Campaign for Liberty supporter calls Bill Bennett

[TheRainmaker09]

I am the best distributor of my own wealth. Instead of having my money reinvested for me, I could invest it personally in these causes, as others would in whatever they believe most strongly. I am not a eco-freak or anything, I eat meat, I am just about survival as a race.

[TheRainmaker09]

A fishing company paying less taxes can face extra costs to improve practices that will better the rivers and oceans.

Individuals, local and state governments will also have more resources to contribute to a just cause that affects them and their immediate environment.

Like many people are realizing with green solutions, they are very hard to ignore when they make short or long term fiscal sense, in addition to meeting a moral responsibility to society.

[MsticalPrincess]

TheRain...I agree.

And even going a step further....on a humanistic point of view...if each individual has to pay less taxes...we will be able to give more to the charities we believe in.

[zeitgeisthero]

So yeah you dont have any studies or facts ? ok thats cool, did you see me disagree with you. NO. I simply asked you if you had any proof of such a statement.

And NO I never used the WORD "carbon footprint" !!!

And NO I dont want to tax carbon ?

Taxing carbon is just plain absurd !

[zeitgeisthero]

Is anyone going to tell the company's to improve their environmental practices ?

So you do want the govt in the business of improving the environment ?

[zeitgeisthero]

Unfortunately free market place capitalism in all its glory, does not protect the environment in its current form. U know why ? Capitalism thrives on shortages and exploitation of people and their environment. What is always the bottom line ? Profit, and usually month to month profit. Thats why Govt exists. To set the parameters of the game Capitalism. The govt's critical role in capitalism is the referee but never a player. That would be a form of socialism.

[TheRainmaker09]

Just as an example, if we are harvesting 20% less fish for the same work, or growing 20% less crops for the same soil, etc. this creates less supply and more demand for essential items for human survival not just American survival. It is also less profitable to pursue this career/business, if it is less profitbale each year and expected to decline.

So American or global starvation should be a concern, but strictly economically speaking, this is now.

[TheRainmaker09]

These negative results of the human footprint are exponentially higher each year than the one before it as population grows and land masses shrink.

Where sound economic principles featured by Dr. Ron Paul will come in, people and corporations have more money to take up these causes independently.

For example, a farming company with less taxes can pay to treat their soil organically to improve its conditions.

[zeitgeisthero]

A new sustainable way of living is not only needed, it is the key to survival.

[zeitgeisthero]

Two words: Sustainable Living

[TheRainmaker09]

I did not say Ron Paul is the ecologist/environmentalist of the century. Now, he might address some of the other problems, so individuals like me and companies like Oceana had more money to privately address the environment's problems ourselves. Which I believe would be much more efficient than any government project anyways.

My only point was that I believe our environment is in as much of a crisis as our political and economic systems, which Ron Paul and C4L ARE trying to address.

[zeitgeisthero]

Dont get me wrong, Ron Paul is one of the most likable politicians. I completely agree with him on Austrian Economic Principles, ending the Federal Reserve and IRS, legalizing plants and liberty ! But tell me how Ron Paul is "trying to address" the environment ? (other then making it a State issue rather then a federal one)

[zeitgeisthero]

...and Oceana ? Ocean Conservation Group ? OK. So if there was no EPA(or federal standards) and protection of the environment went to the States, who is going to tell say Louisiana that they cant allow dumping pollution into the ocean if they want ? Oceana ? No cause they wont have any power to ! You guys can clean their messes up for them though, with all that extra money.

You now see how this would be great for the corporations that lobby the right states ?

[TheRainmaker09]

Well, we can agree to disagree.

But as I said, I was more making a point about the direness of our world crisis and that it includes the state of the environment as well as the economy.

But since we agree about Dr. Paul economically speaking, let's keep this discussion there.

My research and belief leads me to conclude that the dead zones/state in the ocean, degradation of our soil, deforestation are critical and these issues affect our economy going forward.

[MsticalPrincess]

Zeit...your argument is ridiculous. What is the difference between each state having their control and each country having their control???

Who is going to tell Louisiana they can't allow dumping pollution into the ocean if they want?? Is this a trick question? I would say...Louisiana will tell Louisiana not to dump.

It is like saying...Who is going to tell Canada they can't pollute? Ahhh...Canada?? Or do you expect "EARTH" to tell them? lol

[zeitgeisthero]

God help you son.

REREAD. You have miss read the question.

Who would stop Louisiana if they "want" to dump in the ocean ?

You are saying if Louisiana wants to dumb their garbage in the ocean they should be allowed to do that ? Or if say Missouri wants to dump their garbage in the mississippi river that cool too ?

[zeitgeisthero]

Ron Paul probably doesnt like the EPA because just so happens, the largest Dow Chemical Plant in North America is in his District ! Lobbyists anyone ?

[ChampaignLibertarian]

Ron Paul is just taking the Constitutionally correct position that law enforcement is the role of the individual states including environmental laws, not the federal government. The biggest polluter in the US is the federal government, why would I trust it to be an honest broker???

[zeitgeisthero]

You mind backing up statements like "the biggest polluter in the US is the federal government" ? So your telling me the federal govt pollutes more then all the corporations in america ?

Answer me this: Who is going to enforce air and water pollution that is legal in one state but drifts or flows to another state where it is not legal ? The national guard ?

[ChampaignLibertarian]

You must be kidding! Has ANY corporation set off an atomic bomb over US territory? Chemical weapons? Does any corporation operate as many jets, vehicles (and not very efficient ones at that), rockets that generate anywhere close to as much of a "carbon footprint" (to use one of your PC terms)? Worse yet is the EPA usurping State and local government from dealing with environmental issues which are closer to the issues and better equipped. Courts are best at resolving interstate issues.

[ChampaignLibertarian]

You don't have any studies to refute my assertion. Thinking critically, what entity operates the most motor vehicles? Aircraft? Buildings? Nuclear reactors with accompanying waste? Our federal government is the most logical answer.

[MsticalPrincess]

Zeit...

watch and learn...

watch?v=bf1yf6zhKRA&feature=ch­annel_page

[andrewbnkjv]

How would anyone feel if I said "by law 10% of your income now goes to me, so I can take on enviroment issues", you have never met me, so why would you trust me???

[zeitgeisthero]

I wouldnt ! But we need a national base standard of protecting the environment of the country as a whole !?

[zeitgeisthero]

I think some one needs to tell Chris that Ron Paul doesn't think government should regulate the environment ! Do all you Ron Paul pro-environment people know that ? If government isn't suppose to protect the environment, then I ask who ?

[andrewbnkjv]

As Far the government/enviroment dude...Its not like when Ron Paul wins the President there wont be a White house. Its not like the would not be CONGRESS or local and state levels... the federal government is a separate private entity. Basically the Federal Government is the White Credit card.

There would still be votes on issues addressed in Congress. Enviroment would be embraced by people as it is today.

[zeitgeisthero]

Wrong ! Ron Paul states he would get rid of the EPA ! That thing called the Environmental Protection Agency !

Dont you think Ron Paul would veto bills passed by Congress, if he dosnt believe the federal government should be doing it ?

[mfmezz11]

Property rights have to be enforced properly, problem solved. You are going to trust the same government who has continuously shown to be inept at anything to solve the environmental problems? You are delusional if you think they are somehow going to learn to manage something correctly.

[zeitgeisthero]

No I dont trust anyone period ! Verify then trust. So since they cant manage anything, Whats the answer smart guy ? Anarchy ?

If you dont have a national minimum protection and it is all givin to the states, What happens when one state's legal air and water pollution drifts over into another state where such pollution is illegal ? Or how do you deal with pollution on federal land ?

[mattgeb84]

im on c4l as well mattgeb84

[2012Ronpaul2012]

Good Job Chris. Thanks for the Ron Paul bump!

[matrixxx123456789]

Nice work Chris! Look me up on C4L!