"We are in the middle of a revolution and I'm happy to be part of it."

"We are in the middle of a revolution and I'm happy to be part of
it."

"Washington hasn't changed me."

Jez-us, But Ron Paul was awesome tonite at the CNN/YouTube debates!

McCain attacked Paul several times and was BOOed!

check this out:

Q: Long term commitment to Iraq?

Ron Paul: They say the surge is working. There's less violence, but Al-
Sadr has won in the south of Iraq. The British are leaving. It's time
to take care of America first!

John McCain: We never lost the battle in Vietnam. It was American
public opinion that forced us to leave.

Ron Paul: "Wolfowitz admitted one of the reasons al-Qaeda was
organized and energized was because of our base in Saudi Arabia."

-------------

CNN and other media outlets are starting to look stupid attempting to
treat Ron Paul as a minor candidate. They seem to be the only people
that think that the same people online are not the same people
watching cable news.

The GOP race is clearly a two way race that is between Ron Paul and
whoever is still standing to challenge him on Super Tuesday. Ron Paul
appears to be raising more money than most of his opponents at this
time and he is drawing larger crowds across the country.
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=179851

----------------

Ron Paul's free, green market
The libertarian presidential contender says laissez-faire policies
could stop global warming and save the planet.

By Amanda Griscom Little
http://sacdcweb06.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/29/grist_qa/
Nov. 29, 2007 | Enviros may roll their eyes at a candidate who
dismisses the U.S. EPA as feckless and disposable, who believes all
public lands should be privately owned, and whose remedy for an ailing
planet is "a free-market system and a lot less government." But Ron
Paul, the quixotic libertarian U.S. rep from Texas, has a bigger cult
following online than any other presidential candidate, and has won
unexpected attention in the GOP debates with his provocative ideas.

Some of those ideas arguably have environmental merit. Paul is known
for his zealous opposition to the Iraq war, which he duly notes causes
pollution and the "burning of fuel for no good purpose." He wants to
yank all subsidies and R&D funding from the energy sector, which many
believe would benefit the growth of renewables. A cyclist himself, he
has cosponsored bills that would offer tax breaks to Americans who
commute by bicycle and use public transportation. Still, his
libertarian presidency would, among other things, allow drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, boost the use of coal, and
embrace nuclear power. Moreover, it wouldn't do diddly about global
warming because, Paul reasons, "we're not going to be very good at
regulating the weather."

I called Paul up on the campaign trail in Iowa to get the skinny on
how the environment figures into his small-government agenda.

For more info on his platform and record, check out this Paul fact
***.

Q: What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the
environment?

On energy, I would say that the reliance on the government to devise a
policy is a fallacy. I would advocate that the free market take care
of that. The government shouldn't be directing research and
development because they are bound and determined to always misdirect
money to political cronies. The government ends up subsidizing things
like the corn industry to develop ethanol and it turns out that it's
not economically feasible. So, my answer to energy is to let the
market work. Let supply and demand make the decision. Let prices make
the decision. That is completely different than the bureaucratic and
cronyism approach.

On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a
good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of
socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private
property owners have a much better record of taking care of the
environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the
West, they're much more poorly treated than those that are privately
owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their
neighbor's private property -- water, air, or land. It is very strict.

Q: But there are realms of the environment that, by definition, can't
be owned, right? How would you divide the sky or the sea into private
parcels?

The air can certainly be identified. If you have a mill next door to
me, you don't have a right to pollute my air -- that can be properly
defined by property rights. Water: if you're on a river you certainly
can define it, if you're on a lake you certainly can define it. Even
oceans can be defined by international agreements. You can be very
strict with it. If it is air that crosses a boundary between Canada
and the United States, you would have to have two governments come
together, voluntarily solving these problems.

Q: Can you elaborate on when government intervention is and isn't
appropriate?

Certainly, any time there's injury to another person, another person's
land, or another person's environment, there's [legal] recourse with
the government.

Q: What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?

You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should
function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a
newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie. There has to
be recourse. But you don't invite the government in to review every
single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might
do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it's
a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have
political connections.

Q: Would you dissolve the EPA?

It's not high on my agenda. I'm trying to stop the war, and bring back
a sound economy, and solve the financial crises, and balance the
budget.

Q: Is it appropriate for the government to regulate toxic or dangerous
materials, like lead in children's toys?

If a toy company is doing something dangerous, they're liable and they
should be held responsible. The government should hold them
responsible, but not be the inspector. The government can't inspect
every single toy that comes into the country.

Q: So you see it as the legal system that brings about environmental
protection?

Right. Some of this stuff can be handled locally with a government. I
was raised in the city of Pittsburgh. It was the filthiest city in the
country because it was a steel town. You couldn't even see the sun on
a sunny day. Then it was cleaned up -- not by the EPA, by local
authorities that said you don't have a right to pollute -- and the
government cleaned it up and the city's a beautiful city. You don't
need this huge bureaucracy that's remote from the problem. Pittsburgh
dealt with it in a local fashion and it worked out quite well.

Q: What if you're part of a community that's getting dumped on, but
you don't have the time or the money to sue the offending polluter?

Imagine that everyone living in one suburb, rather than using regular
trash service, were taking their household trash to the next town over
and simply tossing it in the yards of those living in the nearby town.
Is there any question that legal mechanisms are in place to remedy
this action? In principle, your concerns are no different, except
that, for a good number of years, legislatures and courts have failed
to enforce the property rights of those being dumped on with respect
to certain forms of pollution. This form of government failure has
persisted since the industrial revolution when, in the name of so-
called progress, certain forms of pollution were legally tolerated or
ignored to benefit some popular regional employer or politically
popular entity.

When all forms of physical trespass, be that smoke, particulate
matter, etc., are legally recognized for what they are -- a physical
trespass upon the property and rights of another -- concerns about
difficulty in suing the offending party will be largely diminished.
When any such cases are known to be slam-dunk wins for the person
whose property is being polluted, those doing the polluting will no
longer persist in doing so. Against a backdrop of property rights
actually enforced, contingency and class-action cases are additional
legal mechanisms that resolve this concern.

Q: You mentioned that you don't support subsidies for the development
of energy technologies. If all subsidies were removed from the energy
sector, what do you think would happen to alternative energy
industries like solar, wind, and ethanol?

Whoever can offer the best product at the best price, that's what
people will use. They just have to do this without damaging the
environment.

If we're running out of hydrocarbon, the price will go up. If we had a
crisis tomorrow [that cut our oil supply in half], people would drive
half as much -- something would happen immediately. Somebody would
come up with alternative fuels rather quickly.

Today, the government decides, and they misdirect the investment to
their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how
many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and
there's nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create
diesel fuel or ethanol. The money is spent for political reasons and
not for economic reasons. It's the worst way in the world to try to
develop an alternative fuel.

Q: But often the cheapest energy sources, which the market would
naturally select for, are also the most environmentally harmful. How
would you address this?

Your question is based on a false premise and a false definition of
"market" that is quite understandable under the current legal
framework. A true market system would internalize the costs of
pollution on the producer. In other words, the "cheapest energy
sources," as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs
of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or
internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.

To the extent property rights are strictly enforced against those who
would pollute the land or air of another, the costs of any
environmental harm associated with an energy source would be imposed
upon the producer of that energy source, and, in so doing, the cheap
sources that pollute are not so cheap anymore.

Q: What's your take on global warming? Is it a serious problem and one
that's human-caused?

I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don't think
there's a conclusion yet. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of
that argument. If you study the history, we've had a lot of climate
changes. We've had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If
there are weather changes, we're not going to be very good at
regulating the weather.

To assume we have to close down everything in this country and in the
world because there's a fear that we're going to have this global
warming and that we're going to be swallowed up by the oceans, I think
that's extreme. I don't buy into that. Yet, I think it's a worthy
discussion.

Q: So you don't consider climate change a major problem threatening
civilization?

No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments
marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus -- those are
immediate threats. We're about to lose our whole country and whole
republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away
without a trial, then that's going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner
than the temperature going up.

Q: What, if anything, do you think the government should do about
global warming?

They should enforce the principles of private property so that we
don't emit poisons and contribute to it.

And, if other countries are doing it, we should do our best to try to
talk them out of doing what might be harmful. We can't use our army to
go to China and dictate to China about the pollution that they may be
contributing. You can only use persuasion.

Q: You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you
see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address
global warming?

It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are
worthwhile, but treaties that have law enforcement agencies that force
certain countries to do things, I don't think that would work.

Q: You believe that ultimately private interests will solve global
warming?

I think they're more capable of it than politicians.

Q: What's your position on a carbon tax?

I don't like that. That's sort of legalizing pollution. If it's wrong,
you can buy these permits, so to speak. It's wrong to do it. It
shouldn't be allowed.

Q: Do you think it should be illegal to emit harmful pollutants?

You should be held responsible in a court of law, and you should be
able to be closed down if you're damaging your neighbor's property in
any way whatsoever.

Q: Who would set the law about what pollutants could and couldn't be
emitted? Congress?

Not under my presidency -- the Congress wouldn't do it. The people who
claim damage would have to say, look, I'm sitting here, and these
poisons are coming over, and I can prove it, and I want it stopped,
and I want compensation.

Q: You've described your opposition to wars for oil as an example of
your support for eco-friendly policies. Can you elaborate?

Generally speaking, war causes pollution -- uranium, burning of fuel
for no good purpose. The Pentagon burns more fuel than the whole
country of Sweden.

Q: Do you support the goal of energy independence in the U.S.?

Sure. But independence does not mean to me that we produce everything.
I don't believe governments have to provide every single ounce of
energy. I see independence as having no government-mandated policy: If
you need oil or energy, you can buy it.

Q: What about being independent from the Middle East, so we're not
buying oil from hostile countries?

I think it's irrelevant. We wouldn't be buying it directly, we would
be buying it on the world market. I don't think the goal has to be
that we produce alternative fuel so that we never buy oil from the
Middle East. The goal should be to provide all useful services and
goods through a market mechanism instead of central economic planning
or world planning. That system doesn't work.

Q: What role do you think coal should play in America's energy future?

Coal is a source of energy and it should be used, but it has to be
used without ever hurting anybody. I think we're smart enough to do
it. Technology is improving all the time. If oil goes to $150 a barrel
because we've bombed Iran, coal might be something that we can become
more independent with. I think technology is super, and we are capable
of knowing how to use coal without polluting other people's property.

Q: But coal technology has been proven to harm people -- with poisons
like mercury and asthma-causing particulates -- so should old-style
coal plants be allowed to continue operating?

Use of the technology I mentioned to prevent harm to people, even if
it costs more for the coal producer, is another example of how costs
must be internalized to the energy source. To the extent coal can be
efficiently produced in a way that does not pollute another's property
or another's physical body, it will be chosen as a viable energy
source. Certainly no producer of energy or anything else has a right
to pollute or harm another's property or person.

If coal is not competitively priced when all costs to keep production
safe are internalized to the producer, then coal will not be purchased
or produced. I do not happen to believe this will be the case, but it
is for the market to sort out, not politicians in Washington. It may
be that, from time to time, as other energy sources become scarce,
"safe coal" will be viable even if it is not at some other point in
time.

Q: What's your take on nuclear?

I think nuclear is great. I think it's the safest form of energy we
have.

Q; Ethanol?

I don't think anything's wrong with ethanol -- it's just not
economically competitive. It's only competitive now because those who
produce it get subsidies.

Q: What environmental achievement are you most proud of?

Nothing really special, other than trying to explain to people that
you don't need government expenditures and special-interest politics
to promote safe, environmental types of energy. That comes about
through a free-market system and a lot less government, and I think
that's the most important thing I can contribute.

Q: If you could spend a week in a park or natural area in the United
States, where would it be?

There's probably hundreds of places. I probably have gone to Colorado
more than any place, around Telluride and Ouray.

Q: Can you describe your connection to the natural world? Have you had
any memorable outdoor or wilderness adventures?

My favorite thing is riding bicycles, and at home my hobby is raising
tomatoes. I live on the San Bernard River in Texas, and I belong to an
environmental group that works very, very hard to protect the natural
aspects of that river.

Q: Can you elaborate on what you've done personally to reduce your
energy and environmental impact?

Well, no, other than the fact that I'm just always aware of doing
anything damaging to the environment. I don't think I do anything that
damages it at all. I don't ride my bike because I think I'm destroying
the environment by driving my car; I ride it because it's a great way
to be outdoors and enjoy the environment.

--------------

namaste;
bodhi
http://psychedelictourist.blogspot.com
.