you have a suitable place on the lot (not too wet, not liable to flooding in spring, not too hard soil/ground to dig through, not where there's lots of shale, et c).
This will sound mean or even wicked but a) as a swede it is very comforting to see even greater stupidity than ours (not something to be strived for!) and b) virtually all germans age 21+ have voted for this, repeatedly for at least two decades.
Or more vulgarly: you pissed the bed, now lie in it. Which is sad and unfair to the tiny percentage both intelligent, knowledgable and courageous enough to protest long ago.
Here in rural Sweden, Green Party-members now have such low standing that you can actually hear even fully normal people mutter "shoot them!" when they are mentioned. I know of two Greens who have been told in no uncertain terms to be "mindful" if they go picking berries during hunting season...
Sadly, theGreens still somehow manage to rule the media and the political class thinking that media = reality.
We should never lose sight of the fact that Mr. Global wants it so. Incompetence is not so much the real cause of our conditions but a consequence of Mr. Global aims. That will not change any time soon and that is why Germans would likely replace this incompetent set with another.
Ban on gas heating? I just spent 15,000€ modernizing my gas heating to meet their bullshit regulations.
So they're going to pay for my heat now right?
No, they are going to tax you for not improving your heating and insulation enough, whre enough is quantified as "almost, but not quite enough to avoid extra taxes and fees".
It's called neoliberalism and democratic capitalism, comrade, is best system always creating greatest profits, and therefore best.
There is a difference between profit from enterpreneurial activity, and from the rent-seeking and graft that comes from using socialist policies to fill your private pocket.
The economists call it 'rent seeking'. More at mises.org.
The excuses for this kind of plunder are always socialist, which is why that ideology is the mind virus we must innoculate against.
The difference is a purely semantic, not a practical one.
To not engage in rent-seeking behaviour, even if legal, almost risk-free and highly profitable means you have to make a moral judgement: capitalism is amoral and lacks any ethics at all, the concept doesn't apply. Hence, capitalists will always try to establish rent-seeking corporatist economic/social structures as the norm.
And the core tenet of capitalism is "Profit for me now equals good", nothing else.
von Mises, Hayek et cetera of the neoliberal prophets (which I have read, just as I have read Das Kapital, Wigfors, Keynes, Fukuyama, Huntington and many others) engage in the same oversimplifications and pure theory-craft as does all forms liberals: they do not start with the real, empirically observable world and try to deduce from there.
Instead they insist (just as marxists do) that if everyone just lived according to their theory, their theoy would work better than anything else.
You see the faulty logic in that, I'm sure.
Marxist and neoliberal economic (or political, all economic/financial politics are ideological) fails for the same reasons: they do not take actual human behaviour into account, nor do they use morals, ethics and behavioural models based on observation and proof.
The difference you speak of does not exist in reality, or ceases to do so as soon as one market actor can in anyway dominate others. Then, it immediately becomes corporatist, profiteering and indeed rent-seeking.
The only two checks on that is either all actors voluntarily and for moral reasons refraining from it (not very realistic I'm sure you'll agree) or an external force actively preventing it (which just leads to alloying that force - usually a state of some kind - to capital, i.e. corporatism yet again), or a combination of those.
The lithmus test of theory is reality, and the yardstick for pass/fail is whether or not something functions, at what cost and gains - not if laws and rules and so on are written according to theory and dogma. Sometimes and some places, the state being the sole proprietor of energy production/distribution is the best option - sometimes and some places it is the worst.
To think that you can sit in your chamber, as the likes of Marx and Engels and von Mises and Rothbard did and reason your way to truth by delving into first principles, and then that applying these will create the best solution is folly at best, disastrous at worst.
Remember, marxist ideologies initially gained traction because of how unfettered "lazy fair" capitalism had failed. If the rent-seeking, the grift and the greed hadn't been the dominant force, there wouldn't have been any fertile ground for communism - not even in Russia.
If you want an example of what I speak of, read about Gustaf Dahlén: when awarded the Nobel Prize he shared the prizemoney out to his factory workers. When he saw the poor living conditions and long travel routes his employees often had to endure, he instead built modern (for that time) apartment buildings for them, out of his own pocket.
Compare that to the capitalists that sent and still send children into mines. Or chimneys. Or refuse to invest in proper materials and machines, resulting in stuff like East Palestine.
Human action must always be founded and forged as a moral judgement, not devoid of it or enslaved to a Greater Good absolving all sins on the way to it.
This must stop! People don't deserve being tormented like this, for no reason, only at the whim of crazed cultists.
'They' won't stop until push-back.
I see darker forces behind them.
Yes, I've been wrestling this topic on the micro level. What to do with our old house. These increased restrictions have been suggested for some time, the ideological Greens will push them through under cover of war and pestilence.
Slightly OT, but here goes:
We bought an old house (logpiles from the 1920s, extended with more 'modern' methods in the 1970s), and we've been renovating ever since we moved here last June. The insulation is quite o.k., esp. in the house's logpile core. We invested in new windows (triple-paned), and the temperature is o.k., even though we had a few nights with -20 degrees Celsius this winter.
We have one electric wall-mounted heater and do the rest of the heating downstairs with wood (we live on a farm and can chop firewood ourselves).
This spring, I'll also get to insulating the earthen basement (c. 1m thick walls made of rocks with lots of cracks and holes, which I'll fill of with Portland cement); I've already built a new door, which was key, though: the temperature in the basement never fell below 3-4 degrees C. This year, I'll also insulate the floor = basement roof with rock-wool and wind-stopping materials. I suspect this will even increase the insulation. Also, I'll do this all myself, why not, but also: I like working with my hands.
But I agree, it's a trade-off. Property taxes are quite low (c. 60 € per year), but there's also the issue about what might come next. Given that Norwegians, in my estimation, are a bit like the Hobbits in the Shire (i.e., high, if misplaced, trust in authorities, an energy-exporting nation, and with the gov't trying to avoid having 'the talk' with the people), any reckoning will not come overnight.
The situation, as I see it, is quite different in Germany with its much, much higher share of ideologically-blinded morons (e.g., the Greens). I do think that your estimation--pushing these 'through under the cover of war and pestilence'--is correct. I also fear that 'even' a change of gov't will not do much about it.
As to the
Note: keep things on the sly, esp. having veggies and other foods stocked. Norwayhas laws similar to Sweden re: emergencies and part of that is the governement in a real crisis sending police and an official around to procure food, lodging and whatever else they feel "the community" needs.
For "equitable" sharing of course.
After the officials and the police have taken their legally mandated share, of course.
So keep such things on the sly and the down-low. Might consider a root-cellar undergound if you have a suitable place on the lot (not too wet, not liable to flooding in spring, not too hard soil/ground to dig through, not where there's lots of shale, et c).
"ideologically blinded morons" is a very good description
I lifted this from the link concerning neoliberal charge:
Thus, since the notion of individualism is mobilised in
both the defence and the critique of capitalism, it is not surprising that strong users of
the term believe that opponents have distorted or confused its meaning. For instance,
Friedrich von Hayek (1948), often considered an early neoliberal thinker, argued for a
‘true’ theory of individualism, one which was against socialist approaches to society,
but at the same time did not treat individuals as either isolated or infallible beings
removed from larger forces.
https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/conference/papers/2016/On%20Individualism%20in%20the%20Neoliberal%20Period_Eagleton-Pierce_Eagleton-Pierce_PSA%20Conference%202016_Brighton_Paper_PDF.pdf
I, individually, have the right to contract with whomever I want to provide heating for my home.
This criminalization of the heat I need to survive is a violation of my human rights.
It is a crime. These people are not just idiots; they are evil traitors.
I have faith that God will turn the furnace up extra hot for Habeck.
That's the right attitude!
Remember, the black nobility tortured Munger before they killed him.
itsnotjustthetraitortoallthingsgreenhabeck
Remembering all the peasants who died over the centuries fighting the hierarchy - including Jesus the insprirator.
Minor typo - “without neither” should be “without either” or “with neither”.
Hi Ron, thanks for spotting the typo--I've corrected it. Cheers!
This will sound mean or even wicked but a) as a swede it is very comforting to see even greater stupidity than ours (not something to be strived for!) and b) virtually all germans age 21+ have voted for this, repeatedly for at least two decades.
Or more vulgarly: you pissed the bed, now lie in it. Which is sad and unfair to the tiny percentage both intelligent, knowledgable and courageous enough to protest long ago.
Here in rural Sweden, Green Party-members now have such low standing that you can actually hear even fully normal people mutter "shoot them!" when they are mentioned. I know of two Greens who have been told in no uncertain terms to be "mindful" if they go picking berries during hunting season...
Sadly, theGreens still somehow manage to rule the media and the political class thinking that media = reality.
Those that voted for the commie Greens should welcome it!
Next, they will ration bunga bunga!
We should never lose sight of the fact that Mr. Global wants it so. Incompetence is not so much the real cause of our conditions but a consequence of Mr. Global aims. That will not change any time soon and that is why Germans would likely replace this incompetent set with another.