Responses to the "How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008" Article
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008 article:
All the views here are nicely expressed. However, If RP were to take a position as a green tax it would go against the very principles of the constitution that he has thus far made his principle stand upon. This is the only reason I am supporting him. I do not want anybody dictating to me how I must live, government nor individual. If you (and others) believe that global warming is an issue then by all means you are more than welcome to donate as much as you want to your cause. I for one do not believe it to be an issue. This is from a former liberal democrat that changed parties to support a strict constituionalist candidate. Anything less would remain the status quo. Government and my fellow man are not to infringe upon those rights, otherwise your rights will also be infringed upon (status quo). Make no mistake this does not mean that I have no regard for the environment. Life/liberty/property mean exactly as defined.
--Todd Schuller
LA
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Believe it or not I had this exact same idea although you fleshed it out more thoroughly than I did. I actually heard RP mention I believe it was on the John Stossel interview that one of the roles of government was to protect the environment by enforcing private property rights. Favoring a shift from the direct income tax to the indirect pollution tax would be a great way for his message to take a step from idealism to more practical policy. Combine the elimination of the Federal Reserve which is what fuels consumption and RP becomes the greenest candidate in history.
--Thomas
thomasw78(at)gmail.com CA
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Very interesting case. Thanks for making me think a little more about this issue. By the way, Ron Paul is not for going back on the gold standard per se, he is for allowing for competing currencies based on gold, silver, whatever.
--Oscar DeGrouch
sisboombah(at)nyc.rr.com NY
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
I am a Ron Paul supporter and your green tax shift sounds like a good idea and I hope Ron Paul will adopt it. I suggest you send your article to his staff with some of the reader comments.
--Chuck McCarty
cemccarty177(at)gmail.com Nevada
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
I agree 100%! Polluters are the greatest "dis-respecters" of our property rights and should be punished as such. And pragmatically, having a green plank to Paul's platform would bring in even MORE disenfranchised voters to the Ron Paul Revolution. Terrific idea!!!
--Doug
bestfrienddouglas(at)yahoo.com Colorado
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Fantastic article. You really summed up just about my only reservation about Ron Pauls policy platform. I think the environment is a Federal concern because it involves a property dispute between states. Polluting rivers, the ocean and the atmosphere infringes on the rights of too many individuals to let courts allocate the penalties - the federal government should protect our rights here and a tax on pollution seems like a good free-market approach. This is an issue that cant be left up to the states because it involves so many parties across state lines.
I'm uncertain whether a constitutional amendment might be necessary to give the government the authority to tax based on pollution, but I think it is a much better idea than the current amendment allowing the income tax.
--Jim
jpspears13(at)gmail.com Texas
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
This is not a free-market approach to this problem. It has plenty of problems.
First, any "pollution tax" would still be a tax. The burden would be passed on from the polluters to the workers in the form of lagging wages, and to the customers of the polluting entity. Eventually the market would drive the polluter out of business -- assuming there is a better, cheaper alternative. If not, it just pays to pollute.
Secondly, the more recourse you give an individual, the more likely that indvidual is to care for his property. If someone can show damage, the effect of this would cause a near-immediate shift in pollution policies. Ron Pauls approach is actually a BETTER way to reduce pollution because it makes the polluter immediately responsible for any transgressions, as opposed to some long-term attrition coupled with the hope that a better alternative will spring up.
Lastly, isnt the current Ron Paul campaign electrified"? That guy raised $18 million this quarter.
I am truly concerned about the environment, and I think that Ron Pauls property-rights method of dealing with pollution would absolutely provide for a preferred way of dealing with this.
Just my two cents; maybe a little less after you factor in taxes and inflation.
--Frank
fspeiser(at)yahoo.com NY
The publisher replies:
Your approach doesn't sound like it respects private property rights very much. You are saying that Jones can ruin Smith's air, water, and soil, as much as he feels like, unless and until Smith wins a lawsuit against Jones. That is a rather flimsy protection. Instead of relying on lawsuits after pollution, it makes more sense to rely on market forces before pollution. Dr. Foldvary's solution is more solidly grounded in its respect for property integrity, and market forces.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
If it replaced income tax I think he would agree income tax is a matter of privacy
but the problem is that government tends to make things worse. If your tax was a local tax not federal that would be ok. Doing anything like this at a federal level in a country this size will be a failure.
--
jwerner929(at)aol.com Indiana
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Hey Fred -- interesting proposal, and kudos for having your heart in the right place. As one who historically saw "environmentalism" as an odd misspelling of the word "socialism", this one really made me stop and think a bit. I certainly agree your proposal is an improvement on the failed regulatory/corporatist route to addressing this issue, though it would be a tough pill I think for a Dr. Paul who thinks "No person shall be deprived of... property without due process" is more than just a slogan. Having said that, this is certainly a worthy route for the states to pursue. Since the states are, in fact, permitted to do this and anything else they like about pollution, that should probably be the focus for your idea.
Best of luck, and very good article!
--Bo Zimmerman
bo(at)zimmers.net Texas
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Ron Paul is my hope for the future. Hope he reads this article and jumps on the wagon.
--Rae Wilson
raechloeva(at)aol.com Virginia
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
As of August 2007, global temperature measurements using satellites and radiosondes (weather balloons) have not found the expected temperature signature that the greenhouse theories said there would be.
"The observed signature is nothing like the greenhouse signature - the distinct greenhouse signature is entirely missing." - to quote Dr. David Evans, who spent a few years engaged in scientific research as one of the genuinely concerned and believers in the greenhouse theory has reversed his position. In his latest report he goes on to say, "so now we know that greenhouse warming is not the (main) cause of global warming - so we know that carbon emissions are not the (main) cause of global warming."
So, I believe this makes the rhyme and reason for your article moot.
--Tommy Davis
tommy.davis(at)suddenlink.net Texas
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Great article! Ive long thought that combining the best of Libertarian & Green approaches would be the way to go. I hope he takes note. This would actually replicate the "Blue/Green" strategy of the New Zealand National Party for the upcoming elections there. (BTW Kiwis, "Kill the Bill"!!) I support him anyway, not only as a longtime libertarian, but as IMHO the only serious hope of reversing the whole "fascist shift" (Naomi Wolfs term) now underway in the USA, ending the "Baseworld Empire" (Chalmers Johnsons term) and all the rest of it. But looming ecological collapse is the next big thing that could ruin everybodys Tea Party. "Hes the Maaan...the $6 Million Dollar Man...hee, hee, hee.. ;)
--Donald Johnson
djcj13(at)hotmail.com Washington
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Im a fervent Ron Paul supporter and I like this idea. Ron has actually said that once polluters are forced to internalize the cost of their pollution, it would be better for alternative energy sources. For example, with coal power today, it is cheaper than biofuel. However, if the amount of pollution caused by coal were added into the cost of coal power, it would give alternative energies a chance to compete in the markets.
While environmentalism isnt the forefront of his campaign, he has given serious thought to the pollution problem, and addressed it constitutionally and with a free-market approach. Right on.
--Jason Bennett
jbennett1128(at)gmail.com Kansas
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
If you think Ron Paul is being marginalized by the MSM, the Mil/Ind Complex, the Oil Energy Cos, and the Fed Bankers now, imagine if he proposed this right now. Its better if he waits until later, like after he wins the GOP primary.
--Jack
icymudpuppy(at)yahoo.com WA
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Global warming is real, but the contention is whether man is singled handedly responsible for it. An irresponsible greem policy could undermine and starve millions. The Bali conference was full of lobbyist and alarmist. We need science, not politics. Lets not jump the gun or place the cart in front of the horse. It is scary how globalism (in the negative sense) is running science underground.
--NatureLover
jestipon(at)yahoo.com Iowa
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Fred, you have a very good idea regarding the elimination of the income tax as an anchor on the economy. The problem is there are many in the Ron Paul camp who have no clue what the difference is between common property (land, air, minerals) and private property (the improvement on the land). If Paul were elected this idea would have merit
when negotiating with the Democratic House and Senate. I urge all right wingers who think you can privatize everything to read:
htap://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
htap://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html
I like Paul because he wants to end global police work and the stupid war on drugs. These facist policies are a huge anchor on our economy. He does understand freedom (like jury rights) unlike the other Ds and Rs.
--Ron
land4citizens(at)yahoo.com Pittsburgh, Pa
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
My vote goes to Dr. Ron Paul and the FairTax! Its just not about reform of the U.S. Tax Code for all Americans, its complete and total code REPLACEMENT. The American economy would thrive!
--FAIRTAXBILL
RANSOM.1(at)COMCAST.NET CALIFORNIA
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
i absolutely love your article. PLEASE try to contact the paul campaign with this piece. truly any citizen who wants to curb pollution understands that dr. paul is the only candidate who can do so effectively.
every other candidate wants to increase taxes EVERYWHERE BUT regarding pollution.
--harris
harriskenny(at)gmail.com new jersey
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
I have believed all along that it is the libertarian position to allow the government to penalize polluters because their actions infringe upon the liberty of others. I am not opposed to this but can you provide more detail. How will the green tax shift be applied? It seems it would require legislation to determine a level of pollution for the tax to take effect.
--Nick
bones13(at)nycap.rr.com New York
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
President Ron Paul – Could He Really Win?
Learn how outside economic and foreign policy events just might elect Ron Paul.
htap://www.ronaldholland.com/presidentronpaul.htm is a two part article on how current events outside the political process could elect Ron Paul as President.
--Ron Holland
skironholland(at)yahoo.com NC
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
"Ron Paul is correct on the main point. He recognizes pollution as an invasion into others property, which requires compensation. He is right-on in saying that it was improper for the courts to have ruled against being able to sue polluters. " ---
I think the difficulty some libertarians may have is what we define as "property" and exactly what property we have natural rights too. Air water and even land and natural resources are the property of all in common. Only man made goods can be properly seen as private property. Yes the government has the responsibility to uphold property rights but we also have to define property correctly.
When any individual owner of private property pollutes our common natural assets then that is a violation of our community proprty rights and we should be able to sue the polluter for damages to our common property but even better would be a preeptive charge against pollution with green taxes like the LVT. Our citizens dividend might just be cleaner air and water and more effecient and less polluting uses for our land.
--Warren C.
w1uir(at)aol.com Massachusetts
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Agreed. I know a lot of people who like what RP has to say but I never have much of an answer when they ask about his position on the environment.
--Dirk
dirknb(at)hotmail.com Republic of Texas
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Its really dangerous to replace straight up taxes with sin taxes. What if you put all taxes on pollution and people stopped polluting? Youd be screwed. "Hurry up and pollute some more, we need the funds." The incentives all point in the wrong direction.
--Julian Morrison
julian.morrison(at)gmail.com UK
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
This is a great article and shows how the Ron Paul campaign is winning and growing. Thanks for the honest report, I hope Dr. Paul gets to read this and incorporates the Green tax.
At 7:30 Monday morning according to the official Ron Paul website he has raised $18,158,349 in donations and according to the official Mike Huckabee website Mike has raised $1,190,431 in 4th quarter donations. Also here are the numbers of unique visitors for each of the presidential Web sites, according to NetRatings Inc. projections. So the question is how can Mike Huckabee be at the top of the list and Dr. Paul be at the bottom. Something is just not right here. Go Dr. Paul….. we will see what happens in 17 days. Here comes the FREEDOM train.
REPUBLICANS
Ron Paul: 673,000
Mike Huckabee: 337,000
Mitt Romney: 229,000
Fred Thompson: 217,000
Rudy Giuliani: 106,000
John McCain: 94,000
DEMOCRATS
Barack Obama: 821,000
John Edwards: 487,000
Hillary Clinton: 355,000
--collin towers
collin33(at)msn.com Florida
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
The reason Ron Paul is so popular, is that he is popular with a Majority of people.
The other reason he is so popular with the Majority, is he is unpopular with the minority that is polled.
He is also a threat to the military industrial complex and its propaganda wing, the main stream media, and the people are standing up to say, we are ready for Ron Paul, the constitution and real change.
--Mick Russom
mickrussom(at)yhaoo.com
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
excellent
--TheOneLaw
libertarian(at)explorecraft.com tx
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Hey man, whats up? I"m a Paul supporter here in MO, def getting my friends & everyone I know to vote for him in the primaries. I will even become a delegate for him if I can find out more information on it.
But your article interests me. I do not really understand your concept of the green tax.
Do you mean the federal govt should impose a tax on coporations, or businesses depending on pollution emission. Are fed govt taxes even valid on states? And if so Does it say so in the constitution?
The companies get taxed, therefore they raise prices for consumers? Please help me understand it better, thank you.
--Marshall
fhoweman(at)hotmail.com MO
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Your suggestion indicates to me that you dont actually get what Ron Paul is about. At all. A "green tax shift" would continue to fuel the fires of Big Government, merely by financing it differently. One might argue that it would result in a government that is even bigger and more intrusive... Pretty much the OPPOSITE of the kind of freedom that Ron Paul is talking about.
Ron Paul wants to eliminate the income tax and replace it with NOTHING. This is why he has my vote, and why he should have yours.
Stop trying to hijack the rEVOLution. Join it instead.
--Tara Davis
your_girl_tara(at)yahoo.com Minnesota
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
I want to give you a Libertarian view on how to protect the environment.
Let people purchase land, and not tax them on it if its not developed.
Diverse groups can come together to purchase HUGE areas of land and since its owned by multiple people, you can have a contract that requires ALL OWNERS to have to agree to develop it. If they dont all agree, its not developed. Eminent domain laws have to be killed though, or greatly reduced except in dire need.
I can tell you, as a person that lived right next to the Adirondack State park, the government does not do conservation ever. YOU arent allowed to develop it, but they are, and they do.
Do not continue looking toward the government to solve problems. Look to yourself. There are millions of people like you. You are weak alone and strong together.
This is how you can truly get environmental protection, by buying it. Land is very cheap in some areas still.
WWF has already done this in some countries. We can do it here, if we just get rid of taxes on this land that sits there doing nothing for people.
--Richard Wicks
rich_e(at)navosha.com California.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Sorry, but if you think Ron Paul will endorse raising taxes for any cause, you are mistaken. Green is good, but taxes? YUCK!
--hiimallen
hiimallen(at)gmail.com Arizona
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Ron thinks that the global warming concerns are overblown for good reason.
Global warming is a total and complete hoax being used to set-up a global tax for global government.
"Consensus Shattered as Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming is Natural"
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/121107_global_warming.htm
"A Tool For Global Control"
http://matthewkowalski.blogspot.com/2007/03/tool-for-global-control.html
"Global Taxes are Back, Watch Your Wallet"
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/in_our_opinion/global_taxes.htm
Take some time to investigate the evidence and its clear that humans are not to blame for the earth heating up...pollution is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed, but more carbon dioxide in the air is only going to make plants grow better, not kill us all.
--Matthew Kowalski
matthewkowalski(at)gmail.com MN
The publisher replies:
You seem to think that if humans are not to blame for something, then it automatically stops being a problem that anyone needs to worry about. That is totally wrong. Think of earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. Stop focusing all your energy on blame, blame, blame, and think about actions that can help human beings.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
I like this article but its likely that global warming (man made) is a scam to impose a global warming tax, a form of one world governance, Paul will never adopt the global tax. The IPCC has not proven scientifically that man causes global warming - many scientists say the method is flawed.Look at the Sun for the cause
--Nino
ninoguzzo(at)hotmail.com Australia
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
I'd never heard of this idea before, so I can't support it this instant, but I'm going to mull it over and see what I can find out, because it sounds sound--thank you for your contribution to the dialogue of whatever one should call it that's going on right now.
--Jay Straw
thisiswherejunkgoes(at)gmail.com PA
The publisher replies:
Thank you for your high-quality remark.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
What you propose seems within the views of Ron Paul. It seems like a logical application of the policies he advance.
--paul t
bite(at)bendbroadband.com OR
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
You are right! You should make sure that Ron Paul hears about this! Make a Youtube video or something, let his supporters know. The Global Warming issue is debatable, but If RP where to endorse going green it could help him a lot.
--Ian Odgear
ian.odgear(at)gmail.com Arizona, USA
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
In my opinion Ron Paul has taken a very firm position on environmental issues. To simplify it, pollute, get sued, fix the polluting problems or go out of business. The free market can decide. Below is a copy of the environmental stance that he has taken. You can find more on Ron Pauls issues at www.ronpaul2008.com
The federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the National Forests, and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help.
The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.
In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbors land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluters production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.
In Congress, I have followed a constitutional approach to environmental action:
I consistently vote against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests.
I am a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. H.R. 550 extends the investment tax credit to solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and H.R. 1772 provides tax credits for the installation of wind energy property.
Taxpayers for Common Sense named me a "Treasury Guardian" for my work against environmentally-harmful government spending and corporate welfare.
I am a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, a bipartisan caucus devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of special interests.
Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depend on the land for their health and livelihood have the greatest incentive to be responsible stewards.
--John
jlbutcher(at)wmca.net Nevada
The publisher replies:
Interesting, but why only work against pollution by lawsuits after it occurs? If some corporation emits toxic wastes and kills all my children and grandchildren, no lawsuit is ever going to bring them back to life. You cannot undo the damage of pollution with a lawsuit.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
This is an excellent discussion. The point of these sorts of taxes is to reflect the real cost of something so you hit the nail on the button in economic thinking. I'm sure that he's right that states should adopt these policies on their own and that the legal system could handle all property matters even as it gives the supreme court a job to manage interstate property conflict and the legislature something to politic about for a few more years.
--Amir
amirh(at)mit.edu CT
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
I would rather a jury of my peers determine justice against polluters than yet another bureaucracy that has carte blanche authority to regulate mine and my familys "carbon output".
--Winston
bluesurf99(at)yahoo.com Austin, TX
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
Ron Paul is correct in that the global warming projections are overblown - at least the part that man has been responsible for.
New information has been released confirming this as shown in the excerpt below.
I do agree though that manmade emissions should be minimized and that excise taxes on higher polluting vehicles or companies is a good idea, though.
"The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.
The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.
Authored by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia), the study appears in this months International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society .
The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," said lead author David H. Douglass."
--Scot Seaman
scotatwork(at)charter.net Missouri
Monday, December 17, 2007
Concerning the How Ron Paul could Win the Presidency in 2008
article:
I'm a geologist and something of a tree hugger, but also skeptical that global warming is caused significantly due to human effect. I'm also a Ron Paul supporter and have agreed with his view on the environment. Your ideas presented here, however, make very good sense and I would love for Ron Paul to embrace these. I also agree that it would bring a new flock into the fold.
--Mitch C
mitch(at)bugware.com FL
What's your opinion? Tell your views to The Progress Report:
| Sign up for free Progress Report updates via email |
| Page One | Page Two | Archive |
| Discussion Room | Letters | What's Geoism? |
