Question about Ron Paul

If he wants to deregulate businesses, wouldn't that get rid of the environmental protocol things in place?

The environment is looking worse than ever, and I am a little bit afraid of this. He is, so far, the candidate I am leaning towards but I really need to understand this more. The environment is a big issue for me, and none of the republicans see it as an issue.

 

Sadly, he like other conservatives turns a blind eye and denies these issues.

 

I don't understand why everyone ignores the environment.

They then they go on and label anyone who speaks up about the environment "liberal, crazy environmentalists".

 

and rightly so, ron paul would be a disaster for the environment

 

doesn't each State have an EPA? wouldn't Maine be better for Maine and so on?

 

no, that strategy is called divide and conquer

with it we would likely see the cuyahoga river catch fire and burn again

 

You have the right to thoroughly investigate your choice for 2012 of course... but IMO, a candidates environmental stance is not very important in 2012 in light of more pressing things... like the economy, out of control federal government, immigration, our wars over seas etc.

 

Just enforce individual rights that are put in place by the constitution. If someone pollutes your air, you have the right to sue and make an example of them, and the government is obligated to protect that right. But you need not be concerned. Ron Paul will never be elected President.

 

There is very little Paul is against on a state or more local level. He opposed federal departments like this because they are more prone to corruption, are less efficient and more expensive. It's very simple, but people want to paint him as a crazy radical who wants to see dirty air and water.

 

I think he believes it is a state issue to regulate.

 

that didn't work in the past, why would you expect it to work now or in the future?

 

HIs main problem is thinking that free market means businesses have to be allowed to do whatever they want without any laws to protect the enviroment or consumers......

 

What are you worried about, environuts have already shutdown all industries in America. Here's what we have to look forward to if left up to progressives...international communism and the stone age.

 

nonsense like what you just wrote ignores reality, the usa produces more than any other country on earth

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Environment

His beliefs are straight forward, just different. Nobody wants to get me started on the EPA. My old man held a high level position there for many years. Ron Paul believes in regulation of things which impact other citizens and their rights.

He does not believe in regulation which protects you from yourself.

 

Thank you for this response, it cleared everything up a lot.

 

Unions, regulations, and instigated globalization. Take your pick. There is no nonsense in the reality that the gathering of tree-huggers at UN conventions are pushing for what would be further economic destruction of the western world. One of their stalwarts, Maurice Strong, said it was their duty to destroy the industrialized nations.

 

The invisible hand of the free market

If a company is polluting, and people really care about the environment, then that company will lose business to another company that is meeting the demands of the market.

 

That...and insurance to protect your property rights. Big government protects their mega-corporate partners while destroying the competition, just as they do in all situations. I'm sure that GE is held to the same standards as everyone else, just like they are when it comes to taxes.

 

Oh, I'm sure...

 

If the issue with regulations (or my preferred term, controls) is that they interfere with benign human action in a market (or violate rights), then it is no more justified for the states to implement these controls than it is for the Federal govt. Ron Paul supporters need to clarify the reasons that they oppose these regulations.

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=obam...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Soon as Obama explains his GE waivers and the Obamacare waivers.

 

I agree that states have the authority to do the things that the US Constitution does not explicitly authorize the Federal govt to do.

However, what I haven't heard anyone say is that even the states can not make laws that take away our basic rights.

Take for instance Mitt Romney's argument that it's a state's right to implememt a mandate for health insurance. I say it is still unconstitutional.

No govt can force you to purchase a product on the free market.

It is unconstitutional.

The same goes for state regulations. If they are unconstitutional, then they should not be done.

 

That's because he's a big government, big corporation politician. What's that word that describes the merger of government and corporate power? Call it corporatism if you prefer a less dramatic description.

 

Everything is important. And look in short terms is what has condemned to this crisis. You must look what is better in long term. Not obtain results in the short term. When more long term you do the things, better results you'll obtain.