AuthorTopic: Ron Paul on the American Empire  (Read 14483 times)

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
The Pollution Solution: Stopping the environment's worst enemy
« Reply #60 on: March 20, 2015, 01:15:02 PM »
Quote
But I guess it's difficult to wrap our heads around a system in which protecting individual freedom and the biosphere are both of utmost importance. Do you specific examples of this happening or how it may hypothetically happen?

Quote
But the bottom line is WHO is going to do the restricting, is it not? If you can get any kind of Libertarian to agree to your (100% valid    ) requirements of true individual freedom, then there is a possiblity of a meeting of minds. I do NOT see GO or UB ever agreeing to that requirement/definition in any way.  :(
[/b]


The Libertarian Party The Party OF Principle  Minimum Government Maximum Freedom

BY DR. MARY RUWART

Who's the greatest polluter of all? The oil companies? The chemical companies? The nuclear power plants? If you guessed "none of the above," you'd be correct. Our government, at the federal, state, and local levels, is the single greatest polluter in the land. In addition, our government doesn't even clean up its own garbage! In 1988, for example, the EPA demanded that the Departments of Energy and Defense clean up 17 of their weapons plants which were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals -- enough contamination to cost $100 billion in clean-up costs over 50 years! The EPA was simply ignored. No bureaucrats went to jail or were sued for damages. Government departments have sovereign immunity.

In 1984, a Utah court ruled that the U.S. military was negligent in its nuclear testing, causing serious health problems (e.g. death) for the people exposed to radioactive fallout. The Court of Appeals dismissed the claims of the victims, because government employees have sovereign immunity.

Hooker Chemical begged the Niagara Falls School Board not to excavate the land where Hooker had safely stored toxic chemical waste. The school board ignored these warnings and taxpayers had to foot a $30 million relocation bill when health problems arose. The EPA filed suit, not against the reckless school board, but against Hooker Chemical! Government officials have sovereign immunity.

Government, both federal and local, is the greatest single polluter in the U.S. This polluter literally gets away with murder because of sovereign immunity. Libertarians would make government as responsible for its actions as everyone else is expected to be. Libertarians would protect the environment by first abolishing sovereign immunity.

By turning to government for environmental protection, we've placed the fox in charge of the hen house -- and a very large hen house it is! Governments, both federal and local, control over 40% of our country's land mass. Unfortunately, government's stewardship over our land is gradually destroying it.

For example, the Bureau of Land Management controls an area almost twice the size of Texas, including nearly all of Alaska and Nevada. Much of this land is rented to ranchers for grazing cattle. Because ranchers are only renting the land, they have no incentive to take care of it. Not surprisingly, studies as early as 1925 indicated that cattle were twice as likely to die on public ranges and had half as many calves as animals grazing on private lands.

Obviously, owners make better environmental guardians than renters. If the government sold its acreage to private ranchers, the new owners would make sure that they grazed the land sustainably to maximize profit and yield.

Indeed, ownership of wildlife can literally save endangered species from extinction. Between 1979 and 1989, Kenya banned elephant hunting, yet the number of these noble beasts dropped from 65,000 to 19,000. In Zimbabwe during the same time period, however, elephants could be legally owned and sold. The number of elephants increased from 30,000 to 43,000 as their owners became fiercely protective of their "property." Poachers didn't have a chance!

Similarly, commercialization of the buffalo saved it from extinction. We never worry about cattle becoming extinct, because their status as valuable "property" encourages their propagation. The second step libertarians would take to protect the environment and save endangered species would be to encourage private ownership of both land and animals.

Environmentalists were once wary of private ownership, but now recognize that establishing the property rights of native people, for example, has become an effective strategy to save the rain forests. Do you remember the movie, Medicine Man, where scientist Sean Connery discovers a miracle drug in the rain forest ecology? Unfortunately, the life-saving compound is literally bulldozed under when the government turns the rain forest over to corporate interests. The natives that scientist Connery lives with are driven from their forest home. Their homesteading rights are simply ignored by their own government!

Our own Native Americans were driven from their rightful lands as well. Similarly, our national forests are turned over to logging companies, just as the rain forests are. By 1985, the U.S. Forest Service had built 350,000 miles of logging roads with our tax dollars -- outstripping our interstate highway system by a factor of eight! In the meantime, hiking trails declined by 30%. Clearly, our government serves special interest groups instead of protecting our environmental heritage.

Even our national parks are not immune from abuse. Yellowstone's Park Service once encouraged employees to trap predators (e.g., wolves, fox, etc.) so that the hoofed mammals favored by visitors would flourish. Not surprisingly, the ecological balance was upset. The larger elk drove out the deer and sheep, trampled the riverbanks, and destroyed beaver habitat. Without the beavers, the water fowl, mink, otter, and trout were threatened. Without the trout or the shrubs and berries that once lined the riverbanks, grizzlies began to endanger park visitors in their search for food. As a result, park officials had to remove the bears and have started bringing back the wolves.

Wouldn't we be better served if naturalist organizations, such as the Audubon Society or Nature Conservancy, took over the management of our precious parks? The Audubon Society's Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary partially supports itself with natural gas wells operated in an ecologically sound manner. In addition to preserving the sensitive habitat, the Society shows how technology and ecology can co-exist peacefully and profitably.

The environment would benefit immensely from the elimination of sovereign immunity coupled with the privatization of "land and beast." The third and final step in the libertarian program to save the environment is the use of restitution both as a deterrent and a restorative. Next month's column will feature the second part of the Pollution Solution, answering the question: "How would libertarians keep our air and water clean?"

Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D., is the author of Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle, a liberty primer for liberals, Christians, New Agers, and pragmatists. She also wrote Short Answers to the Tough Questions: Sound Bites for the Libertarian Candidate after her Internet column (www.self-gov.org) of the same name.
References:
1. John Baden, "Destroying the Environment: Government Mismanagement of Our Natural Resources" (Dallas, TX: National Center for Policy Analysis, 1986), pp. 20-21.
2. Alston Chase, Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's First National Park (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press), pp. 123-124.
3. Mary J. Ruwart, "Destroying the Environment" and "Pollution Solution" in Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle (Kalamazoo, MI: SunStar Press, 1993), pp.97-110; 171-182.

http://www.lp.org/issues/environment  :icon_study: :icon_study:
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 01:16:56 PM by Golden Oxen »

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
    • View Profile
Re: The Pollution Solution: Stopping the environment's worst enemy
« Reply #61 on: March 20, 2015, 01:48:29 PM »
There is definitely something to be said for getting rid of or severely limiting sovereign immunity. Also there should automatically be implied private causes of action in all environmental legislation, and ALL taxpaying citizens should be given standing to sue.

Quote from: Golden Oxen link=topic=4424.msg70730#msg70730
Our own Native Americans were driven from their rightful lands as well. Similarly, our national forests are turned over to logging companies, just as the rain forests are. By 1985, the U.S. Forest Service had built 350,000 miles of logging roads with our tax dollars -- outstripping our interstate highway system by a factor of eight! In the meantime, hiking trails declined by 30%. Clearly, our government serves special interest groups instead of protecting our environmental heritage.


This reminds me of Kelo v. City of New London. In this case, the SC expanded the definition of "public use" in the eminent domain clause to include taking land and giving it to corporate interests for commercial development. So basically the federal govt can take your land for ANY corrupt reason as long they give you what THEY consider "just compensation". 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
"Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 01:51:38 PM by Ashvin »

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #62 on: March 20, 2015, 01:52:00 PM »
actually agb i would expand the epa with the savings from the disbanded nsa to test for traces of paint people pour down the drain and make sure you seperate your recycling.  :icon_mrgreen:


UB and Ka,
Ethics is IT in ANY form of government! Ethical behavior is NOT relative to your power, position and ability, as too many Libertarians CONVENIENTLY claim. :emthdown: Everything else is buck passing.

Why is this addressed to me? I don't recall advocating unethical government, nor am I an ethical relativist.

Ka, I understand you advocate Green Libertarianism, right?


No, I advocate Green Libertarian Socialism. Of course I am well aware that libertarians are anti-socialist and tend to be anti-green, and socialists are anti-libertarian and (judging by past history) anti-green, but my reaction to seeing the leftists and the libertarians talk past each other in this thread is that it is only if the three groups work with each other that there is any chance of a viable way forward.

I base GLS, as I mentioned on another thread, on Robert Pirsig's moral theory. Skipping the metaphysical background, he states that there are four levels of what he calls 'static quality': the physical, the biological, the social, and the intellectual. Each has its own morality, and they are ordered, in that the biological depends on the physical, but works against it at the same time, e.g., birds manage to fly despite the physical restriction of gravity. Similarly, the social depends on the biological, but works against it, e.g., by restricting mating. And the intellectual depends on the social, but works against it, mainly by questioning overly restrictive customs.

And so, all things being equal, intellectual morality trumps social morality (why we honor Socrates and boo the Athenians), and social trumps biological. But of course it is seldom the case that all things are equal, and so we need a means to work things out when, say, an intellectual moral demand threatens the social fabric on which intellectual freedom depends. And both social and intellectual demands need to take into account biological restrictions.

Greens, Socialists, and Libertarians are all working from a valid premise, but different ones. Greens say, rightly, that the biosphere must be protected. Socialists say, rightly, that no one should be able to thrive if that harms others. Libertarians say, rightly, that government should not interfere with individual liberty. On the other hand, each group, if left unrestricted, infringes on the valid premises of the other two. Hence, each group has to be held back by the others, and each group can thrive if and only if they take the ideas of the others into account. In particular, it is to realize that true individual freedom requires socialism and a viable biosphere, and true socialism requires individual freedom and a viable biosphere, and a viable biosphere requires socialism and individual freedom (if it is going to include humans).

Ka,
Well said.  :emthup:

But the bottom line is WHO is going to do the restricting, is it not? If you can get any kind of Libertarian to agree to your (100% valid    ) requirements of true individual freedom, then there is a possiblity of a meeting of minds. I do NOT see GO or UB ever agreeing to that requirement/definition in any way.  :(

As you said, "if left unrestricted", the different world views do not work. An INTRINSIC part of the world view of both UB and GO is to be restricted ONLY by they OWN conscience, period. That might work for the health of the biosphere in the case of the self-restricted behavior of GO and UB.

That will NOT work for 90% (or more) of humanity   :emthdown: :(
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 01:56:26 PM by Uncle Bob »
ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #63 on: March 20, 2015, 04:45:46 PM »
UB said,
Quote
actually agb i would expand the epa with the savings from the disbanded nsa to test for traces of paint people pour down the drain and make sure you separate your recycling.  :icon_mrgreen:

:emthup: :icon_sunny:

Now if you can get GO to agree to that, then yeah, what is good for the GO Libertarian goose is good for the Agelbert Socialist Gander! For the record, I don't think you're serious about expanding anything but your spread in Australia.  ;)  ;D

GO gave several examples of government overreach. Ashvin mentioned Eminent Domain. I would add the other clever and unethical legalistic device that governments came up with called "Force Majeure" to Ashvin's observation that a group of people calling themselves "the government" can DECIDE what, exactly, just compensation IS when they take your property. We know how THAT works ,don't we?

But let us get down to the crux of the CAUSE of government overreach and corruption. I think we can all agree that only the powerful (as in having a lot of these    ) homo SAPS are overwhelmingly responsible for the ecological damage done to our biosphere.

Saying it was the "big government" that did it is exactly the same as saying "big corporations" did it. Corporations are not controlled by Billy Joe red neck looking for a place to dump a used battery (or old paint  :evil4:). The legal fraudulent fiction of "limited liability" is an affront to logic in general and the Green Libertarian biosphere math in particular.

There is NO SUCH FUCKING THING as LIMITED LIABILITY. Your LIABILITY is limited by your capacity to visit harm on the environment and the life forms in it. NO CORPORATE CHARTER is going to accept that. The "limited liability" baloney is there BECAUSE they DO NOT want to pay for the DAMAGE they do, PERIOD. All the legalese BALONEY about avoiding frivolous lawsuits and such is just so much self serving, double talking crap. 

As GO states, big organizations, both in government and business, rape the countryside routinely. But it is the PEOPLE in those corrupt, self serving hierarchies making the decisions to exploit without reflection that are the cause.

And those people, GO, are VERY FEW in number, compared with the overall population. You KNOW who they are.

Any organization, no matter how well meaning, from the Audubon society to the Sierra Club IS NOW being ACTIVELY corrupted by those people. They WILL NOT prevent drilling for oil and gas on national parks, just because they OWN them, instead of the gooberment. WHY? Because they will be BOUGHT or BOPPED for money, PERIOD.

UB and GO, this is about ACCOUNTABIITY. Why can't you see that we DO NOT have a functioning method making (RICH) Homo SAPS ACCOUNTABLE for the shit they do? There is no fucking way that Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon, is going to frack on his own property, woods or next to his pool or whatever. He will studiously avoid polluting the interior of his pussy wagons, executive jet, and mansion(s) BECAUSE he OWNS THEM.




SO WHAT? THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Why can't you see that? The evil fucks will ALWAYS game the system, even if it is Mother Mary's convent, to TRASH somebody else's back yard because EXPLOITATION WITHOUT REFLECTION is what Homo SAPS have not grown out of.  :emthdown:

Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell have never said ONE WORD about corporate overreach. Sure, they didn't support the bailouts but not supporting bailouts DOES NOT address the pollution these bastards are engaged in OR the Government handouts they get when they PURCHASE GOVERNMENT LAND at auctions in order to RAPE THE SHIT OUT OF THAT LAND for ELITE profits.

Yet all these  fine upstanding rich folks have IMPECCABLE biosphere harmony where they actually live. They eat organic while they collect dividends on their Monsanto Stock. They buy government officials while they urge you to vote. ANY environmental trashing that Billy Bob Red Neck does is PEANUTS compared with what these greedballs do.

You Libertarians are convinced that ONLY people with money/property/power should be able to make decisions for the rest of us in this world BECAUSE you believe you EARNED that right with your money and property. 
You believe anybody WITHOUT money and property DOES NOT have the "right" to restrict your behavior. Good luck with that. It's elitism101 and it EQUALS the exploitation of resources without reflection that got us where we are now.   

The track record of Libertarian property owners is EXCELLENT in their care of the immediate property they reside in and DISMAL in regard to their decisions on OTHER PEOPLE'S property. Don't tell me that they are then not "true" Libertarians.

I repeat, there is NO NULL HYPOTHESIS (i.e. innocent until proven guilty) for Homo SAPS in regard to our biosphere negative impact, whether we OWN PROPERTY or NOT!


« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 05:46:10 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #64 on: March 20, 2015, 06:46:01 PM »
you make some good points above agb which i a agree, eg th elite do not eat the same crap but organic. but i dont believe only people with property should have a say, i dont know where you got that idea. call me crazy but i actually think its insane that we have a system where politicians promises are not as enforceable as any other worker or employees contractual obligation. i say that in the birth of democracy in ancient greece that model of direct democracy is the correct way. the reality then is people like you or i who are persuasive orators on matters that matter to us then end up being the ones with the most influence not necessrily property owners. theres nothing wrong with that as it is still democratic in the end just a lot more of a direct democracy.

what is proposed and promised as a policy platform should not be able to be discarded and something else entirely done after an election. this is madness that we have such unacountable gooberment. x candidate should state he will create eg 5000 environmental inspectors and that does not mean 499 or 501 or he faces a first then second oversight watchdog warning then instant impeachment. hey u said im a hard man right. lol.

there would be no private banks inventing money then loaning it to us with interest, thats madness.

there would be one tax of ten percent in line with biblical tithing paid by anyone who recieves money for any reason, your paycheck or anything you buy. then theres no quarrel about getting promoted puting you in higher tax bracket etc. if you buy a canoe for 100 bucks you pay ten dollars tax, if you buy a million dollar yacht you pay a hundred thousand in tax etc. and no such thing as property tax so nobody can ever fully own it after they paid for it. thats my pipedream.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 06:52:18 PM by Uncle Bob »
ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #65 on: March 20, 2015, 08:32:11 PM »

But the bottom line is WHO is going to do the restricting, is it not? If you can get any kind of Libertarian to agree to your (100% valid    ) requirements of true individual freedom, then there is a possiblity of a meeting of minds. I do NOT see GO or UB ever agreeing to that requirement/definition in any way.  :(

As you said, "if left unrestricted", the different world views do not work. An INTRINSIC part of the world view of both UB and GO is to be restricted ONLY by they OWN conscience, period. That might work for the health of the biosphere in the case of the self-restricted behavior of GO and UB.

That will NOT work for 90% (or more) of humanity   :emthdown: :(

Yes, I would not expect many self-described libertarians to join the GLS, and probably not a lot of old school socialists or greens. So I think I kinda misspoke in my previous post when I talked of the three groups joining together and restricting each other. I suppose what I am really talking about is a new group each of whose members has internalized all three valid premises. It helps if one realizes that individual freedom tends to be inversely proportional to quantity of possessions, as long as basic necessities are met. It is a hard sell, but I think it will get easier as collapse becomes obvious.

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Re: The Pollution Solution: Stopping the environment's worst enemy
« Reply #66 on: March 21, 2015, 10:12:43 AM »
Who's the greatest polluter of all? The oil companies? The chemical companies? The nuclear power plants? If you guessed "none of the above," you'd be correct. Our government, at the federal, state, and local levels, is the single greatest polluter in the land.

This is a good example of lying with statistics. It may be true that when we analyse the statistics in relation to individual institutions, the  US government -- mainly the military -- is the most proportionally responsible for certain kinds of pollution. But this is because the government and its military is quite huge, as compared with any of the individual oil companies, say. But if we look at the stats in terms of industries, rather than individual institutions, things look quite different! And anybody who really grasps the available information and data will know that the biggest polluters in America are ordinary, everyday people -- who (for example) buy gasoline and burn it... thus feeding the monster. They also buy cars and use them. And they buy thousands of items which have the consequence of feeding the pollution monster with what it most wants and needs to keep going: money.  The problem, in other words, is not THEM. It is us -- ourselves.
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #67 on: March 21, 2015, 11:13:26 AM »
Ka said,
Quote
It helps if one realizes that individual freedom tends to be inversely proportional to quantity of possessions, as long as basic necessities are met. It is a hard sell, but I think it will get easier as collapse becomes obvious.


   


GO and UB's three step reaction to Ka's wisdom:
 
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
549 Views
Last post April 13, 2016, 02:48:18 PM
by Surly1
20 Replies
2755 Views
Last post July 24, 2017, 01:18:41 AM
by azozeo
4 Replies
399 Views
Last post May 21, 2018, 07:54:00 PM
by Palloy2