Could a vote for Ron Paul be the best vote for the environment?
Submitted by randthinker on Tue, 10/23/2007 - 17:07I believe that Ron Paul has the single best
environmental policy of any candidate. The removal of 700 US
military bases from 130 countries around the world. This would stop
our tax dollars from being used to destroy the environments of
countless cities and towns around the world. Not to mention the
complete destruction of Iran. If anyone has any interest in
protecting the environment they would support Ron Paul, or they can
continue to allow their tax dollars to be used to destroy the planet. To support my claim I point to the environmental
destruction of Iraq and Okinawa. I would like anyone to compare this
destruction to any environmental crime committed by any single
corporation. What our tax dollars have done to destroy the planet is
far greater than any corporation has ever done. Will Hillary Clinton
stop this? No. John Edwards? No. FredRudyMittMcCain? No.
Only Ron Paul has made with commitment. He has my vote.
Think also of the free market
Think of what a true free market would do in this respect? My goodness the potential is sheerly astounding. Consider the elimination of farm subsidies, this will make farmers look to use their land as it is intended-to make a living, not to draw charity. This means what? Well, guess what tends to blow across open fields-wind! Without the subsidy and government regulation, farmers could profit from the generation of wind-power on their property while still growing crops.
The same is true with cars, and oil alternatives-without market restrictions, 300 million people could potentially be trying to find a cheaper way to run, or even build, a car and make a buck.
With sane courts permitting liability suits on individual environmental damages, this could really work. It certainly has more potential than the neo-communism offered by the green movement-Name an environmental regulation that has actually worked in a meaningful way? They don't because government is by nature inept, and prone to corruption.
By the way-one sure way to get more war is to mandate that large groups of people live in abject poverty to save the planet, while an elite, peace prize winning, clique bounds around in private jets. I'd pick up a gun.
Oh, silly me, they buy offsets...its all good then-fly away Al.
A solution would be nice, not a power grab.
Mike Stahl
Exactly. What I tell people
Exactly. What I tell people is that activism is far more effective at the local level. So if you empower people at the local level like Ron Paul wants to do, you can empower more people to make positive changes in the environment. It's easier to change the current in a puddle than it is an ocean.
socialist transportation system
I think it would be unpopular to privatize everything overnight, but I have always believed that our overbuilt highway system and sprawl is a symptom of socialism-gone-crazy since the New Deal.
But, with new technologies emerging, the time will come to introduce the free market to our transportation system. This will help the environment, because people will actually have to pay for the roads they use and make more energy/pollution friendly choices because it will actually effect their pocket books.
Privatization will also remove the pork and beaurocracy of the corrupt transportation systems.
Also
Domestically Ron Paul would probably be one of the top of the pack as well. He has stated countless times that we have to recognize private property and the fact that no other entity has a right to pollute your air, water land etc... at will. Rather individuals would have recourse against any and all who seek to defile the environment. And force those "greedy filthy" corporations to clean up or pay up!
No other candidate takes this issue seriously in this regard