JimboDaMan Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 "Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington."I would think an approach like that would eliminate vast areas of environmental protection. Air pollution, for example, because 1) legally, does anyone own air? and 2) how could you ever prove that the specific pollutants in your air came from a specific source? Does RP have specific on how this would work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 by regulating sources....you can do so much more efficiently than the byzantine mess in place it's not rocket science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I would think an approach like that would eliminate vast areas of environmental protection. Air pollution, for example, because 1) legally, does anyone own air? and 2) how could you ever prove that the specific pollutants in your air came from a specific source? Does RP have specific on how this would work? Aw, you figured out one of the problems. You're not supposed to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I would think an approach like that would eliminate vast areas of environmental protection. Air pollution, for example, because 1) legally, does anyone own air? and 2) how could you ever prove that the specific pollutants in your air came from a specific source? Does RP have specific on how this would work? To be blunt, I am not as keen on his environmental proposals as I am on some other areas. I know his thoughts at a high level, but the details are lacking. (though this is true for all candidates, no one will give the details at this stage). All that said though, he shouldn't be painted as some anti-environment guy because of his approach like some folks do, he simply has a different approach to the problem. I think the debate on the merits of his approach is a good one to have and is totally appropriate to have concerns with. But there is no reason to question his intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 All that said though, he shouldn't be painted as some anti-environment guy because of his approach like some folks do, he simply has a different approach to the problem. A "different approach to the problem" which is guaranteed to produce huge transitional costs, and whose sole benefit will be that it will make polluters vastly more resistant to being punished for polluting. OK, make that the sole tangible benefit. Yeah, I can certainly see the argument that the Constitution didn't specifically grant environmental regulation to the feds. (Although the other side is, how much pollution isn't interstate?) Yeah, a hypothetical, magical world, in which we have the same environmental regulation we have now, but it's done at the state level instead of the federal, might be preferable. But, a) Nobody's proposing a world like that. He's proposing a world where only a small portion of current regulations exist, and where even those are constantly being subject to the states competing against each other, to see which state can have the lowest environmental regulations. I understand that my telepathy certificate from Vulcan Telepathic Society has expired, but to me, when I see somebody proposing that we need a world where there is vastly less protection of the environment, it's because he wants a world in which there's vastly less protection of the environment. Show me a person who's proposing something, where the results of that proposal is guaranteed to be X, and my assumption is that that person wants X. And, even if we pretend that his proposals won't vastly reduce environmental protection, all you get is a proposal which will have vast transition and setup costs, just so we can wind up with a situation that's just like we have now. There was a section I once read in a Dilbert book, covering Dilbert's Great Lies of Management. One of them was "You'll make more under the new plan". Dilbert's response was: Do you really think this company is going to pay all of the costs of completely removing their existing pay and compensation system, and replacing it entirely, with a completely new system, because the company thinks that the new system will result in paying the employees more ? Heck, I can pay the employees more without spending all those transition costs. Just give the employees raises. In short, the only way to justify going through all of the disruption that getting rid of our existing system entails, is if the purpose is to wind up with less environmental protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I would think an approach like that would eliminate vast areas of environmental protection. Air pollution, for example, because 1) legally, does anyone own air? and 2) how could you ever prove that the specific pollutants in your air came from a specific source? Does RP have specific on how this would work? According to RP, Posieden would be the plaintiff in all cases of water pollution, Icarus would be the man for air pollution, Zeus would handle all items dealing with strip mining, (really anything dealing with the mountains). The Ents would be the plaintiffs (class action) against deforestation, and Papa Smurf would regulate the endangered forest species. I hate the EPA too (sometimes), but man, this is just dumb. Why the hell is it so hard to just reform something? Bring it back to center, streamline, etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Why the hell is it so hard to just reform something? Bring it back to center, streamline, etc.? Because power once held,and bureaucracy established do not go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oisn1 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Because power once held,and bureaucracy established do not go away. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120113/obama-seeks-approval-combine-federal-agencies It can happen, but it's often just a partisan fight to do anything in government. I don't understand how people can argue that Ron Paul is trying to make government regulations and laws more efficient. Ron Paul is dedicated to cutting government spending and returning rights to the states and the "people." He is not going to improve efficiency because that has nothing to do with his platform; it's all about bringing down the hatchet and letting things sort themselves out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Thought: Should be have this thread retitled as the SC Primary thread in order to avoid a new one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Or simply "GOP Presidential Primaries" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Or simply "GOP Presidential Primaries" thread. Thats a really good idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Oh for the love of god. Can we please stop this "conspiracy against Ron Paul" crap already? Yeah because he never has been slighted by the bafoons. Happens ALL the time. Orchestrated and intentional manipulation of the public. Here is one of the more egregious examples that happened last year during the CPAC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.