Ron Paul Revolution!

trollolol

"Allow victims to recover for the slightest trespasses. Extremely high recovery for pollution that causes death and disease. The more the polluter has to pay the more incentive they will have to not pollute."

you need to use logical sentence formation...can you rewrite this please?

I watched a small piece of the video (sorry I don't have 42 minutes to watch the whole thing), and it seems very biased against the EPA. I can't consider it a legitimate source of information if it does not include the EPA's side of the story (if this is in the video, please tell me where it starts).

Ok that's better. I just wanted you to use complete sentences. So, what do you do if the victim isn't a specific person? What if it is society in general, or if the victim is an ecosystem? Who gets paid then?

Specific examples:

Company overfishes and causes the extinction of a species of salmon. Who gets paid?

A company's emissions contribute to global climate change. Who gets paid?

that doesn't always work for environmental protection, specifically for land preservation. one of the things the government has been very successful at is preventing drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife refuge. believe me, the oil industry has spent a lot of money trying to get permission to drill there. more than enough to have purchased the land were it not protected by law, but somehow its been prevented time and again by congress, and once with a clinton veto.

what your also missing is the enforcement part of environmental policy, which the judicial branch has nothing to do with. sure it would be nice if it were easier to prove the causality of pollution damaging human health, or to get rid of the surface/subsurface distinction, but at the end of the day you still need an executive agency with the muscle.

and the reason we cannot have all 50 states with different standards on pollution is that
1. it would require states to generate an enormous amount of revenue to enforce regulation.
2. pollution does not always know state lines. what would stop big coal in the midwest from lowering emission regulation, when most of the negative affects are felt those in the western states downwind? or polluting into waterways that flow into other states? how would the states affected stop it from happening, or punish the companies polluting? through a tedious federal lawsuit?

so, whether we like it or not, sometimes the government has a duty to spend and provide positive freedoms and common goods where there would be little economic incentive.

So destruction of the environment is okay, as long as the person who owns the land gets paid off? Do you have faith in your government to enforce such high penalties on the corporations that own it?

o hai

+1

his stance on the environment is also wack. Private businesses wouldn't do shit if it was left up to them, which he wants it to be.

woozy want privatized education ron wants to cut spending, i think.



my biggest argument is NONE of the other candidates are better than Ron. Not that Ron is our savior but he is better than the rest for sure. If Romney is elected we are straight fucked.

Ron Paul has been victim of a media blackout.