PDA

View Full Version : How do I promote Ron Paul as a pro-environment candidate?




krott5333
07-23-2007, 02:15 PM
my friend is slowly coming over to the bright side.. but he asked me RP's stance on the environment. I just assumed that if the people want a clean environment, their consumer practices in a free market would support environmentally-friendly business practices..

??? :confused:

DeadheadForPaul
07-23-2007, 02:19 PM
Protect the environment through property rights. Just as you cannot dump your garbage on your neighbor's lawn, you do not have the right to pollute your neighbor's air, water, or land. Private property rights are the best way to solve this issue because people care about THEIR property. The government often does little to protect public property. In fact, the government often creates pollution. They dumped waste from Oak Ridge into the Tennessee River and polluted it for example.

Government is also in bed with big business and oil companies. Ron Paul is not controlled by any special interests. He believes that people can make conscious decisions such as buying hybrid cars, cutting oil consumption, donating to research for alternative energy, etc. in order to change things. Most politicians will not get us off oil because they are in the back pockets of Big Oil

Chase
07-23-2007, 02:21 PM
I would also point out that Ron Paul wants to end economic and military subsidies for oil and also remove roadblocks for nuclear power. He understands that doing so could very well cause the price of oil to rise, but that will just result in market pressure to drive less and discover new fuels.

Nuclear power could also help quite a bit in freeing our dependence on coal-fired plants (keep in mind coal kills thousands of people a year... nuclear, typically none.)

beermotor
07-23-2007, 02:23 PM
Fission power has lots of other drawbacks, heat pollution of water being one of them. But I agree that I think it is a better alternative than coal, which is really dirty, heh.

At any rate, removing government collusion in the marketplace is the best way to take power generation LOCAL and GREEN.

ChairmanMao
07-23-2007, 02:24 PM
Through civil liberties of course! If youve ever read the Merchant of Venice, at the very end of it the Jew goes to get his pound of flesh. The king tells the Jew he can have his pound of flesh if not a single drop of Roman blood hits the floor. Which is virtually impossible. Same thing with Ron Paul and the environment. You can polute as much as you want but the second your oil or mercury seeps through the ground into someone else property you are liable and at fault.

Syren123
07-23-2007, 02:25 PM
Private property. Ron Paul states that private property rights will address environmental issues: you have the right to do what you want on your property, but you do NOT have the right to pollute your neighbor's air or water, throw trash on your neighbor's property. And those laws would be under the jurisdiction of the govt as part of their responsibility to protect citizens.

With a lot fewer things to do, the govt could enact those protections a lot more effectively and fairly.

DeadheadForPaul
07-23-2007, 02:25 PM
Nuclear power is honestly the best solution to prevent an energy crisis. For cars, I think the market should dictate it. If I was running for office, which I'm obviously not so I'm being an arm-chair quarterback here, but I would offer tax breaks for anyone buying a hybrid car. That's me, though, and not what Dr. Paul has said.

Syren123
07-23-2007, 02:26 PM
I see we're all on the same page here.
LOL

jacmicwag
07-23-2007, 02:27 PM
Yes, this is a big issue for my wife also. She is worried that without federal air and water quality requirements, we might return to the era of the 60's with dead rivers and lakes. She is also worried that the huge companies will be able to blow off or out spend individauls who might bring suit against polluters. This is one subject where a little more detail from Ron would help.

shadowhooch
07-23-2007, 02:46 PM
Yes, this is a big issue for my wife also. She is worried that without federal air and water quality requirements, we might return to the era of the 60's with dead rivers and lakes. She is also worried that the huge companies will be able to blow off or out spend individauls who might bring suit against polluters. This is one subject where a little more detail from Ron would help.

Agreed. I have my doubts about the free market working toward a better environment. In some cases, the personal property argument works fine.
But Corporations aren't owned by one person. And stockholders aren't PERSONALLY liable for penalties (besides their stock price going down). Also, we don't always find out the harm a Corporation is doing until well after the fact. Corporations and businesses can make shortcuts to obey the almighty dollar of the stockholders and that could lead to poor environmental decisions.

Many businesses HAVE to pollute the air to operate. What is an acceptable level and what is not? Everybody breathes the air and the effects are hard to spot and define.
What about car emmissions? Do you really believe people will demand auto manufacturers to create more expensive cars in order to reduce emmissions? Maybe some will. But most people go with price as not everyone is environmentally concerned.

Just like the SEC tries to keep Corporations honest on the books, I think something should be done to keep them honest environmentally too. I don't mind govt regulation for that. Though it IS unfortunate that many politicians have ulterior motives. But that should resonate in our votes instead of deregulation maybe.

That being said, I don't have a problem with it being a state level decision as opposed to a Federal one. But I'm leary of it being left up to Corporations, Individuals, and lawyers. But feel free to educate me why the free market would work better than Federal law.:)

DeadheadForPaul
07-23-2007, 02:48 PM
Agreed. I have my doubts about the free market working toward a better environment. In some cases, the personal property argument works fine.
But Corporations aren't owned by one person. And stockholders aren't PERSONALLY liable for penalties (besides their stock price going down). Also, we don't always find out the harm a Corporation is doing until well after the fact. Corporations and businesses can make shortcuts to obey the almighty dollar of the stockholders and that could lead to poor environmental decisions.

Many businesses HAVE to pollute the air to operate. What is an acceptable level and what is not? Everybody breathes the air and the effects are hard to spot and define.
What about car emmissions? Do you really believe people will demand auto manufacturers to create more expensive cars in order to reduce emmissions? Maybe some will. But most people go with price as not everyone is environmentally concerned.

Just like the SEC tries to keep Corporations honest on the books, I think something should be done to keep them honest environmentally too. I don't mind govt regulation for that.

That being said, I don't have a problem with it being a state level decision as opposed to a Federal one. But I'm leary of it being left up to Corporations, Individuals, and lawyers. But feel free to educate me why the free market would work better than Federal law.:)

I don't mind some gov't regulation to protect the environment. It's just that the radical environmental movement takes it too far

shadowhooch
07-23-2007, 02:49 PM
I don't mind some gov't regulation to protect the environment. It's just that the radical environmental movement takes it too far

I'll agree with you there. No doubt about that.

As much as I admire Ron Paul with being so consistent with his free market believes; I do believe it scares some voters off unfortunately.

Roxi
07-23-2007, 02:51 PM
Nuclear power is honestly the best solution to prevent an energy crisis. For cars, I think the market should dictate it. If I was running for office, which I'm obviously not so I'm being an arm-chair quarterback here, but I would offer tax breaks for anyone buying a hybrid car. That's me, though, and not what Dr. Paul has said.

This is an excellent idea, maybe torch could use that while hes running

Syren123
07-23-2007, 02:55 PM
Knowing what we know about Ron Paul, there's no way he'd dismantle existing protections and laws until the new framework under which new laws would operate were in place. It's a process, not a proclamation.

Almost every single thing Ron Paul stands for and believes in will take time to implement. It's a complete overhaul of how things are currently being run. So in essence, a Ron Paul presidency would actually BE a revolution and would take years to fully realize.

But the alternative is more of the same and WORSE.

BarryDonegan
07-23-2007, 02:56 PM
federal regulation of environmental practices is a poor version of the private version. Without a government agency to do this, private companies would definately capitalize on this need for service by providing a magazine, tv series, or some other form of media that rates and notes environmental friendliness for companies. naturally these companies who rated well would include that in their promotion.

someone around wants to make a buck off environmentalists, if you let them, everyone wins.

ChairmanMao
07-23-2007, 03:02 PM
Speaking of the environment i happen to have a way to help get rid of carbon emissions but no way to test it without my university snatching it from me for using their equipment. Anyone here have a laboratory in their basement?

jblosser
07-23-2007, 03:34 PM
The people concerned about needing the government to control the corporations need to remember what history is teaching us: when the government controls the regulations, and defends them with the force of law/guns, you just have a shiny target for the lobbyists to go after. Corporations run things because there are laws to buy.

Scale the government back to simple property and contract rights and there's nothing for the corporations to lobby for. If we really need regulatory bodies, the market will provide private certification groups like consumer reports and make it their business to have good reputations behind their seal of approval. Corporations will have to let these groups inspect and certify them to compete for the business of customers who care. And no, they won't be able to successfully buy the certifications off, because that's fraud, which *is* the realm of the state. When you have the certification and the anti-fraud groups working together like we do today they ignore each other. When they are competing groups (private enterprise and the courts), they hold each other accountable. That doesn't mean fraud is impossible, but a localized, small authority government is much easier to watch over and keep honest than the behemoth we have today.

As Dr. Paul points out it wan't the EPA that cleaned up Philadelphia where he grew up.

shadowhooch
07-23-2007, 03:43 PM
The people concerned about needing the government to control the corporations need to remember what history is teaching us: when the government controls the regulations, and defends them with the force of law/guns, you just have a shiny target for the lobbyists to go after. Corporations run things because there are laws to buy.

Scale the government back to simple property and contract rights and there's nothing for the corporations to lobby for. If we really need regulatory bodies, the market will provide private certification groups like consumer reports and make it their business to have good reputations behind their seal of approval. Corporations will have to let these groups inspect and certify them to compete for the business of customers who care. And no, they won't be able to successfully buy the certifications off, because that's fraud, which *is* the realm of the state. When you have the certification and the anti-fraud groups working together like we do today they ignore each other. When they are competing groups (private enterprise and the courts), they hold each other accountable. That doesn't mean fraud is impossible, but a localized, small authority government is much easier to watch over and keep honest than the behemoth we have today.

As Dr. Paul points out it wan't the EPA that cleaned up Philadelphia where he grew up.

Good info. I'm learning a lot from you today. It's just hard for the average American to grasp since we have been spoon fed and depended on the govt to do this for us for so long. It's a hard sell to the average voter - even if it is true.

SeanEdwards
07-23-2007, 03:44 PM
It's another issue that will benefit from taking the federal government out of the picture. California voters recently passed a clean air law that mandated stricter emissions and fuel economy standards. The auto industry immediately sued to have the law thrown out, because they argued that a mere state had no authority to enact stricter environmental protections than the federal government.

qednick
07-23-2007, 03:50 PM
Easy: get rid of all the corrupt politicians who are in the pockets of the large oil companies and, hey presto, problem solved.

Bradley in DC
07-23-2007, 03:58 PM
There is so much to this answer:

The "short version" would be that Dr. Paul supports cutting environmentally harmful government spending. That record has been recognized by the Green Scissors campaign:

http://www.greenscissors.org/

In addition to the Green Scissor agenda, Dr. Paul has opposed other programs, in part, for their harmful consequences to the government:

See my post here for the outline of where I was going:
http://ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=40570&postcount=19

in this thread
http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=944&highlight=environment

Starting off praising Thoreau as the first environmentalist (and defender of civil disobedience!) is a nice poetic touch.

Project Aims To Convert Farmland Into Wetlands
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062300611_2.html?referrer=email

Dr. Paul often uses the environment in his statements:

Subsidizing insurance in high risk areas would have unintended consequences both environmental and human. High risk areas are often in environmentally fragile areas which would be put in greater environmental jeopardy under this bill than under a free market. The human toll could be great: since people judge the risks they will take using insurance rates as a guide, the distortion of this pricing system would have the effect of encouraging families to remain in or move to high risk areas and add a marginal disincentive to move to or remain in lower risk areas; thus, when the next natural disaster hits, more people will be put in danger and the casualties will likely be higher. (Opening Statement of Ron Paul; Full Committee Hearing on H.R. 21,; Homeowners’ Insurance Availability Act of 1999; House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, July 30, 1999)

Most of the next generation environmentally-friendly industries (solar, wind, etc.) have high start up costs but pay off later IN A LOW INTEREST RATE ENVIRONMENT so we need Dr. Paul's monetary and fiscal policies to get us there and make those alternatives viable.

jblosser
07-23-2007, 04:02 PM
Good info. I'm learning a lot from you today. It's just hard for the average American to grasp since we have been spoon fed and depended on the govt to do this for us for so long. It's a hard sell to the average voter - even if it is true.

Then let me give you some homework. Go read this:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

Swap references to God with Natural Law if you want; that isn't the point of the assignment. Reading _The Law_ will not take you very long, but it will open your mind more than even Dr. Paul has. I promise.

(No, this isn't a reference to something by Alex Jones; Bastiat is a staple of libertarian thought from the 1800s, and this book is the first of the recommend reading on Ron Paul's myspace page.)

Highmesa
07-23-2007, 04:07 PM
Here's a draft of a piece I've been working on. It's not a finished product as I need to work in a bit on corporations and limited liability, and flesh out the sections a bit. It was however written with the notion that I have ALOT of enviros as friends and I need to talk to them in a constructive manner. I was thinking of submitting it to LRC when I am done.


Libertarian and Green

One of the most difficult conflicts I’ve had to reconcile in my life is the seemingly incompatible view I hold on economics with my love for the environment and the natural world. Over my 45 years, I’ve come to be a strong believer in the Austrian School of economics. It is the only school of thought that hasn’t failed, probably due to the fact that it cuts through the games economists play in the political world, looking for the free lunch that they have always been told and know deep down doesn’t exist.
The problem I’ve always had is that Austrians, by nature, seem to be deeply rooted in the academic world, and the arguments made for free-market environmental protection lack a detailed understanding of our complicated environmental problems. We’ve probably all had experiences where we are reading an article about a hobby we are passionate about, and at some point in the story the author says something that indicates to you that he only has a superficial understanding of the topic. As an avid fly fisherman, product reviews come to mind. You’ll be reading a review and the author uses some terminology that sets off an alarm that he doesn’t really understand the product.
You could probably call me a conservationist more than and environmentalist if the name game is important, but the basic tenet of believing we need to take care of this, our only planet, is the same. In fact, I see a lot of fairly leftist environmentalists calling themselves conservationists these days in an effort to garner more support from middle-America.
There are strong views in the environmental movement, and there have been for some time, that free-markets are incompatible with environmentalism. Ideological socialists took hold of the movement back in the 1960’s and never let go. It’s almost as if the first belief you must hold if you are pro-environment is that you are anti-market. This has been a great deception played on people who don’t really understand economics and praxeology. But who can really blame people for not wanting to study the dismal science? Especially when you have someone in front of you touting how they understand it so you don’t have to. It’s a problem that permeates our whole political system, so why should the natural world be any different? I often tell friends that while the economics of an issue is not the only thing you need to understand, if you choose to ignore the economics you will most likely to come to the wrong conclusion.
I am going to outline three reasons why I think the environmental movement has moved in the wrong direction over the last couple decades and why the best solution to our environmental problems come from a free-market and protection of property rights, civil rather than regulatory action, and local rather than national or global actions.


I’ve never understood the environmental movement’s love for big government. Looking back at the Vietnam era, when Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring spurred modern environmentalism, and at all the protests about the abuses of government at that time, it strikes me as foolish to hold the opinion that “if we can just get the right people in there, everything will be beautiful.” Don’t these people realize that there is a 50/50 chance every 2-4 years that a new administration will take all the powers bestowed on the past administration and turn them on their head.
There was a big effort during the Clinton Administration to acquire more federal lands in order to protect them from the local red-necks. Along comes the Bush administration, and under the illusion of energy independence, decide they are going to open up more and more of the west to gas and oil exploration. Even though the infrastructure is not there to develop the resource, Bush and Cheney have made a strong effort to push as many permits out to developers so that for decades down the line, these developers can hold the rights and chose the most opportunistic time in terms of market price to develop these resources.
Many may look at this and say, “so what, these resources should be developed.” The problem is that these resources are being sold off at heavily subsidized, rock bottom prices, without any real analysis of the economic value that can be derived from other uses of these lands. This is a pretty cut and dried land grab, turning lands that have been paid for by the American taxpayers over to private interests. If the federal government wants to dump these lands, they need to give them to the states, not sell them off to friends and contributors at below market rates.
I was one of the primary players in stopping the leasing of the Valle Vidal in northern New Mexico, for coal-bed methane development. This piece of public land represents some of the best hunting and fishing in the state. The resource under it represented enough gas to power this nation for all of about 2 days, and that resources would have to be extracted over 20 years during which the place would be turned into an industrial park. My objections to this scheme were that this was a decision being made in DC, primarily for the benefit of the developer and not for any deluded visions of energy independence. There was an effort on the part of the federal government to limit the input and override the wishes of the local people. Well, instead of hitting them from the left, we put together a coalition of hunters and anglers and hit them from the right.
Every time environmentalists lose a battle, they seem to look to a higher level of government to correct the perceived ill and in my mind this is completely wrong. Local people will always have a greater vested interest in a problem that those farther away and will be able to better sway opinions.


A second problem I have with this movement is the desire to enact regulatory restrictions in what is essentially a civil matter. And again, the tendency is to go big and get regulation on entire industries across the entire nation, or even the entire earth if they are able. One, they don’t really work that well as the companies, deeply entangled with government officials are able to side-step many of the regulations. Two, when you get an administration like the current one, you get the industries themselves writing the supposed regulations and basically legalizing their misdeeds.
A couple years ago, I had breakfast with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and we discussed the work he was doing with Riverkeepers and the National Resources Defense Council. At that time, he was no longer calling himself an environmentalist, and instead calling himself a free-marketer (truthfully, I don’t think he fully understood what this meant). He was no longer looking at trying to build tougher regulations on industry, but instead focusing on civil action against companies for causing damage to other people’s health and property. In my mind this is the correct course of action to address environmental ills. It is truly a crime against one’s property and if someone is violated, the offender should pay. This is much more logical and palatable that writing broad stroke regulations that often miss the mark anyways due to political negotiation.


A third problem and one I consider to be the most serious, is the artificial money system we have not only in this country, but throughout the entire industrialized world. The current fiat system is driven by growth, often artificial, and inflation. Environmentalists often talk of sustainable economies. While this term is somewhat vague and open to interpretation, anything approaching sustainability under of current system of money is impossible. The Federal Reserve seems to target a certainly level of inflation that keeps credit money cheap and expands the money supply. The result is that there is a built in floor for the amount of economic growth over and above that which would take place naturally. This unnatural growth goes to under-pricing resources and therefore promoting their use above and beyond the sustainable level.

LastoftheMohicans
07-23-2007, 04:28 PM
my friend is slowly coming over to the bright side.. but he asked me RP's stance on the environment. I just assumed that if the people want a clean environment, their consumer practices in a free market would support environmentally-friendly business practices..

??? :confused:

Read this article by the late libertarian Harry Browne, http://www.harrybrowne.org/hb2000/print/enviro.htm

You can also mention that the most polluted countries are the ones with the most government control/ownership of land and waterways.

Elwar
07-23-2007, 04:53 PM
Something Dr. Paul and many others do not mention or probably are not aware of is that the EPA stamped out a whole private industry to do just what the EPA was supposed to do.

During the industrial revolution an industry started to crop up due to the affects of the industrial plants creating pollution. There were private investigators that would track down the source of pollution and find the companies that were responsible and get money to those whom were affected.

The industry was just starting to take off as there was a need, just as in any free market. It was still developing but then the government decided that they needed to get involved and things went downhill from there. Imagine if the industry were able to flourish as any capitalist industry with competition does. The first bit of oil to seep into the groundwater would probably be caught, flagged and the persons responsible would be held accountable.

Of course, why would the government want such an industry to exist when their findings would mostly point to the fact that it is the US government that is the largest polluter in the country.

Government regulation to the rescue yet again.

conner_condor
07-23-2007, 05:00 PM
Nuclear power is honestly the best solution to prevent an energy crisis. For cars, I think the market should dictate it. If I was running for office, which I'm obviously not so I'm being an arm-chair quarterback here, but I would offer tax breaks for anyone buying a hybrid car. That's me, though, and not what Dr. Paul has said.


I guess you forgot about him trying to rid us of the IRS and the federal taxes.

DeadheadForPaul
07-23-2007, 05:01 PM
I guess you forgot about him trying to rid us of the IRS and the federal taxes.

I didn't forget about it. There would still be taxes on goods, so allowing people to buy hybrids with lower taxes or no taxes would encourage buying these vehicles...though one could argue that this is favoritism and not free market

pyrazole
07-23-2007, 05:03 PM
I'm a chemical engineer at a large hydrometallurgical refinery. We basically take the ore that's dug up from Kazakhstan (thier ore is better than others' ore...Borat heh) and make it purer, more useful.

The process itself has a high potential for pollution. The company realizes this and of course the EPA is all over us.

As an employee, marginally knowledgeable about the costs involved, I would say that the biggest driving force for not polluting is that of profit, not the EPA. We have a million ideas of how to reduce pollution (and improve product at the same time) but never enough money to implement the changes. If the market was freed up under Ron Paul, I believe that a large number of companies would invest in pollution controls/alternatives.

I also look at his foreign policy concepts...but applied on the domestic side. The EPA fines companies that pollute....how are they supposed to improve if the money they could use for pollution control is fed into the till? I believe Ron Paul (or state officials) would promote 'domestic diplomacy', and help companies fix things instead of slapping them on the wrist and taking away funds that could help the problem. I for one am not inspired by the EPA's scare tactics and feel like I'm trying to simply avoid thier scrutiny...it's not a productive environment.

Other people have discussed property rights...that's probably the biggest factor, and I believe that he'd allow states to be very hard on polluters, as they should be!

conner_condor
07-23-2007, 05:20 PM
Just saving 24% of your income from not paying taxes should be good enough for most americans to want him as POTUS should be good enough for now.
Money over pollution control. I have to tell you the money is no. 1 concern to americans along with freedom. Without these two things who is going to care about what happens? Who is going to afford these hybrid cars? Not I with the money they take from the pay checks for taxes.
Eliminate the taxes and then people could afford new technology for better pollution control. This will open new markets as was mentioned so people can afford these things and put the oil companies out of bussiness.
Money is the issue when it comes to our enviroment. More money in the peoples pockets means more choices for them on what they can afford. This will open free markets on alternative fuels.

RonPaulIsGood
10-02-2007, 02:52 PM
Get rid of utility poles and cable television wires. These are violations against private property. We already have antennas and satellites. Governmental regulated telephone poles and cable television wires results in monopolies, anti-environmental and are a waste of resources.

Get rid of power lines, which are also violations against private property. That would encourage the use of cleaner energy such as windmills and solar power. That sounds extreme, but the more I think of it the better it sounds. More respect to private property results in more competition and more efficient transmission of energy.

Deregulation in water would reduce water pollution, since private companies would have the incentive to recycle water.

Government disrespect to property, created the railroad monopolies in the 1800s. They created the AT&t, television and ISP monopolies. Get rid of regulation quick, before more governmental regulation such as network "neutrality" kicks in.

DocGrimes
10-03-2007, 07:19 AM
Going to have to read some of those articles though possible I already have hehe.

Bottom line for me is that Free markets combines with a true respect for private property will create a very environmentally friendly cohesion.

Very often I hear how if we have free markets big business will just run everyone over and pollute pollute pollute. But that is only true if they are not held accountable for damages to other folks private property.

If they are held accountable they will be either getting permission to pollute or paying damages and possibly other penalties.

nexalacer
10-03-2007, 07:27 AM
Get rid of utility poles and cable television wires. These are violations against private property. We already have antennas and satellites. Governmental regulated telephone poles and cable television wires results in monopolies, anti-environmental and are a waste of resources.

Get rid of power lines, which are also violations against private property. That would encourage the use of cleaner energy such as windmills and solar power. That sounds extreme, but the more I think of it the better it sounds. More respect to private property results in more competition and more efficient transmission of energy.

Deregulation in water would reduce water pollution, since private companies would have the incentive to recycle water.

Government disrespect to property, created the railroad monopolies in the 1800s. They created the AT&t, television and ISP monopolies. Get rid of regulation quick, before more governmental regulation such as network "neutrality" kicks in.

Power lines, cable television wires, and utility poles are not violations of property rights in their nature. They are violations because of eminent domain. The solution is not to get rid of them, but to demand that the industries that rely on them for a profit must enter contractual agreements with the rightful land owners and pay them for the right to build their infrastructure there. You're right though, the regulation is always the cause of our biggest economic problems.

enjerth
10-03-2007, 10:39 AM
He addressed the economy in his Candidates@Google (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg)interview. I don't remember exactly what he said, but he believes when people grow accustomed to their own responsibility, the free market makes the decisions. If people are conscientious about the environment they will make purchasing decisions based on that. Government can't and shouldn't FORCE you to make these choices. But people have to learn that they vote with their money.

Mesogen
10-03-2007, 02:24 PM
The whole private property to protect the environment thing never made sense to me.

Do private property rights allow me to destroy the land and anything on it as I please as long as it doesn't affect my neighbors? So if I owned huge tracts of land and contained all my destructive activities to that area, it would be ok?

If I bought up a large tract in West Virginia and decided to blow up a mountain and ruin three streams nearby and destroy the ecosystem in that area it's ok because I own it? The plants and animals on that land weren't in on the deal. What say do they have?

Then I die. But the land is ruined for thousands of years.

Let's say I buy up a huge tract of land in Kansas and totally fence it in. Somehow this disrupts the migrations of certain types of animals and species are endangered. Now what? Who will protect these animals? I'm sorry, but it has to be done.

To me there are certain things that a government should definitely be doing. One of them is protecting the environment through law. Sure, this can be abused, but anything in government can and it's better than giving people free reign to destroy as they please.

RonPaulIsGood
10-03-2007, 02:40 PM
[QUOTE=Mesogen;237320]The whole private property to protect the environment thing never made sense to me.

nexalacer
10-03-2007, 10:07 PM
The whole private property to protect the environment thing never made sense to me.

Do private property rights allow me to destroy the land and anything on it as I please as long as it doesn't affect my neighbors? So if I owned huge tracts of land and contained all my destructive activities to that area, it would be ok?

If I bought up a large tract in West Virginia and decided to blow up a mountain and ruin three streams nearby and destroy the ecosystem in that area it's ok because I own it? The plants and animals on that land weren't in on the deal. What say do they have?

Then I die. But the land is ruined for thousands of years.

Let's say I buy up a huge tract of land in Kansas and totally fence it in. Somehow this disrupts the migrations of certain types of animals and species are endangered. Now what? Who will protect these animals? I'm sorry, but it has to be done.

To me there are certain things that a government should definitely be doing. One of them is protecting the environment through law. Sure, this can be abused, but anything in government can and it's better than giving people free reign to destroy as they please.

Private property rights do allow you to do whatever you want to the land that you own, but it's not very economically sound to destroy the land you own. What profit motive would drive you to destroy acres and acres of land that you paid a fortune to purchase? And if your destruction of your own land DOES happen, then the effects on the local streams and rivers absolutely would be prosecutable by the other people who have land downstream of you.

If you buy a huge tract of land in Kansas and decide to totally fence it in, will you continually pay the high maintenance costs of retaining such a large fence? Why? What is the incentive of fencing in a huge tract of land anyway?

Property rights enforcement would be the government protecting the environment through law. The first cases of property rights vs. pollution were at the start of the industrial revolution in Britain. These cases were judged, by the government, in favor of the polluters, not the people who wanted their property rights protected. This set the precedence that has been used in Britain and America since then. This is the precedence that must be overturned for property rights to effectively protect the environment.

Shii
10-04-2007, 02:29 PM
Here's why deregulation would help promote sustainable business practices.

http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2003/Everything-Is-Illegal1esp03.htm

There's a whole book (http://www.acresusa.com/books/closeup.asp?action=search&prodid=1601&catid=&pcid=2) this guy wrote about everything the government has done to him, and it's really a revelation. Speaking as a tree-hugging progressive, now I see why Ron Paul would be better than Al Gore!

Netwarrior
10-12-2007, 11:19 PM
Also, don't forget that government is one of the largest hazards to the environment and by reducing its size, you will also reduce its negative consequences on the environment.

OptionsTrader
10-13-2007, 03:24 AM
How do I promote Ron Paul as a pro-environment candidate?

In addition to the property rights argument, consider using Ron Paul's pro-peace, government downsizing, and greatly reduced military aggressiveness arguments with the contents of this article and the references:

"The US Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest oil consuming government body in the US and in the world..."
http://www.energybulletin.net/13199.html

KingTheoden
10-20-2007, 11:47 PM
Be sure to mention the externalities issue. Megacorporations skirt the cost of their externalities (pollution) by shifting it on a third party because they bribe the government. This leads to over production on their end and pollution in our rivers, which they do not own. I have gotten a lot of greens sympathetic by talking about this!

M.Bellmore
10-21-2007, 12:09 AM
I'm not sure about this. A BIG concern in Michigan is protection of the Great Lakes. Recently, Illinois approved BP to dump tons more crap into Lake Michigan (bribed by jobs). Other states are yelling. Would have been nice to prevent them before it happened.

nexalacer
10-21-2007, 08:05 AM
I'm not sure about this. A BIG concern in Michigan is protection of the Great Lakes. Recently, Illinois approved BP to dump tons more crap into Lake Michigan (bribed by jobs). Other states are yelling. Would have been nice to prevent them before it happened.

Let me see if I get this... it would have been nice to use the government to prevent the dumping that the Illinois government allowed? I'm confused, why don't we just get the government out of it in the first place?

RonPaulIsGood
10-21-2007, 09:13 AM
Let me see if I get this... it would have been nice to use the government to prevent the dumping that the Illinois government allowed? I'm confused, why don't we just get the government out of it in the first place?

Do you mean to privatize the lakes? It would be impossible because of border conflicts.

nexalacer
10-21-2007, 04:34 PM
Do you mean to privatize the lakes? It would be impossible because of border conflicts.

How are border conflicts resolved between two individuals in a dispute over property lines?

filmmaker58
10-23-2007, 09:05 AM
I think it would be a good idea for Ron Paul (when he becomes President), to challenge the American people to get us off oil, and solve some environmental problems within a decade. Similar to the space race, to put the ingenuity and creativity of the American people to work to solve not only our energy woes, but a major cause of pollution as well. Not by granting government incentives, but by removing government restrictions. Ethanol is illegal to produce because of federal regulations on making alcohol, etc. etc. It's time to look into wave power, desalination, and a lot of other alternative technologies that are the long term solutions to a lot of our problems.