It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul supporters: A specific Question about the EPA

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I have followed Ron Paul for years. I appreciate his politics and his consistency, even if I don't agree with every aspect of his ideology.

One of my main sticking points is with the idea of getting rid of the EPA. My own personal preference would be to see the EPA used properly, not just thrown out, but I do understand his reasoning in terms of Federal authority vs States rights.

www.ronpaul2012.com...

That is not the nature of my question. My problem is with getting a clear idea of how he thinks states would set up an effective regulatory measure that would still protect the resources which benefit the people of the state in the wake of a defunct EPA. I have yet to come across a good answer in anything he has written or said that seems to take into account the inevitable wave of international carpetbagging companies like BP coming in and doing as they please to peoples back yards, all in the name of the 'free market'. They do this already, because they have weakened EPA regulations, so I find it hard to believe the states would be able or motivated to enforce any regulation the people of the state were able to pass into legislation.


Is there anything Paul has stated that addresses this apparent discrepancy that someone can point me to,or help me further understand?

ETA: I know the libertarian arguments against the Federal Government. That is not what I am asking for. I am referring specifically to Paul's platform, and whether or not he has ever addressed this issue in any real length.

Again, thanks.
edit on 25-4-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


It's all to do with property rights.

If you OWN your property and PB comes in and does something they aren't suppose to then let the courts deal with it. You don't need a government bureaucrazy telling you what is acceptible for your land.

For example, the EPA may think that a little bit of fluoride run-off or water contamination is ok; I however consider ANY contamination of my land to be criminal.

With the EPA having those "regulations" in place, the property owners have no recourse and must rely on the government to get the job done.

Without the EPA the land owner may take his claim to court and be proven either right or wrong by a jury or a judge.

Which would be much faster and much more effective as corporations aren't afraid of governments, all their friend's work there. They are however afraid of the common people, like the jury.

Not so much the jduge cause you know they can be bought, but the judicial system is a much more effective avenue than the government approach when it comes to getting things done.

~Tenth



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


It's all to do with property rights.

If you OWN your property and BP comes in and does something they aren't suppose to then let the courts deal with it. You don't need a government bureaucrazy telling you what is acceptible for your land.


So what if BP comes in to your neighbors land and spills oil and corexitt in a river that feeds into your property? If it doesnt bother your neighbor, should you have any legal right?

What if your neighbors land is in another state, but that river still feeds onto your property, and provides drinking water for a city of 1 million people?
edit on 25-4-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


As soon as said pollution leaves your neighbor's property and enters yours, your neighbors opinion no longer matters.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

So what if BP comes in to your neighbors land and spills oil and corexitt in a river that feeds into your property? If it doesnt bother your neighbor, should you have any legal right?


Yes cause the river feeds into MY property, their actions upstream effect those down stream, they are still responsible.

Doesn't matter if my neighboor doesn't care.



What if your neighbors land is in another state, but that river still feeds onto your property, and provides drinking water for a city of 1 million people?
edit on 25-4-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)


Then the city should bring charge against BP in the form of a class action, and so should the state.

Individual problem, individual solution, group problem, group solution.

It's amazing how much simply things would be without government bureaucracy.
~Tenth
edit on 4/25/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Litigation against companies like BP currently go nowhere.

Why should I believe, as you say, that the court system would be more effective at the State level?

Especially if a State likely has nowhere near the resources that a major multinational corporation like BP would have in terms of effecting the actual outcome, holding things up, etc.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 





One of my main sticking points is with the idea of getting rid of the EPA.


EPA is ran by the Federal Government as a whole. What each state should do is adopt what California has done and that is have its own State level agencies like CAL-OSHA, or CAL-EPA. Easier to control without all the unnecessary spending...



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
The EPA initially pretended to care about the effects of corexit on coastal Louisiana. Less than a day after that pretense, they allowed unlimited and massive corexit spraying and dumping in the Gulf of Mexico.
The EPA has, for years, allowed the large chemical companies in South Louisiana to dump into the shipping canals which feed into the Mississippi River (the drinking water for SE Louisianans). Their "regulations" only apply to small companies which might pose a competitive future threat to the big boys.
While i have no doubt that the courts might not always rule in favor of the smaller property owners, I'll trust them over the corrupt federal agency any day of the week.
GEAUX PAUL



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
The EPA initially pretended to care about the effects of corexit on coastal Louisiana. Less than a day after that pretense, they allowed unlimited and massive corexit spraying and dumping in the Gulf of Mexico.
The EPA has, for years, allowed the large chemical companies in South Louisiana to dump into the shipping canals which feed into the Mississippi River (the drinking water for SE Louisianans). Their "regulations" only apply to small companies which might pose a competitive future threat to the big boys.


Agreed. Completely. But all that is is an argument for BETTER regulatory strength within the EPA, not less. The reason BP even GOT their permit for the Moconda well was because congress (both D's and R's) sold it out.


While i have no doubt that the courts might not always rule in favor of the smaller property owners, I'll trust them over the corrupt federal agency any day of the week.
GEAUX PAUL


Why? What would make you think a smaller court, with even less political strength than the Federal Government could regulate a major corporation if the EPA cant?

Again, citing the agency's shortfallings in terms of enforcement is not an argument for abolishing them.

Prove to me that BP wouldnt be able to do that to, say Louisiana costal waters under Pauls plan.

And thanks all for your responses. These are honest questions of mine. Think of me as a guy in a bar you are trying to convince to vote for Ron Paul.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Well firstly, anytime this sort of thing is made, there would be an injuction placed on the work.

So BP looses hundreds of thousands of dollars every day they can't work in that area. As in, can't move out of the area either and shut down shop.

The reason that litigation against these multi-nationals is so hard is because of government bureaucracy and regulations that allow for loohopes and ways to game the system so that they can't be found guilty in court.

Secondly, these sorts of courts would be jury only. No bought judge should be making a decision about your land, and what constitutes a crime.

The Jury was ALWAYS supposed to be the ones that decided if a crime had taken place and to award the appropritate punishment.

Let's not allow ourselves to become so Jaded that we belive the current system is better than any alternative. It's just another way for them to fool you into voting away your rights and continuing the status quo.

~Tenth



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Yes cause the river feeds into MY property, their actions upstream effect those down stream, they are still responsible.


And what does "State B" do when the river upstream is in "State A" that allows dumping of certain chemicals that "State B" has outlawed. A company that is on the boarder but still in "State A" can dump all the chemicals they want ...and people in "State B" can't do a damn thing about it under Ron Paul's world view.

Here's the thing...WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH ALL OF THIS BEFORE.

The rules/laws we have didn't just pop into existence...they came about because of problems...and the solution was the laws we have now.

Most of Ron Paul's policies wants to go rewind...ignoring the fact that our current state is because we had problems in the past that Ron Paul wants to go back to.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by stanguilles7
 



The reason that litigation against these multi-nationals is so hard is because of government bureaucracy and regulations that allow for loohopes and ways to game the system so that they can't be found guilty in court.


So why do you have more faith in a state bureaucracy than a federal court, if you know the federal bureaucracy is inherently corrupt?

It sounds like your argument against the Federal government is actually one against ANY kind of government.

Forgive me if I am mistaken


Secondly, these sorts of courts would be jury only. No bought judge should be making a decision about your land, and what constitutes a crime.

The Jury was ALWAYS supposed to be the ones that decided if a crime had taken place and to award the appropritate punishment.



Is that an official Paul policy (paulicy?) idea, or is it just you speculating, now? I'm not interested in that. I am curious if Paul has specifically addressed these 'well, then what' scenarios.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




And what does "State B" do when the river upstream is in "State A" that allows dumping of certain chemicals that "State B" has outlawed. A company that is on the boarder but still in "State A" can dump all the chemicals they want ...and people in "State B" can't do a damn thing about it under Ron Paul's world view.


What happens when an American commits a crime in another country? He's extradited to that country to face charges for what he's responsible for.

And actually yes they can do something as BP's right to dump into that river ends at the border, they would need to pay for a water treatment plant that REMOVED these things from the water before it crossed into another state.

It's quite simple.

Same thing. As for the state, under proper libertarian practice, it doesn't matter what the "state" considers legal , because your land belongs to you and you are the ONLY person who can deem what is ok and what isn't on your own land.

You may get your case thrown out if it's for silly reasons. But proven toxins and poisons are another thing entirely.

No, the problems we have are because of the laws and regulations developped over the last 100 years. Going back to the way it was is how we would solve a lot of these issues.

The Federal Government has no business mandating anything to states or individuals. States should be left to themselves and people along with them.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


So do you think the EPA works better at the Federal or State level?



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Actually I am against all forms of non citizen controlled ( referendum democracy) type of governments.

The state is far more effective at dealing with it's own issues than the federal government is. This has always been the case. And althoug the Federal Government should have the right to challenge the state in court, they should have no power beyond that to force states to do something that the citizens of that state feel isn't right for them.

And having Jury only courts is, as far as I know, how it was always supposed to be set up. I could be wrong about that. Either way, it's not a "Paul" policy that I know of.

I actually dont' even really support Ron Paul, I was just answering your question initially as I agree with him on a lot of things, but a lot of things I don't.

~Tenth



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


And actually yes they can do something as BP's right to dump into that river ends at the border, they would need to pay for a water treatment plant that REMOVED these things from the water before it crossed into another state.

It's quite simple.

Same thing. As for the state, under proper libertarian practice, it doesn't matter what the "state" considers legal , because your land belongs to you and you are the ONLY person who can deem what is ok and what isn't on your own land.


A lot of your answers are just general libertarian argument. I know the arguments, in theory. What I am looking for is what sorts of specific policies would actually prevent, say, the BP Mocando blowout. And what Paul's specific POLICY ideas would be to address this.

Just saying 'it would work better at the state level' doesnt do much to convince me that it would actually work in the real world.
edit on 25-4-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Well none.

There is NEVER going to be policies or proceedures that END these sorts of events, it's how to deal with them once they've occured that needs to change.

You can't 100% guarantee that a multinational will do things properly and follow all laws unless there is an extreme penalty for not doing so.

Like removing your operating licence for the country, or being fined a sur tax of 40% on all your assets in the country until the ammount of damage is paid.

There's a bunch of things you can do to alieviate the problems after the problem occurs, but the solution to preventing them all together is anybody's guess.

Problem is you've been convinced ( along with many others) that you need all this tripe in order for things to work properly and that the only way to fix it is to add more bureaucracy, more laws, more regulations.

When in truth LESS regulation, and more power to the average citizen to defend themselves is far more effective.

~Tenth
edit on 4/25/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


But every solution you provide is one that is already ineffective at the Federal level so I have a hard time believing it would be any more effective at the State level.

Again, your argument appears to be more one of libertarian theory, and not actual practical implication, which is specifically what I am addressing.

But thanks for the effort regardless.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Oh come on...please don't tell me you actually believe it would work like that.

The company is complying with the States laws and regulations...they don't have to abide by the other states laws...they don't reside there. Good luck taking them to court. Which court, the State they reside in...they broke no laws there. The State where they broke the law...THEY DON'T RESIDE THERE. So what's left...federal court??? Wasn't the whole point in the first place to remove the Federal component???

Let's forget about water...what about air pollution??? Can every state that has stricter regulations than California sue companies in California since the jet stream flows west to east???

Ron Paul's ideas are outdated and from the past because they DIDN'T WORK...we moved on...we evolved...we got smarter and learned that 50 different set of laws does not make a good country.

I'm sorry...but the majority of people don't want to live in the past...not matter how glorified some people try to make it out to be...we have learned from past mistakes and have moved on.
edit on 25-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


So do you think the EPA works better at the Federal or State level?


It can only work at the Federal level.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join