Help with friend on EPA

[XTreat]

I have a friend who is interested in RP but cannot get past the EPA thing. It is far my area of interest or specialty. Here is our exchange so far hopefully some of you can help. I may have misspoke when I said corporations lobby the EPA, however I am sure they rotate from industry to government jobs regularly just like they do in the banking sector i.e Geitner, Paulson, Summer, with the treasury and Goldman-Sachs.

Friend: Hey *** does Ron Paul want to abolish the EPA????

Me: Yes, on the surface that sounds bad, like he doesn't care about polluters or the environment right? Like a lot of issues this requires an understanding of how corporations have wound themselves into the fabric of our government. A prime example is the BP oil spill. BP in the end was only responsible for a fraction of the damage that they caused, they paid their fines to the EPA and went on about their business. Under a Paul presidency with no government bureaucracy or regulators BP would be responsible for ALL property damage. Their is a reason why BP and others corporations spend millions lobbying the EPA. They are not giving that money out of good will I assure you. I mean who do you think writes the EPA regulations?

Friend: I don't understand how anyone "Lobbies" the EPA. I worked for thirty years in water treatment. I answered directly to the EPA and took many exams to become certified in the operation of Water and Wastewater treatment Plants. There was no such certification or requirement to be certified or qualified to operate such plants before 1972. All you needed was to be buddies with the mayor, or other politician to be given this job with such responsibilities. One point that Ron Paul made about abolishing the EPA was that if someone, some corporation, polluted, the person harmed could take them to court and sue for damages. How do you suppose you or I could take a large corporation to court and sue for polluting our air, water, or land? Do you have deep enough pockets to prevail in such a case, I sure don't, and I suspect you don't either. This so called decision to eliminate the EPA is not against corporations but is right up their alley, playing it as they most prefer it played, to be totally free of Government interference with their affairs. Their is a mentality that so called big government is bad. So called big government in this case is your and my representative government watching out for our common welfare against Corporations greed history of polluting until someone calls them to account. You need to watch one video called Food Inc. and watch closely what you will learn about Monsanto's behaviors towards the lowly farmers, and much more, easy to learn stuff.



Thanks in advance guys.

[raider4paul]

You and your friend individually may not have deep enough pockets, but chances are if they're polluting on your land they're polluting on others' as well.

Class action lawsuit, my friend.

[acptulsa]

Class action lawsuit, my friend.

Except there's a problem. If the defendant is meeting EPA regulations, your lawsuit doesn't stand a chance. It might not even get heard in court.

And for the record, Ron Paul has said that he doesn't believe that the federal government has no role in the prevention of pollution, because pollution is bad for the general welfare and crosses state lines.

[sailingaway]

Boy does industry ever lobby the EPA. Have them look up 'regulatory negotiation' and EPA. It isn't your common consumer at those tables.

Can you explain 'regulatory capture' to them?

[XTreat]

Bump

[libertybrewcity]

bump. I don't know enough about it to give you killer answer.

[bluesc]

Except there's a problem. If the defendant is meeting EPA regulations, your lawsuit doesn't stand a chance. It might not even get heard in court.

And for the record, Ron Paul has said that he doesn't believe that the federal government has no role in the prevention of pollution, because pollution is bad for the general welfare and crosses state lines.

^^^ This was the killer answer for me. The EPA is lobbied and protects the big corporate interests. These regulations are tailored to protect the corporations, not the people.

Ron believes the federal government has authority over people polluting based on property rights, among other things mentioned above.

There were some excellent posts on reddit absolutely destroying the liberal argument for the EPA. I'll see if I can dig them up, as I'm not too well educated on this either.

[thehighwaymanq]

I think RP answered this in a interview with Spitzer a couple months ago.

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixbAlsccbKY

[69360]

Without an EPA, polluters would not be able to buy credits to let them pollute.

We wouldn't just eliminate the EPA, it would be coupled with stronger laws with stiffer penalties for violating others property rights with pollution. This would put polluting companies out of business.

The biggest problem with the EPA and all of the alphabet agencies really is that the regulators are in bed with the companies they are supposed to be regulating. Polluting too much and in trouble with the EPA? No problem, just have your CEO quit and go work for the EPA. This happens a LOT more than you would think.

[dusman]

The problem is the lack of understanding of how our courts work. You could bring about suits against such companies without a penny to your name and do so with the full force of any legislative power. As it stands presently, you could even use the IRS to establish a commercial lien on said violating corporations whom are polluting. If you guys are curious as to how this is done, I could dig up some information for you in my free time.

The fallacy is that you need money to do this. I never hire an attorney and always represent myself Pro Se when I go to court. Therein lies all the effect you require in order to litigate these type of matters. In fact, attorneys are bound by the BAR and are limited in their ability to do procedurally what a Pro Se litigant has the power to do.

[Travlyr]

Simply legalizing industrial hemp would go a long way toward greening the environment.

[raider4paul]

Except there's a problem. If the defendant is meeting EPA regulations, your lawsuit doesn't stand a chance. It might not even get heard in court.

The question was how would it work without the EPA, so there would be no EPA regulations for the defendant to meet.

[JVParkour]

Just tell him that in reality, there is not way congress will ever vote to dismantle the EPA, so he has nothing to worry about, even with President Paul.

[TheTexan]

Regarding Monsanto & Regulatory Capture... from wikipedia, I thought this was funny:


Monsanto's growth hormone, rBGH, which has been linked to cancer in cows and humans,[44] has been banned in numerous countries, but is unlabeled and legal in the United States.[45] Margaret Miller, a former chemical laboratory supervisor at Monsanto,[46] wrote a scientific report that was to be submitted to the FDA to obtain approval of the drug. Shortly before the report was submitted, Miller quit Monsanto to take a job at the FDA, where her first job was to approve the report she had just written while employed at Monsanto.

[69360]

Regarding Monsanto & Regulatory Capture... from wikipedia, I thought this was funny:

This is very common.

[harikaried]

The simplest answer is that states have their own regulations. California has stronger regulations than what is required federally for certain aspects.

[Akus]

I have a friend who is interested in RP but cannot get past the EPA thing. It is far my area of interest or specialty. Here is our exchange so far hopefully some of you can help. I may have misspoke when I said corporations lobby the EPA, however I am sure they rotate from industry to government jobs regularly just like they do in the banking sector i.e Geitner, Paulson, Summer, with the treasury and Goldman-Sachs.

Friend: Hey *** does Ron Paul want to abolish the EPA????

Me: Yes, on the surface that sounds bad, like he doesn't care about polluters or the environment right? Like a lot of issues this requires an understanding of how corporations have wound themselves into the fabric of our government. A prime example is the BP oil spill. BP in the end was only responsible for a fraction of the damage that they caused, they paid their fines to the EPA and went on about their business. Under a Paul presidency with no government bureaucracy or regulators BP would be responsible for ALL property damage. Their is a reason why BP and others corporations spend millions lobbying the EPA. They are not giving that money out of good will I assure you. I mean who do you think writes the EPA regulations?

Friend: I don't understand how anyone "Lobbies" the EPA. I worked for thirty years in water treatment. I answered directly to the EPA and took many exams to become certified in the operation of Water and Wastewater treatment Plants. There was no such certification or requirement to be certified or qualified to operate such plants before 1972. All you needed was to be buddies with the mayor, or other politician to be given this job with such responsibilities. One point that Ron Paul made about abolishing the EPA was that if someone, some corporation, polluted, the person harmed could take them to court and sue for damages. How do you suppose you or I could take a large corporation to court and sue for polluting our air, water, or land? Do you have deep enough pockets to prevail in such a case, I sure don't, and I suspect you don't either. This so called decision to eliminate the EPA is not against corporations but is right up their alley, playing it as they most prefer it played, to be totally free of Government interference with their affairs. Their is a mentality that so called big government is bad. So called big government in this case is your and my representative government watching out for our common welfare against Corporations greed history of polluting until someone calls them to account. You need to watch one video called Food Inc. and watch closely what you will learn about Monsanto's behaviors towards the lowly farmers, and much more, easy to learn stuff.



Thanks in advance guys.

I know this doesn't directly answer your request, but tell your pro-environment friend that if he cares about environment, he should support RP because he is the only one who wants to overhaul the monetary system, which is right now oil-based. We're fighting for oil because we NEED it. Our dollar is nothing without oil to use a dollar to pay for. No oil back up for dollar - no need to fight for oil or extract it.

[Akus]

Simply legalizing industrial hemp would go a long way toward greening the environment.

I forgot to add that.

[Cabal]

Ron Paul believes in small government overall, but he is a minarchist (at least for the time being) as defined by Constitutional powers, which means he still believes the government has a role and responsibility. One of those roles and responsibilities is to protect and enforce individual property rights--property rights being a central factor of the libertarian ideology he ascribes to. He is a staunch advocate of the rule of law, which includes property rights and protection against initiation of aggression and fraud. Thus, if a company or corporation is infringing on the property rights of an individual (pollution) or defrauding them, it would be the government's responsibility and role to take them to court--or just slap them with federal notices/fines/penalties/reparations/etc--so that the average citizen would not have to shoulder that burden by themselves.

This is my understanding, in any case.

Also, Monsanto is able to do what it does BECAUSE of government regulatory bureaucracies and other interventionist laws (anti-trust/patent law, for example), not in spite of them. And yes, corporations lobby the government constantly, spending large sums of money and employing lobbyists who in many cases have once worked for government regulatory agencies to get their special interests satisfied. This is how coercive monopolies work, which is one of the primary reasons Monsanto can do what it does.

[XTreat]

Thanks guys

[TheTexan]

Ron Paul believes in small government overall, but he is a minarchist (at least for the time being) as defined by Constitutional powers, which means he still believes the government has a role and responsibility.

Correct, but just to clarify, as it's important: he believes in a small *federal* government. States are free to be as big or small as they like to be.