Jump to content
ibiza

I feel this is unconstitutioal. What's your thoughts?

Recommended Posts

I just read the article and wanted to post but saw you had already informed the forum. Whatever the qualifications needed for drafting legislation may be, it does not appear to include logic. During the past Eskom rolling blackouts, we were encouraged to save electricity which many did by installing expensive solar and other renewable source systems. So while all who did are saving the planet and making electricity available to industry by not using Eskom supply, all of which creates much needed jobs, we are now to be penalised. The government and trade unions are enthusiastically and effectively destroying jobs on a daily basis but when we spend our hard earned savings to do good, we are the criminals. Pehaps we should appeal to the likes of Green Peace and other activist groups to do something about the SA government which now  seems hellbent on destroying the planet by making it difficult for us who generate clean energy. This does no harm to anyone except massive greenhouse gas emitter Eskom which clearly cannot run a business profitably and needs us to bail their extravagance and incompatance  out with our tax money on an ongoing basis.

All this with the threat of R5m fines or 5 years imprisonment. Perhaps if we all switch off our renewable installations and Eskom grid power on at the same time we may cause a blackout and bring some sanity to the table. But that would take major organisation and will remain a pipe dream.

There is really no hope for this nation. The greatest places in RSA remains the international departure halls at our airports.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just the next round in a law that's been coming since 2006.

As I understand it, the reason is not that they want to charge money for it (other than a one-time registration fee perhaps, which might not be unreasonable). So far that's the spin every journalist has put on it... which may be accurate, but none of the official documents actually say that.

The real reason isn't much better though. It comes down to this: They had a certain renewable goal (this much generation by such and such date), and they failed to reach it. Initially all <1MW plants were going to be excluded, but now... like a man who has to make the budget work... they are going after the small change as well.

In short, they don't necessarily want to charge for it or control it. They just want to know how much there is of it and where it is. Not that that necessarily makes it all okay of course... I'm just saying this so we don't chase red herrings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ibiza said:

ANC wants to charge us for using the sun and the wind

they already charge us for using our brains [like advocating functional alternatives], that's totally un-pc to do that ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course... the next step (which is funny in a certain sense), is that some politician will claim that under his leadership we have reached this and that goal... meanwhile half that work was done not because of them... but despite them. You know... like this... just days after firing the guy who did most of the work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......and they just never learn.

Sanral 2 is on its way - courtesy of the elected guvament.

Don’t they know us by now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

next thing we are back to square one [or is that square zero?] where you have to register your dog, cat, radio, bicycle etc, how's about the pet goldfish and johnny's hamster [i mean hamsters do fart and that could have a negative influence on the ozone layer...] .

i believe this forum is in a good position to draft comment on this - not doing so would be consent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, plonkster said:

This is just the next round in a law that's been coming since 2006.

As I understand it, the reason is not that they want to charge money for it (other than a one-time registration fee perhaps, which might not be unreasonable). So far that's the spin every journalist has put on it... which may be accurate, but none of the official documents actually say that.

The real reason isn't much better though. It comes down to this: They had a certain renewable goal (this much generation by such and such date), and they failed to reach it. Initially all <1MW plants were going to be excluded, but now... like a man who has to make the budget work... they are going after the small change as well.

In short, they don't necessarily want to charge for it or control it. They just want to know how much there is of it and where it is. Not that that necessarily makes it all okay of course... I'm just saying this so we don't chase red herrings.

It would also be useful for planning purposes to keep tabs on how much renewable and other capacity there is, and the rate it is being installed, so we don't burden Eskom with problem of producing enough electricity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get one thing straight, governments the world over has long ago forgotten the ideals of democracy and turned into highhanded oppressors. The notable exception is Switzerland with an outstanding constitution whereas we have one that is nothing other than a recipe for oppression and plunder. What is at play here is just more Socialism otherwise known as Communism or Nazism. There is effectively not much differrence between these delusional philosophies of oppression. What sensible reason is there for this nonsense. 

If you wish to solve the energy reliability of the country, privatise the Eskom power stations and close down the useless Megawatt Park. Then privatise the grid within a maximum of 3 years. Follow this up by getting the government out of liquid fuel and gas. Prices will drop, efficiencies will improve vastly and we will all be richer. But all that will take an understanding of sound economics which is in lamentable short supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ebrsa said:

Communism or Nazism

Technically those two are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Communism is conventionally thought of as left-leaning, Nazism was decidedly right-leaning.

Interestingly though, both ideologies had a strong insistence on doing things scientifically. Of course not quite the way we understand science today, but it was there at least in written policy. Much of the racism we now decry, which one could argue is at the very heart of Nazi ideology, was actually established philosophy from two decades earlier (read for example G.B. Shaw on the superman, or Nietzsche on the Übermensch, also Feuerbach). Scientific racism was very much in vogue and made complete sense: If species evolve and progress: Then certainly some will be further along than others, right? It was merely a matter of scientifically studying those differences, and maybe steering things towards a better future where man was a little better.

You know... not much different to the drivel we still hear today.

Fascism though... that's changed meaning. You use that term for anyone you disagree with :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one could go as far as to decry all '-isms' in government as a system which benefits a few select to the disadvantage of the majority and which justifies its existence on the 'premise' that the populus are not fit to govern - not having the 'vision' to do so. all '-isms' propagate to have the solution to neigh every aspect of life, depend heavily on propaganda and other lies, forcefully inculcate fear of the 'common enemy [be it another 'system', country or race] and eventually they concentrate power in the hands of few who, not being under any control whatsoever [moral, judicial, religious or whatever] end up stealing, lying, corrupting etc. history has also shown that those 'leaders' more often than not die of 'unnatural' causes.

an interesting example is putin. being the product of communism and a member of the kgb, he now has surrounded himself with the russian mafia who are so depended on him that he will most probably stay president for life - hence communism is still alive and well in the ussr although all efforts are being made to market it as something else.

remember, materialism is also a -ism :o

have a beautiful sunshine day guys, whilst the sun's energy and rain have not been taxed yet ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a clear understanding of Communism and Nazism read the writings of Ludwig von Mises, the most outstanding economist of the past century or so. Both are flavours of Socialism, one Russian and the other German. The government policies during the Apartheid regime rule were vitually the same as Nazism. That differs little from government policies of today except that the favoured group has changed and now it is called redressing injustices of the past. But individual freedom is nowhere to be seen and the government's grip on our lives increases by the day. The greatest crime of the National Party government remains calling their Socialist dispensation Capitalism. Small wonder that so many hate Capitalism which they associate with the Nats policies. Meanwhile they are getting more of the same and that will not change. Socialism after all does not allow for existance of privately owned property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ebrsa said:

Both are flavours of Socialism

Fair enough, I think you are perfectly correct here. After all, Nazism by definition was "Nationalsozialismus", national socialism. But it was decidedly right-wing and conservative.

I suppose my point here is really that one should be careful to lump things you dislike into one large group as if they are compatible bed partners in every way. Sometimes the differences are more important.

As a man with a religious bent, Communism will always feel (to me) like a bigger danger than socialism in its more general wider understanding (I'll write more about it later). Communism was based on the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism. You cannot save Communism, you cannot untie it from this mooring place. Socialism, on the other hand, can often be tempered with other philosophies, and many countries (including our own) follow a kind of capitalism tempered by  a bit of rich-pays-for-the-poor in essential places.

What those essential places are is of course what we argue about all the time.

One of my favourite writers (GK Chesteron) put it this way:

Quote

[...] the weakness of all Utopias is this, that they take the greatest difficulty of man [that he is inherently selfish] and assume it to be overcome, and then give an elaborate account of the overcoming of the smaller ones. They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motor-car or balloon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ebrsa said:

For a clear understanding of Communism and Nazism

and socialism and ..............ism, ALL have one thing in common, making them bed-fellows; their hatred and one can without doubt state their fear [although not always expressed] for Christ.

take the nat govt as example, seeing that @ebrsa mentions it. they tried to have it both ways, trying to force  'ek vir jou suid afrika' down our throats whilst having the bible in the other hand - hypocrites at best; a very 'condensed' and racially 'cleansed' scripture. that goes for colonial-ism as well.

putting all the -isms into little boxes and having a verbal gymnastics field day regarding their pros and cons is to dodge the primary issue mentioned above.

not that my perspective is new, alas it was stated in my 1st post on this forum, i just feel that the fact of 'either or' must be stressed every now and then - or is that also unconstitutional? :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, plonkster said:

In short, they don't necessarily want to charge for it or control it. They just want to know how much there is of it and where it is.

So then why the need to register a backup generator? Bizarre!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gabriel said:

hypocrites at best; a very 'condensed' and racially 'cleansed' scripture

We didn't start the fire, as Billy Joel would say. Reading some stuff on Hitler is scary and enlightening at the same time. In public he would say things like "our movement is a Christian movement", in private he would lament the fact that the German nation picked that religion. He said things like:

Quote

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity."

And the translater was being kind when he translated that as "illegitimate child". What Hitler said was "hurkind".

At another time (or perhaps the same time) he wished that the Germans had rather taken up Islam:

Quote

"The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

Now of course one has to understand this within the context of the time, between the two world wars. Why do we have the turmoil in the middle east today? Well, frankly, because the Muslim nations picked the wrong side, and that side lost the war, which meant the victors took the spoils. That meant Britain got Palestine for a bit... and frankly, if anything is weird or off balance in the world, ask the British: They are either involved or to blame in some manner! :-P

(That's a joke if the tongue in cheek didn't give it away).

So why am I brining all this up? Well, for all the horror of what was mentioned so far, by far the biggest body count happened under inherently atheistic ideologies. Between Russia and Communist China, around a hundred million people were killed for "the greater good". And that was in the 20th century. Makes the 300 000 witches put to death between 1484 to 1782 look like a sunday school picnic!

So indeed... one should take a step back and think about this long and hard.

The libertarian approach @ebrsa advocates for is one that also resonates with me, but again... deep in my heart I know some other calamity will arise from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, pilotfish said:

So then why the need to register a backup generator? Bizarre!

Indeed! I mean... what the hell? Looks like every farmer's going to go.... aaah yes, I have a gennie. And this other one I sometimes use in the veld. Oh, and the welding machine has a power take-off too... should I fill in a separate form for each one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pilotfish said:

So then why the need to register a backup generator? Bizarre!

Thought that popped into my mind was keeping records for some reason.

This thought came from a situation a few years ago when gun safes where stolen in our area. They knew exactly where the safe was in each case, and only houses with gun safes where targeted.

Turns out that the police records for all the area's gun owners where "sold" to someone who was into "redistributing" such select goods.

I get it when one needs to register a car, a gun, being married and all that, but not solar or generators. Unless you are connected to the grid, that makes sense, as per what DeepBass mused on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but why the changes? and why generators? we all understood that one has to register with Eskom or the Muni if there were to be Net metering....

 

Energy regulator Nersa has published for comment proposed rules that will regulate the market for individuals and organisations who typically generate electricity from their own rooftop installations.

Stakeholders have 30 days to comment on the rules that will apply to installations with a generating capacity of up to 1MW.

The publication follows a notice published by the department of energy in November that provided for exemption for small-scale embedded generators from the obligation to obtain a licence from Nersa to generate electricity.

The exemption applies to generators of up to 1MW which are connected to the national grid and supply a single customer without wheeling (transporting) the energy through the grid, as well as wheeling it to a single or related customer.

Generators of up to 1MW of electricity for own use or a related person or customer on the same premises which is not connected to the grid are also exempted from licensing, as are demonstration plants and backup generators. They also need to register with Nersa, as do industries that generate electricity as a by-product of their main activity or from waste.

The rules provide that affected small-scale generators should get approval from their local electricity distributor — mostly the local municipality of Eskom — and register with Nersa.

The generator will be obliged to get a quotation from its distributor, pay the required connection fee and sign a use-of-system agreement.

The embedded system is required to comply with the technical specifications set by the distributor and has to obtain a certificate of compliance to that effect. The distributor may only deny the generator access to the system upon objectively identifiable grounds that prevent such access.

The distributor is required to report to Nersa on a quarterly basis with regard to the system.

The consultation paper does not deal with tariffs, which Nersa will address at a later stage.

  • This article was originally published on Moneyweb and is used here with permission

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike said:

Energy regulator Nersa has published for comment proposed rules

blah blah blah... one sure spinoff is that a lot of 'consultants' will become available to assist with the paper work, another useless expense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, plonkster said:

The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity

coming from hitler, a man who co-habitated with ms braun, to all of a sudden liking islam, which is build on mohammed who had at least eleven wifes, that's an interesting perspective... or could i say that the little man from berchtesgaden suddenly became very interested in fulfilling his sexual ambitions - what would freud say? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gabriel said:

interesting perspective

Let me quote more Chesterton for you.

Quote

Here is another case of the same kind. I felt that a strong case against Christianity lay in the charge that there is something timid, monkish, and unmanly about all that is called "Christian," especially in its attitude towards resistance and fighting. The great sceptics of the nineteenth century were largely virile. Bradlaugh in an expansive way, Huxley, in a reticent way, were decidedly men. In comparison, it did seem tenable that there was something weak and over patient about Christian counsels. The Gospel paradox about the other cheek, the fact that priests never fought, a hundred things made plausible the accusation that Christianity was an attempt to make a man too like a sheep. I read it and believed it, and if I had read nothing different, I should have gone on believing it. But I read something very different. I turned the next page in my agnostic manual, and my brain turned up-side down. Now I found that I was to hate Christianity not for fighting too little, but for fighting too much. Christianity, it seemed, was the mother of wars. Christianity had deluged the world with blood. I had got thoroughly angry with the Christian, because he never was angry. And now I was told to be angry with him because his anger had been the most huge and horrible thing in human history; because his anger had soaked the earth and smoked to the sun. The very people who reproached Christianity with the meekness and non-resistance of the monasteries were the very people who reproached it also with the violence and valour of the Crusades. It was the fault of poor old Christianity (somehow or other) both that Edward the Confessor did not fight and that Richard Coeur de Leon did. The Quakers (we were told) were the only characteristic Christians; and yet the massacres of Cromwell and Alva were characteristic Christian crimes. What could it all mean? What was this Christianity which always forbade war and always produced wars? What could be the nature of the thing which one could abuse first because it would not fight, and second because it was always fighting? In what world of riddles was born this monstrous murder and this monstrous meekness?

Again, one need to look at this within the context of the time (early 20th century). He talks about Huxley (the guy who wrote Brave New World, and Ends and Means), and Bradlaugh, both Atheists of whom you can read the books without wanting to scream at them: They called a spade a spade. They understood, as Nietzsche did before them, that you can't take things (such as the nice civil Western culture) for granted. Those things come from somewhere. Meddling with one part of the whole does not necessarily leave the rest untouched. In any case... so Chesterton says it initially made sense to him. The real men were obviously quite different to the meekish sheep on the other side. Except, he then turned the page... and what do you know... you're supposed to hate these people both for being too passive and too active.

Which again underscores the point that it is hard to lump people into a cohesive group. Even within cohesive groups there are large differences. Which is a good thing.

Back to Hitler though: If you look at how he eventually fashioned "Positive Christianity", whereby the Fuhrer essentially becomes the prophet of a new revelation, where Jesus wasn't a Jew but an Aryan, ... and you mirror this wish of his, if you can call it that, with how quickly Islam spread (the crusades were initially a reaction to curb this spread... but that answer is not PC) and the means by which it spread (conquest)... you can sort of understand why Hitler yearned for that side of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, plonkster said:

I should have gone on believing it. But I read something very different.

thus chesterton

both chesterton and one of his best known 'disciples', cs lewis, did not really understand what it means to be a Christian.

solomon had this to say about guys like these:

Ecclesiastes 12:12 "And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh."

a lot which they wrote seems christian and has the veneer, but if you really study scripture through a mind and eyes opened by the Holy Spirit, you very soon distinguish the shallowness of their religiosity.

in the wake of the popularity of the likes of chesterton and lewis the latter statement is all but pc, but in light of the beautiful description of what pc is by @The Terrible Triplett - with the caveat that 'minority' should be replaced by 'majority' - who cares? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×