Ron Paul Answers Question on Renewable Fuels in Des Moines

[milofonbil]

Unfortunately, in Ron Paul's libertarian world, you won't be prosecuted for polluted until you have actually polluted something. And, without subsidies, some businesses cannot compete against existing companies because of enormous startup costs, no matter how efficient they are. I don't think the market can sort out everything.

[unplugged123]

so paul thinks we should use up all the oil in the world because the market dictates so? i wish paul would take a much stronger stance on protecting the environment. his policies on this issue are quite weak. he could take advantage of the environmental vote.

[travail101]

don't give into it, look, the man just hasn't studied it, he could give better answers, because there are market ready alternatives that work. he's right about the markets taking over. what he isn't stating clearly is how stifling government involvement has been in the alternative/clean fuel segment. (cont...)

[travail101]

if you realized that all these big oil companies are getting paid to stay in business, you would understand why a free market is best, and subsidies are bad. the government is already meddling in Energy, and that's why fossil fuels are the most "efficient" on the market right now.

[terry]

Market should decide whether we should protect the environment of not?

[6969wrath]

The people ARE the market...people = market

If people buy SUVs, than they have chosen to use up oil, if they buy hybrids, then the car makers will build that..

Tight regulations on any and all corporations that stay in America will only send them running overseas where restrictions are not so tight. India and China are considered "developing" and are not subject to the kyoto regulations...we should not agree either until they do, or all manufacturing jobs will move to their countries.

[terry]

Corporations are in a postion to tell us what to buy -- they manufacture what they want to sell to us, and then brainwash us from an early age and every minute of the day they can for the rest of our lives, and they inforce that through prices. Most trading happens in marketplaces like the NYSE where there are no "people."

[terry]

Oh and also, Ron Paul's free trade will continue to encourage US manufacturers to go overseas to exploit workers because it is good for the market place - it brings cheap goods to America. That trumps "buy American."

[travail101]

you have some serious reading to do. all of this happens because the government is already regulating all this stuff. if you want an idea of how free markets work, look at electronics and the internet. it's not perfect, but it's free and it's booming, and there's new more efficient stuff on the market all the time. the same would happen if we abolished the Department of Energy and got Gov out of the fuel industry.

[6969wrath]

I agree with Ron 100%...the government should mostly stay out of it. if the people choose to buy cars that run on alternative fuels...that is what the car makers will build..supply and demand. Free markets are good.

[terry]

Who killed the electric car?

[travail101]

the government killed the electric car. that's why the government should have no voice in energy. keep the government out of our markets!!!

[milofonbil]

I think there were several responsible parties. 1) The oil companies 2) The car companies 3) Government (in California there are a lot of pro-hydrogen people in State Govt.)

[travail101]

government breathed power into all those industries. through so called "harmless/protectionist" policies designed to protect the little guy, they always end up helping the big guy who can afford to find all the loop holes. and the little guy is stuck playing fair.

[milofonbil]

And when there are no laws to keep things fair, the little guys eventually end up in the low-wage worker class competing with all of the labor surplus. Their wages go to zero. And, the few big guys in the ownership society accumulate all the profits for themselves. In this system chances are that you will be in a race to the bottom.

[travail101]

funny. because all our regulation has done just what you warn would happen if there was no regulation. the laws to keep things fair are the bill of rights. the duty of government is to protect those rights. all you're scary scenarios are what we have today, and we got them because people like you told us we needed tighter regulation. localized corruption is 100 times better than centralized corruption. Go Ron Paul! and go Free Markets!

[milofonbil]

I don't believe that regulation has brought us here. We agree to disagree. Let me ask you, is your free market / laissez faire capitalism philosophy based on Austrian School Anarcho-capitalism, Ayn Rand Objectivism, Ludwig von Mises Institute Libertarianism, or Paul Hawken Natural Capitalism?

[unplugged123]

video?

[thomasw78]

I think it would make a lot of sense for Ron Paul to embrace a tax on pollution... He could say it would help pay for getting rid of the income tax... and it would be a way to subsidize cleanliness. If his goal really is to abolish the IRS this would be a great partial replacement... and since the air is a public good it doesn't violate libertarian principles to tax polluting the air. Thoughts?

[arbaird]

I agree with you one hundred percent. I think that a tax on pollution, or perhaps a system in which industries purchase the right to release "x" amount of pollutants, is the answer. I'm astonished really that Ron Paul isn't talking about this, it's certainly inline with libertarian principles I think. I think it's also a great way to help clean up the environment, without doing something to rash or expensive. This way the government will be collecting revenue from it.

[travail101]

sounds interesting, but dangerous, I don't like giving the government the power to decide what is and what is not pollution. I think Ron Paul is right, this needs to be stopped in the Court Room. individuals, communities, cities, counties, and states can sue bad citizen polluting companies. the federal government can sue interstate national companies and so forth.

[milofonbil]

So every time you need to fight another huge corporation doing just what it wants, you need to make the courts decide. So big nuclear power has released radioactive materials into the atmosphere, without govt. regulation you can't claim property rights damage until someone gets sick or there are deformed children from it a generation later. Why not prohibit certain things known to be harmful.

[travail101]

because all kinds of falsehoods are "known" throughout history this has been the case, and we see it all around us even today, all you need is someone who "knows" hydrogen fuel is more dangerous than fossil fuel to be appointed head of whatever department regulates that. and they regulate hydrogen. (cont..)

[travail101]

(cont..) but what if they are right about a certain hydrogen application, and wrong about another? they stifle the whole sector, and ruin it for hydrogen for decades. we just need stricter enforcement of these things. besides. when you allow one thing the government grows in every which direction, and you end up hurting more people in the regulatory process than the original localized damage of the nuclear sites.

[travail101]

my solution would be, if enough people in your town agree that this is a "known" danger, you lobby local government to put restrictions in your city, or county. that way radioactive pollution would be rural-ized, and could be studied on a local regulatory level to see if it should be allowed to continue, or expand. that way if they crop up all over a country, one city might be paid off, but they can't pay all cities and counties off, it will eventually be solved.

[milofonbil]

I wish it were that simple. Walmart is for example a known danger to free trade in small towns. Nevertheless you can't discriminate against Walmart moving into your town and destroying the entire economy. Coal and nuclear power companies will assert their 14th amendment rights in the same way.

[travail101]

Wal-Mart is not a threat in a free market, only in a controlled market. but the biggest problem is social engineering, and education (linked) so not only do people get lower prices, due to Wal-Mart's regulatory upper-hand, but also due to their massive distribution network. and on the other hand the people don't know the issue, and support wal-mart for superficial reasons. instead of local establishments.

[milofonbil]

There is no such thing as a free market. Of course Wal*Mart is a threat to our current economy. They take Chinese products made with near slave labor wages and dump them on the market often below their own costs to kill economy of entire cities and counties. It's not due to efficiency, it's due to slave labor conditions.

[milofonbil]

If we had a free market, there would be no tariffs on goods AND labor. You could just bring in labor that would work for less than we are willing to work for. It will be a race to the bottom until we all live in cardboard homes and drink and bathe in sewer water. If you did not like it, you could just leave or own your own factory.

[travail101]

yea right, communism and socialism have historically proven themselves to be the propper "race to the bottom" path to take, if you want no middle class. Capitalism has always been the best sustainer of a wealthy middle class. the poor will be with us always, no matter what we do, or do not do. but the poor are better off when there's a large middle class.

[milofonbil]

I disagree. Whenever you see a normal functioning economy without intervention, without government regulation and without participation of either workers through unions or the people through government, what you'll find is the normal outcome of laissez-faire economics -- which is no middle class, or a very, very small mercantile middle class.

[travail101]

this Wal-Mart issue is the equivalent of blaming the government for you inability to ween yourself off of your own addiction. people get what they deserve, free markets aren't perfect, they are just the best option available. but they come with a little responsibility to the consumer. (cont..)

[milofonbil]

little responsibility to the consumer = buyer beware? Well Enron screwed a lot of people here in Washington with their fake electrical shortages. Laws are needed to protect the consumer against unscrupulous vendors.

[travail101]

just stop it, you can't use protectionist economic countries to prove free markets aren't viable. besides. give me one example of a communist country that is good for consumers? Free Marketeers like myself don't ignore corruption, but when the government is out, then the corruption is localized and more easily absorbed. what about AA and Delta getting bailed out by big gov? that is bad for consumers, discount airlines have trouble competing against subsidized monoliths with no soul

[travail101]

besides. laws only hurt honest businessmen, Enron was a headed by crooks. do you honestly think criminals will say, "Ok, you got us, that new law really puts a hole in our entire illegal operation." what Enron did was illegal anyway. this is preposterous

[travail101]

(cont...) but like you said, in our CURRENT economy, it's a threat, I agree completely, this protectionist economy makes big companies like Wal-Mart a HUGE threat because they can pay all the lawyers to find all the loop holes, and the little guy goes out of business because he has to play fair according to interventionist law. Free Markets again win out.

[milofonbil]

If you have free markets, true movement of labor and no laws to regulate then you have true laissez-faire economics. The people with all the money are in charge. This results in a large low-wage worker class, a very small middle class and a small extremely rich upper class - the business oligopoly owners.

[travail101]

We have all the laws we need to regulate personal Liberty, and Personal Freedom. history shows your scenario works best under communist/socialist/corporatis­t rule. How some Americans have lost faith in Free Markets, and Capitalism, I will never understand. But there's no way to force someone to work for pennies if he actually has the skills to do the job in a free market, he will start a competing business.

[milofonbil]

If I understand Ron Paul's philosophy, individuals would have to band together to win class-action lawsuits against polluters to collect for measurable property damages. One would have to be able to prove the source of one's lung cancer before being able to collect for property damages.

[thomasw78]

Is that so far-fetched? Isn't that basically what happened with the tobacco companies?

[milofonbil]

Yes, but it took over 40 years to prosecute the tobacco companies. Without laws and caselaw, it will take a costly lawsuit to stop property damage from the next tobbaco company or polluter. This approach does not make any practical sense.

[murphycline]

Not just proving that pollution causes disease. You could have for example, a nuisance suit, that stated that dumping pollution in a river that runs downstream past your house has depreciated your property's value.

[joebluhm]

Well of course! Who would have a valid lawsuit if there is no proof that there is a health effect? Preemptive lawsuits are as frivolous and damaging as preemptive wars.

[milofonbil]

So if I get you right, all preemptive actions are frivolous. You would eliminate all regulations from the nuclear industry? Even though we know that certain actions will result in certain problems? How does the market correct the nuclear industry without regulation under your model?

[joebluhm]

Well, no. What I'm saying is that there needs to be a valid source proving that something is damaging before putting regulations on it. Pollution is clearly bad, and I'm not arguing that.

[milofonbil]

So do you think that individuals should be building fusion reactors in their garage? Afterall, they do release neutrons into the environment.

See this YouTube where a teenager rolled his own. v=7RVlg8M8XRs

[spudea]

The market is the people. If people choose to eat mcdonalds then they deserve high cholesterol. The reason renewable energy isn't as prevalent as it should be is because Oil companies lobby in washington to kill kind of renewable energy bill. They killed the electric car. If the federal government stayed completely out of it, then the companies that pollute the most would no longer be protected, and would be held accountable by the people.

[stephendedlus]

the market finds the best soultion for everything - like your health - 48 million people without insurance or good eating habits - ie mcdonalds. Corporations are great and don't think that the buyer has to beware - go have a smoke!!!

[MrPillowFoot]

That makes COMPLETE sense. When have you heard a politician make complete sence?

[RNPortalLord]

I've gotta say that renewables should be an exception because if you think about it, our economy will be much more of a FREE economy if it's main driving force is renewable energy in all of its various forms.

Nevertheless, I think Ron Paul would at least get rid of the bloodclots that seem to stifle this country from moving toward a renewable run economy.

[RNPortalLord]

This is one area where I slightly disagree with Dr Paul, however, it should be noted that he will very likely get rid of all subsidies to the oil/coal/gas companies which is most definitely a huge reason why solar, wind, and other renewables haven't totally emerged. He did mention electric cars (most politicians wouldn't dare). Go TESLA MOTORS!

[Dailycomedy]

Ron Paul makes a good point here: that the market perpetuates itself. However, by saying that "no one has the right to pollute", he is basically saying that we are all living illegally anyhow, so we might as well not enforce environmental standards. That's what I like to call a "cop-out". Its a new-fangled term which means, a shirking of responsibility based upon broad, antiquated or otherwise evasive logic. Who wants a president who shirks responsibility?

[gornandez]

it seems like we would have to get some air/water tests done and file some class action suits against environmentally dangerous companies?

[Notsplane]

Ron Paul will reduce air pollution by reducing the incentive to drive cars by not taxing the Internet. (he is against taxing the internet) That will encourage online shopping and disourage driving your car all the way to the store to buy something.

[bartscott57raven]

Is it better to have an incompetent government bureaucracy pretending to protect the environment or to be permitted to sue the polluters for damaging your property?

[zed4785]

lol he skirted his way out of that one! "pollution violates right to property" so basically the government has to get involved? which way does he want it?

[hoiatneh]

Government does not do the work, it is the private people who sues the polluters that is involved. but it is very much a hand off approach, but at the same time there are regulations, but no real government control other through the justice system

[rustybuick1]

He's just stating that it's a legit purpose of government.

[eekdog2005]

We are told we're addicted to oil yet we have no choice to what our car runs on to get us to work everyday? You won't see a new fuel source til BIG OIL is out of washington dc.

[rfluth70]

Oh I see we don't need any regulations. We just need the magical power of the market place and the ability to sue a industry that has a billion times the finical resources that you have. Brilliant! Well this is coming from the guy that said we didn't need a civil war. Slavery would have worked itself out.

[plzhelpj]

People don't seem to understand his message. If you don't believe that the market place and individuals can't keep a system of "checks and balances", so to speak, to sort things out, then fine. I won't argue with you because you may be right. What Ron Paul wants to do is get rid of many of the Federal regulations. If you want regulations then ask the state for them-- they have powers, too.

[rfluth70]

I understand the message I just don't agree with it. Thanks for not being one of those Ron Paul supporters who response with "You just don't love freedom" or something of that sort. I actually believe we should have less government just not the extreme length that Paul wants to take it. The market cant solve everything.

[spudea]

The problem with renewable energy is supplying significant amounts of it. The technology just isn't there yet. The fact is when government gets involved, it is always more expensive and less efficient.

[winninghammer]

I'm in it too!

[SquirrelMarket]

I'm in that video!

[N0diggityN0doubt]

can you feel it. times are a changing.

ron paul 2008

[russianracehorse]

I'm always impressed with the way Dr. Paul refuses to pander to his audience. Romney would have told this guy whatever he wanted to hear to pimp his vote. Whether you agree with Dr. Paul or not, you have to admire his integrity.

GO RON PAUL!

[N0diggityN0doubt]

agreed

[saynotoslavery]

Free fair markets are the answer.

ronpaulforpresident2008. com

[mightisright]

It's hard to tell, but I think he's saying that the energy industry is in the poor state its in because of government interference (i.e. protecting oil interests). Without outside interference these issues would be sorted out much better.

[brokenlenspro]

look up magnetic engines. no fuel!!!! WOW. that's even sicker than water/hydrogen engines.

[AntiFed1791]

Hear what he is saying. Government has no business favoring one thing over another in matters of commerce. The issue of the Environment is a PROPERTY RIGHTS issue. If you pollute my air, Ill SUE YOUR ASS!!

See how brilliant this man is?! Vote for Ron Paul.