Video:Environment/property rights vs the economy, where would Ron Paul stand on this?

[BenIsForRon]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09072007/watch3.html

I believe, when Ron Paul becomes president, this would be an extremely difficult issue. Many sectors of the economy are dependent on that mountain top mining, yet there is no way to do it without destroying the surrounding environment and damaging peoples property. I say fuck the economic consequences and tell the companies that if they can't completely contain their waste within their property, then they have to cease operations. Yes it will hurt the economy in the short term, but people will adjust and find ways to support themselves in a more sustainable way.

Any of you guys know where Ron Paul stands on mountaintop mining and similar issues?

[BenIsForRon]

Bump.

Any opinions on a libertarian way to take care of this?

[Omnis]

I would be surprised if Paul put the economy over property rights. Nobody has the right to affect the property without the owner's consent.

If the demand for mountaintop mining is that strong, ways will be found to mine without harming property.

[freedominnumbers]

In a libertarian world you can harm another's property. You just have to reach a mutual agreement with the property owner first.

I envision mine owners having three choices. (1) Find a way to do business without harming surrounding land. (2) Reach a mutual agreement with surrounding property owners to compensate for the "damage" which would actually be a form of use of their land. (3) Cease operations.

In the short term some operations may immediately go to option 3. In the long term market prices will make it profitable to use option 1, 2 or a hybrid of both.

A good example is gold. It used to be unprofitable to mine gold in many areas. Today gold prices have made the mines profitable enough to run.

[BenIsForRon]

The problem is that a lot of people rely on that coal for electricity. It would have to be a gradual shut down, but it should be shut down. Things like this also make me believe that animals and ecosystems should have their own rights, so that we can't have massive destruction for profit like we're seeing here.

[Colleen]

Ben,

I can speak to this because these are the issues which led me to Ron Paul. He gave talks at Soverignty International with Henry Lamb and Ron Arnold. Arnold's book, Undue Influence is the best I have found to navigate these issues. Henry Lamb was VP of Paul's Liberty Committee as a result of this association re/ property-rights.

[Colleen]

*Ron Arnold's website.


http://www.undueinfluence.com/





*former Sierra Club leader.

[BenIsForRon]

I did a quick look over the site, it seemed like they think every land trust or conservation agency is actually run by elites trying to gain more power. Very paranoid stuff.

On their front page they say that these bureaucrats want to stop resource extraction and dismantle industrial civilization. That couldn't be further from the truth. Why do you think we're in Iraq? Why do you think republicans want to drill in ANWR? Industrial civilization and natural resources bring them their great wealth, dismantling it takes power out of their hands.

If you think mountaintop mining benefits the citizens of West Virginia, then you should take a look at that video and see who is really benefiting.

[Colleen]

I know how you feel, Ben, I have been a lifelong environmentalist and I felt the same way when I learned, as did Ron Arnold. Here is an easier way to look at it. Hope it helps.

The UN has coopted every vigourous movement of the people for their own purposes. I was very disheartened to learn that the environmental movement was one of those. The same names of wealthy industrialists therein pop up everywhere else. Including what we have been conditioned to view as the environmental movement.

It is sad but true that this former Greenpeace girrl was very heartbroken to learn of this. It is very depressing to me that this once peaceful grassroots movement now is financed and controlled by the very ones who created the polluting technologies. And still do. Including the government, which is the biggest polluter in the nation. Why would any thinking person ever want to trust them to protect the environment, I wonder...they have a horrendous track-record of doing so.

[BenIsForRon]

I don't think you understood my post. Ron Arnold is part of the wise use movement. The wise use movement is actually the opposite of what it says. They encourage rural citizens to rape their own lands for all the resources that they have. What Ron Arnold doesn't tell these rural workers is that a majority of the profits go straight to the corporations, who leave with the money once they've depleted the local's resources.

He even lobbied to get environmentalists labeled as terrorists: http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0707-12.htm

So, Colleen, are you actually an environmentalist or a capitalist who wants to remove barriers to resource extraction? I'm not trying to accuse you of lying but I find it hard to believe that you could read anything by Ron Arnold and not be able to see his true agenda. He cares nothing for the environment.

[Colleen]

Have you read the book? I know he is unpopular with many neo environmentalists but the issues in his book detail his reasons for leaving his leadership role in the Sierra Club. And my own for leaving the ideology as practiced by others of that ilk.The Nature Conservancy is another. There are many. David Icke is another. It would help to investigate the reasons why many are leaving the movement.

Wise use movement. Isn't wise use the goal? Since everyone I know, including environmentalists, use resources?

[BenIsForRon]

Wise use movement. Isn't wise use the goal? Since everyone I know, including environmentalists, use resources?

Ok, well look at Arnold's essay about the wise use movement:
http://www.cdfe.org/wiseuse.htm

Can you find a single sentence that mentions anything about wise use of finite resources?

The only theme I noticed was: THOSE ENVIRONMENTALISTS WANT TO DESTROY CAPITALISM, THE COMMIE BASTARDS!

[Colleen]

Ben, Ron Paul and others, including myself, are very concerned that land-use policy is now being dictated by unconstitutional international treaties. He feels that we can do the job more efficiently at home, inured with local input from the resource providers themselves.
The Environmental Grantmaker's Association seeks to control by pitting environmentalists against resource providers, creating a lose-lose situation for both. It is no accident that both sides are viewed as potential terrorists by the Patriot Act. It is called the Hegellian Dialectic and this is a beautiful illustration of how the few control us by conflicts, rather than the common good.

If you think that the only way to protect our natural resources is through the UN, then you are in disagreement with Ron Paul on this issue and I pointed to a remarkable expose' in the form of Arnold's book. If you disagree with the premise and facts as explained therein, then that is your right to do so. I was merely recommending a source I found to be immeasurable to my understanding of a divisive issue.

[BenIsForRon]

I wouldn't trust the UN with anything, especially the environment and natural resources.

And I understand your skepticism with certain environmentalists, it's just that I think you're not seeing the true motives behind Ron Arnold's movement. Ron Arnold is using divisive techniques to make his point. All he does is try to discredit environmentalists, while at the same time speaking nothing of using the land and resources wisely.

[Colleen]

Well, let's see, when I heard Ron Arnold speak, he conveyed a tremendous sense of guilt over all the farmers who lost their land as a result of policies he - at one time - endorsed. He had no idea the human toll involved. But there really isn't much left to debate, now. The UN is dictating land-use policies in this country now. Most folks do not understand that this is what they support with every donation to the Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy and Earth First.

Most know nothing of the rural cleansing policies these organizations promote. Lost homes, farms and livelihoods mean nothing to the urban city dwellers who think it is cool to displace whole towns in the name of saving such endangered rare species like the suckerfish. But I do because I was there with the desperate families of Klamath Falls, Oregon when their water was shut off right near harvest time. And also the Darby River farmers of London, Ohio fighting to save half a million acres of productive farmland the scale of which feeds the country because the Nature Conservancy, backed by the Gund Foundation wants it to go back to mosquito-infested marshland and displace 500 families.

This same scenario is playing itself out all over rural America but you won't be told anything about it, other than that they rape the land by farming it. Never mind that they feed the people.

It really is nearly too late to change that, but Ron Paul wishes to try.

[BenIsForRon]

I agree that we shouldn't pick on small farmers, but what Ron Arnold seems to focus most of his energy on is enabling coal companies to blow up more mountains and dig more mines without consequence. You have to try to see this from both sides, most environmental groups are not out to take down rural farmers. And we do need to protect wetlands, they are a critical habitat for many species, and they have many benefits for humans when left in their natural state.


The UN is dictating land-use policies in this country now.

Really? How so? Where I live all land use policies come from the state or local government.

[Colleen]

The truth is that the takings of lands is common practice under these UN treaties.
My friend in Arizona, David Rawls, was taken at gunpoint and his mother dumped on the street in front of her Dr's office.She was bedridden & recovering from surgery. And let us not forget Dianna Luppi who was branded a terrorist just for going home. www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ab21c95505d.htm

If you want proof of UN control of land-use in the US and elsewhere, Henry Lambs website will make your head spin:
http://www.sovereignty.net/

[BenIsForRon]

Oh yeah, the UN is giant piece of shit, hopefully withdrawing from it will be one of the first things Ron Paul does.

I'm just saying you need to have the same skepticism for guys like Ron Arnold as you do for environmental groups. There are lots of people who want to stop environmental protection in instances where it keeps them from making money.

[nexalacer]

If you're still interested in the original topic, property rights would absolutely triumph. If they had triumphed in the first place, the need for the coal would have been replaced by energy innovation. Thank the Department of Energy for the continuing need to bomb mountains for coal.

[Colleen]

Absolutely,

Innovation is being squashed by the same industrialists who are equating environmental protections with land-grabbing. Two different animals, in my book. Just look at what they did to Tesla and I do believe his cold fusion technology would be the answer to all of this. But the military & DOE just keep sitting on it. This is the real problem, I believe.

[RonPaulIsGood]

While I do think pollution has a greenhouse effect, I do not worry about this because we can still survive at least one hundred years with our current pollution trend. We would invent technology in the future that would clean up the Earth. We would live in space in the future so we would not worry about the environment. We would have a technological singularity soon so environmentalism isn't an issue.

In order to be technological progress, we must cut taxes so more would invest in technology to clean up the earth. So in the short run we would "harm" but in the long run we get infinite reward for not regulating pollution.

[BenIsForRon]

If you're still interested in the original topic, property rights would absolutely triumph. If they had triumphed in the first place, the need for the coal would have been replaced by energy innovation. Thank the Department of Energy for the continuing need to bomb mountains for coal.

I agree. We would just have to shut them down in a systematic way, not overnight. As for the DOE, they would be the first department I shut down after Homeland Security.

[Rivington Essex]

Withdrawing from the Middle East will probably send oil from $80 to $120 sooner rather than later.

The will help spur innovation which will help the environment (I hope).

Critics will say "it will crush the economy" My answer is that oil has gone from 20 to 80 under Bush, so 80 to 120 will have less impact. Less in Dollars, less in %.

Most environmentalism comes from property rights. Where this property rights philosophy becomes flawed is that if a corporation kill and hurts thousands of people (Bhopal India), they could declare bankruptcy. In the case of Bohpal there was compensation and Union Carbide paid. But in other cases, the company can go bankrupt, and the dead, injured and maimed have no redress and no restitution.

You can sue all you want then to protect your property, but after the perpetrator declares bankruptcy, nobody is going to help you.

My prediction on global warming; individuals and states will start to sue utilities now that the science is getting better and better. Like the cigarette companies, polluters will win at first, but as it becomes more evident global warming is doing property damage, those companies will fold or try to settle.

The reason why many utility comapnies are calling for regulation today is that they can see this problem as clear as day. 1) Global Warming is real. 2) Property rights are real. That is a problem for someone dumping pollution.

[RonPaulIsGood]

We already have