Ron Paul Has A Legit Shot.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan Kone said:
I don't think ignoring problems is a viable answer, Ron Paul does. When a necessary part of government doesn't work, he would choose to just eliminate that necessary part of government ignoring the problem. For example, the EPA is a necessary part of government. If some of their regulations are not having the desired result, the answer is to reform those regulations, not get rid of the EPA and leave environmental safety up to corporate America.

It's incredibly short sided for him to just repeat a bunch of non-sense about how we need to get rid of government because it's not as effective as it could be. I'd prefer someone interested in fixing problems, not creating new ones via blowing up the whole system.
Click to expand...

Actually environmental problems can often be traced to government, which is a mega polluter. If property rights were properly enforced and the generator of pollution were responsible for restituting the aggrieved we would have a cleaner environment. Again, I reccomend Dr. Mary Ruart's book. Healing our World in a an Age of Aggression.
 
Dan Kone said:
I don't think ignoring problems is a viable answer, Ron Paul does. When a necessary part of government doesn't work, he would choose to just eliminate that necessary part of government ignoring the problem. For example, the EPA is a necessary part of government. If some of their regulations are not having the desired result, the answer is to reform those regulations, not get rid of the EPA and leave environmental safety up to corporate America.

It's incredibly short sided for him to just repeat a bunch of non-sense about how we need to get rid of government because it's not as effective as it could be. I'd prefer someone interested in fixing problems, not creating new ones via blowing up the whole system.
Click to expand...

The EPA is full of shit. Oh you just dumped waste down the storm drain now pay us our fine. They don't clean anything up .They don't actually do shit except collect more money for the government. If that isn't ignoring problems i don't know what is.

According to the epa's policy as long as you can pay the fines you can continue to dump toxic waste into the ocean
 
Rob Roy said:
Actually environmental problems can often be traced to government, which is a mega polluter. If property rights were properly enforced and the generator of pollution were responsible for restituting the aggrieved we would have a cleaner environment. Again, I reccomend Dr. Mary Ruart's book. Healing our World in a an Age of Aggression.
Click to expand...

Ok. but that's never going to happen by getting rid of the organization that monitors pollution. That would simply allow companies to pollute all they want.
 
Dan Kone said:
Ok. but that's never going to happen by getting rid of the organization that monitors pollution. That would simply allow companies to pollute all they want.
Click to expand...

I can see where you might think this. It would take some form of arbitration to resolve this. Under the present set up of a government monopoly on "arbitration" pollution and restitution hasn't ended... I will try to find you some video that does a good job of explaining how a private free market model might work...it could take me a couple days....getting late where I am. Have a good night.
 
Rob Roy said:
I can see where you might think this. It would take some form of arbitration to resolve this. Under the present set up of a government monopoly on "arbitration" pollution and restitution hasn't ended... I will try to find you some video that does a good job of explaining how a private free market model might work...it could take me a couple days....getting late where I am. Have a good night.
Click to expand...


when people see the effect they will boycott companies . Recent example BP oil spill
 
RyanTheRhino said:
The EPA is full of shit. Oh you just dumped waste down the storm drain now pay us our fine. They don't clean anything up .They don't actually do shit except collect more money for the government. If that isn't ignoring problems i don't know what is.
Click to expand...

That's a very good reason to fix the EPA. It's also a really terrible reason to get rid of it. Perfect example in the flawed logic of Ron Paul and his supporters.
 
Rob Roy said:
I can see where you might think this. It would take some form of arbitration to resolve this. Under the present set up of a government monopoly on "arbitration" pollution and restitution hasn't ended... I will try to find you some video that does a good job of explaining how a private free market model might work...it could take me a couple days....getting late where I am. Have a good night.
Click to expand...

I think a lot you are losing sight of the fact that our government has been extremely effective at reducing pollution since the inception of the EPA. Is it perfect? No. Could it be made better? Of course it could. But to suggest we should abandon environmental regulation because it's not 100% perfect all the time is total lunacy.
 
RyanTheRhino said:
when people see the effect they will boycott companies . Recent example BP oil spill
Click to expand...

The free market will not regulate pollution on it's own. It's kind of a ridiculous idea that it's even an option.

Want to boycott a company that pollutes? No problem, they can just wholesale their goods and have someone else sell them, or better yet form a second company and sell their goods under the new companies name. Want to boycott them too? No problem, they can just create a series of companies to transfer goods between that is impossible to follow so you won't even know who to boycott.

Companies will not stop polluting as long as it's profitable to do so. The only way to make them stop is to make the fines so large that they make more of a profit by not polluting. Getting rid of the EPA and simply allowing them to pollute all they want would cause an environmental disaster of epic proportion.
 
RyanTheRhino said:
when people see the effect they will boycott companies . Recent example BP oil spill
Click to expand...

When companies have to provide restitution to those harmed they have an incentive not to pollute. Of course the government is among the biggest polluters...which makes me think allowing them to have a monopoly on the arbitration of the restitution makes no sense.
 
Dan Kone said:
The free market will not regulate pollution on it's own. It's kind of a ridiculous idea that it's even an option.

Want to boycott a company that pollutes? No problem, they can just wholesale their goods and have someone else sell them, or better yet form a second company and sell their goods under the new companies name. Want to boycott them too? No problem, they can just create a series of companies to transfer goods between that is impossible to follow so you won't even know who to boycott.

Companies will not stop polluting as long as it's profitable to do so. The only way to make them stop is to make the fines so large that they make more of a profit by not polluting. Getting rid of the EPA and simply allowing them to pollute all they want would cause an environmental disaster of epic proportion.
Click to expand...

Close....make the polluter restitute the aggrieved, not pay a fine to the government....still not gonna take a peek at Mary Ruart huh? Why so stubborn?
 
Dan Kone said:
The free market will not regulate pollution on it's own. It's kind of a ridiculous idea that it's even an option.

Want to boycott a company that pollutes? No problem, they can just wholesale their goods and have someone else sell them, or better yet form a second company and sell their goods under the new companies name. Want to boycott them too? No problem, they can just create a series of companies to transfer goods between that is impossible to follow so you won't even know who to boycott.

Companies will not stop polluting as long as it's profitable to do so. The only way to make them stop is to make the fines so large that they make more of a profit by not polluting. Getting rid of the EPA and simply allowing them to pollute all they want would cause an environmental disaster of epic proportion.
Click to expand...

Private property laws would protect if enacted and enforced correctly
or common law
if your shit pollutes my shit it's a problem and you are responsible- why should I have to breathe smog from your factory or car?
 
Dan Kone said:
I think a lot you are losing sight of the fact that our government has been extremely effective at reducing pollution since the inception of the EPA. Is it perfect? No. Could it be made better? Of course it could. But to suggest we should abandon environmental regulation because it's not 100% perfect all the time is total lunacy.
Click to expand...

Its called property rights.
 
Dan Kone said:
I think a lot you are losing sight of the fact that our government has been extremely effective at reducing pollution since the inception of the EPA. Is it perfect? No. Could it be made better? Of course it could. But to suggest we should abandon environmental regulation because it's not 100% perfect all the time is total lunacy.
Click to expand...

To disband the EPA is not the same as being negligent with environmental concerns. Please do not fall prey to thinking that only the government can solve problems. I am an environmentally conscious person, but hold little faith in the government "solutions".
 
beardo said:
Private property laws would protect if enacted and enforced correctly
or common law
if your shit pollutes my shit it's a problem and you are responsible- why should I have to breathe smog from your factory or car?
Click to expand...

tryingtogrow89 said:
Its called property rights.
Click to expand...
And why should I pay for the EPA to decide how much poison a company can put out for me to have to breathe or drink? I pay for them to make sure companies are giving me levels of poison they deem acceptable for me to be unwillingly exposed to.
 
tryingtogrow89 said:
Its called property rights.
Click to expand...

Oh good. So if you rent somewhere and you're kids die from poison water I guess it's their own fault for drinking water. Good thinking.

And having people who make $30k a year try and take on multibillion dollar corporations in court should be very amusing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top