News Ron Paul voted the most popular speaker at CPAC

[Ivan Seeking]

You have very misty-eyed view of the "free market". When regulation is absent or slack, businesses do whatever maximizes their short-term profits. Do remember people dying in Bhopal? How about Chinese kids getting poisoned by "milk" loaded with melamine? Ron Paul's mythical free market is not self-correcting, and he's smart enough to know it. He also knows that a lot of the people he wants to influence are not sophisticated enough to see through his posturing.

Eh, I don't think he is as devious as you do; more a cock-eyed optimist than used-car salesman.

I put Palin in the latter category. That probably defines the difference for me as well as anything.

One of the real turn-off for liberals and women is his pro-life stance. Given his religious beliefs and the fact that he is a pediatrician, his views are pretty easy to understand.

 

[turbo]

Let me use YOUR analogy, noblegas. A landfill leaches contaminants into groundwater and you and/or members of your family come down with rare, possibly fatal medical conditions. What does the "free market" do for you? It let's you fight the landfill owners all by yourself. It allows you to conduct your own epidemiological studies to provide evidence for your court case. It allows you to foot the bill for testing all the wells in your community so you can prove that the contamination came from the landfill. It allows you to fight for (and pay for) test-wells to be drilled around the landfill. It also allows you to try to find a lawyer that will take a complex environmental-law case on a contingency basis, with uncertain prospects for recovering his costs. Of course, if you a fabulously wealthy, you are free to tap into your fortune to pay for all of this. No single person has the resources to conduct these studies or carry such a case through the court system.

Do you still think abolishing environmental-protection and regulatory agencies is a real good idea? I sure hope not, because that would not be a rational position, given the past performance of some industries. Unfortunately, Ron Paul often starts out with a reasonable idea and then extrapolates it all beyond reason. And some people lap it right up.

 

[DavidSnider]

The landfill in my community operated from 1973 to 1983. Landfill regulations that would have required linings didn't go in effect until 1984. The county didn't have the power to regulate private landfills. When the case got to the state they were acquitted of 'operating a public nuisance'.

The cleanup now will cost millions of dollars, has probably leaked into the potomac river and is now (as of 2008) on the EPA superfund list.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Let me use YOUR analogy. A landfill leaches contaminants into groundwater and you and/or members of your family come down with rare, possibly fatal medical conditions. What does the "free market" do for you? It let's you fight the landfill owners all by yourself. It allows you to conduct your own epidemiological studies to provide evidence for your court case. It allows you to foot the bill for testing all the wells in your community so you can prove that the contamination came from the landfill. It allows you to fight for (and pay for) test-wells to be drilled around the landfill. It also allows you to try to find a lawyer that will take a complex environmental-law case on a contingency basis, with uncertain prospects for recovering his costs. Of course, if you a fabulously wealthy, you are free to tap into your fortune to pay for all of this. No single person has the resources to conduct these studies or carry such a case through the court system.

Do you still think abolishing environmental-protection and regulatory agencies is a real good idea? I sure hope not, because that would not be a rational position, given the past performance of some industries. Unfortunately, Ron Paul often starts out with a reasonable idea and then extrapolates it all beyond reason. And some people lap it right up.

Turbo, I never said that I agree with the proposition that the epa should be abolished. I thought I had made it pretty clear that I don't agree with Ron Paul about many things. I am making the point that there is a method to his madness. His positions are rooted in extreme idealism.

The short answer to the rest of your post: Class-action lawsuits. He believes "the people" have "the power" if they choose to exercise it. On this point, in theory, I agree with Ron Paul. However, in the real world, we need the epa.

 

[projektMayhem]

Say what you will about the man's politics... the fact is that he is one of the few who actually speaks his mind - even if his ideas lack practicality.

Moreover, he would appear to be one of the few who respects constitutional boundaries. I'll agree he's not presidential material, but congress would certainly benefit from more people with a similar mindset.

 

[turbo]

Turbo, I never said that I agree with the proposition that the epa should be abolished. I thought I had made it pretty clear that I don't agree with Ron Paul about many things. I am making the point that there is a method to his madness. His positions are rooted in extreme idealism.

The short answer to the rest of your post: Class-action lawsuits. He believes "the people" have "the power" if they choose to exercise it. On this point, in theory, I agree with Ron Paul. However, in the real world, we need the epa.

Sorry, you jumped in front of my response to noblegas, and I went back and added his name as soon as I saw that.

 

[Kronos5253]

Say what you will about the man's politics... the fact is that he is one of the few who actually speaks his mind - even if his ideas lack practicality.

Moreover, he would appear to be one of the few who respects constitutional boundaries. I'll agree he's not presidential material, but congress would certainly benefit from more people with a similar mindset.

That I agree with. Especially the bolded part.

 

[noblegas]

Let me use YOUR analogy. A landfill leaches contaminants into groundwater and you and/or members of your family come down with rare, possibly fatal medical conditions. What does the "free market" do for you? It let's you fight the landfill owners all by yourself. It allows you to conduct your own epidemiological studies to provide evidence for your court case.

You would not have to fight them on your own. you won't have to conduct your own epidemiological studies. You could hired epidemiolggical to conduct the studies for you or demand the landfill to hired their owned epidemiological studies to examined possible landfill spills and provide evidence that they have not contiminated the landfill. If you don't trust the epidemiologiststhat the landfill company has hired, you can go other companies that is in the business of hiring epidemiologists who conduct these kinds of studies. There are an infinite number of ways to conduct landfill studies without seeking assistance from the federal government. The free market is not just you to conduct your own landfill study by yourself.
If you are left it up to the government to solved all enviromental problems , there is a chance that they would be imcompetent at it and then who would oversee the government? It would be just like public schools that produced students with low test scores yet, the school continues to remain open , despite the high dropout rate. Private environmental agencies would have to rely on being competent if it wants to survived.

It allows you to foot the bill for testing all the wells in your community so you can prove that the contamination came from the landfill. It allows you to fight for (and pay for) test-wells to be drilled around the landfill. How would you It also allows you to try to find a lawyer that will take a complex environmental-law case on a contingency basis, with uncertain prospects for recovering his costs. Of course, if you a fabulously wealthy, you are free to tap into your fortune to pay for all of this. No single person has the resources to conduct these studies or carry such a case through the court system.

People that face similar concerns with the landfill company contaiminating the environment would come together and hire a lawyer who would take on the case about this issue who would not be able to afford to hire a lawyer all on their own. Just like their were mutual agencies before government heavily became involved in healthcare that consisted of people who pulled all of their money and resources together to pay for health care before it was partially subsidized by the government. Their is no need to take people's money to create an environmental agency to overlooked these problems .

Do you still think abolishing environmental-protection and regulatory agencies is a real good idea? I sure hope not, because that would not be a rational position, given the past performance of some industries. Unfortunately, Ron Paul often starts out with a reasonable idea and then extrapolates it all beyond reason. And some people lap it right up.

I completely stand by my position. IMO, it is the most moral position of the two positions. I don't think it should be the government jobs to deal with such issues , both for moral reasons and for practical reasons. As demonstrated in the soviet union with Cynerboyl, the government can be just as destructive as individuals in the free market , but at least in the free market you have a choice to avoid that business that contains containments in its products but if the government exhibits such behavior, it would not shut down or have the incentive to improved their agency just like their is no incentive to improved the quality of public schools.

 

[noblegas]

Say what you will about the man's politics... the fact is that he is one of the few who actually speaks his mind - even if his ideas lack practicality.

Moreover, he would appear to be one of the few who respects constitutional boundaries. I'll agree he's not presidential material, but congress would certainly benefit from more people with a similar mindset.

Yeah , tell me about it! Just look at Ron paul's approval rating compared to the rest of the representatives in Congress.(http://www.opencongress.org/people/representatives). Its quite sad really

 

[BobG]

Why should it be the government's duty to overlooked how much trichloroethylene is dumped into ground water? In a more free market , the private landfill would not last very long because people would not tolerate this sort of behavior from a landfill business and they would be out of business. But who would oversee the government if they abused their power as watchdog? The government is not anymore benevolent than an individual or group of individuals that makes of the free market.

This is exactly the sort of function the government is better at handling than the free market. For one thing, a free market solution of the company paying the victim's medical bills or some other monetary compensation isn't going to cut it. It's the type of situation that has to be prevented; not the type of situation a person should receive fair compensation for.

Privatizing all roads and paying tolls to get from one side of the city to the other would work better than privatizing protection, and you know private roads is an option that's almost always rejected. There are a few things that are just done more efficiently by government than private enterprise.

 

[MotoH]

Did you see all of the kids there? Darn near brainwashed I tell you.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yeah , tell me about it! Just look at Ron paul's approval rating compared to the rest of the representatives in Congress.(http://www.opencongress.org/people/representatives). Its quite sad really

Those approval numbers come from registered users of that site. That's hardly a meaningful statistical sample.

 

[BoomBoom]

I completely stand by my position. IMO, it is the most moral position of the two positions. I don't think it should be the government jobs to deal with such issues , both for moral reasons and for practical reasons.

I completely disagree with your position. You seem to think that somehow businesses that pollute would magically regulate themselves out of fear of consumer action or class action lawsuit? People really have little power in this regard. People generally have little knowledge or interest in such things and although they could pressure a company with their purchasing power, they typically don't...and in many instances, don't even have a choice.

The true power of the people lies within our government, which is of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is the best way in which we the people exert our power over greed and corruption that is inherent to big business.

 

[noblegas]

Privatizing all roads and paying tolls to get from one side of the city to the other would work better than privatizing protection, and you know private roads is an option that's almost always rejected. There are a few things that are just done more efficiently by government than private enterprise.

So you think that traffic jams are efficient ? You think that car accidents are an example of efficiency? You think that potholes and bumpy roads are examples of efficieny?Right now these problems for roads and highways occur because there is no incentive to improved the conditions of roads. One way to address this contigent issue would be to build double or triple decker roads to address this problem. When you have a monopoly over a commodity like the US government has a monopoly over roads and the soviet union had a monopoly over who provided food to people , there would be long lines to await for your food and therefore there would be breadlines and therefore there would be traffic jams because the commdoity would become scarce;

 

[BobG]

So you think that traffic jams are efficient ? You think that car accidents are an example of efficiency? You think that potholes and bumpy roads are examples of efficieny?Right now these problems for roads and highways occur because there is no incentive to improved the conditions of roads. One way to address this contigent issue would be to build double or triple decker roads to address this problem. When you have a monopoly over a commodity like the US government has a monopoly over roads and the soviet union had a monopoly over who provided food to people , there would be long lines to await for your food and therefore there would be breadlines and therefore there would be traffic jams because the commdoity would become scarce;

If normal weather was no snow, but once a month, we were hit with a major snow storm requiring a 1000 workers to clear our streets by morning, the most efficient solution would be to have a 1000 full-time workers sitting around for 29 of every 30 days waiting for a snow storm? Or hire no workers, but put out bids for contractors to clear our streets, even though that means our bids only go out when the contractors are the busiest and don't have enough workers of their own to meet demands? Or find some balance in between where we'll get the essential stuff done at an outrageous price (i.e - having to have some full-time workers even though we have nothing more than busy work for them) and accept delays in getting the non-essential stuff done?

Building roads whose capabilities are always beyond current demand is inefficient monetarily, plus upgrading the road too frequently will cause it's own traffic jams. The perfectly efficient solution would be to start upgrading the road right before traffic demands grow beyond capabilities, just as the perfectly timed run in soccer has the attacker even with the last defender just as the ball is passed. However, there's no way the attacker (or the traffic designer) can gauge this perfectly every single time. Just as an attacker that's never called offside is almost certainly playing way too conservatively, roads that never reach a point of traffic jams are almost certainly being upgraded too early. (Or, if you prefer baseball, a third base coach that never gets a runner thrown out at home is costing his team more runs by being too conservative than he's saving by preventing the outs).

In other words, the idea that efficiency and perfection are synonymous is wrong. You need a stronger argument than just that the government isn't perfect.

 

[noblegas]

I completely disagree with your position. You seem to think that somehow businesses that pollute would magically regulate themselves out of fear of consumer action or class action lawsuit? People really have little power in this regard. People generally have little knowledge or interest in such things and although they could pressure a company with their purchasing power, they typically don't...and in many instances, don't even have a choice.

This does not magically happened. If pollution were a pertinent problem for businesses,Businesses would address it because it would generate bad publicity for the company if they were portrayed as polluting on their lands and the property of other people's land just like it when businesses go out of their way to show that they are non-racist by trying to promote a diverse workplace. People have a lot more power dictating the fate of a business than they do dictating the directon of various government agencies and government programs . If the consumer boycott is ineffective as you claim, then how would the business that is doing the polluting survive and carry on with its business since it relies on its customers for its profits.

 

[BobG]

If the consumer boycott is ineffective as you claim, then how would the business that is doing the polluting survive and carry on with its business since it relies on its customers for its profits.

Simple, I'll ship my toxic chemicals to a landfill out of town. The local people buying my product won't have any grudge against me. The landfill operator in the other town will stay in business (in fact, he can specialize in accepting toxic chemicals from companies that don't want to dispose of toxic chemicals in their own town). Everybody will be happy ... well, at least all the people in my town and that's the only thing that really matters, since those people in the other town aren't going to have any effect on me.

Unless the folks whose kids have died of cancer have guns, police protection has been privatized, and I've foolishly neglected to hire police protection since I live in a safe neighborhood with a low crime rate. Revenge might be kind of harsh.

 

[noblegas]

In other words, the idea that efficiency and perfection are synonymous is wrong. You need a stronger argument than just that the government isn't perfect.

I provided an auxillary reason such as it would be immoral to force people to pay for roads who don't used them just like it would be immoral to taxed citizens to pay for public education especially if they do not use it.

If normal weather was no snow, but once a month, we were hit with a major snow storm requiring a 1000 workers to clear our streets by morning, the most efficient solution would be to have a 1000 full-time workers sitting around for 29 of every 30 days waiting for a snow storm? Or hire no workers, but put out bids for contractors to clear our streets, even though that means our bids only go out when the contractors are the busiest and don't have enough workers of their own to meet demands? Or find some balance in between where we'll get the essential stuff done at an outrageous price (i.e - having to have some full-time workers even though we have nothing more than busy work for them) and accept delays in getting the non-essential stuff done?

How would they just be sitting around waiting for snow if it would be snowing everyday and they would be performing their job? Can you be specific about non-essential stuff? Bids for contractors to clear out streets? You mean forced people off the roads ? Why would they not hire workers if there is a demand to get workers to cleared the snow off the roads.

 

[noblegas]

Simple, I'll ship my toxic chemicals to a landfill out of town. The local people buying my product won't have any grudge against me. The landfill operator in the other town will stay in business (in fact, he can specialize in accepting toxic chemicals from companies that don't want to dispose of toxic chemicals in their own town). Everybody will be happy ... well, at least all the people in my town and that's the only thing that really matters, since those people in the other town aren't going to have any effect on me.

Well then what about the people in the town that the toxic chemicals are being shipped too? They would likely have a problem with chemical waste being dumped into their landfill as well and they would not tolerate the business dumping chemicals into their landfill dump. The local people would have a problem with toxic chemicals being dumped into the landfill because they would have access to information that would give them the knowledge that the company is engaging in deceptive practices by dumping toxic chemicals into another landfill and thus bad publicity would be generated for the company and hence they would lose profits. Don't forget this is the information age and if business were polluting in one area of the world but not in another area of the world , people will find out and they would not tolerate it.

 

[BobG]

If normal weather was no snow, but once a month, we were hit with a major snow storm requiring a 1000 workers to clear our streets by morning, the most efficient solution would be to have a 1000 full-time workers sitting around for 29 of every 30 days waiting for a snow storm? Or hire no workers, but put out bids for contractors to clear our streets, even though that means our bids only go out when the contractors are the busiest and don't have enough workers of their own to meet demands? Or find some balance in between where we'll get the essential stuff done at an outrageous price (i.e - having to have some full-time workers even though we have nothing more than busy work for them) and accept delays in getting the non-essential stuff done?

How would they just be sitting around waiting for snow if it would be snowing everyday and they would be performing their job? Can you be specific about non-essential stuff? Bids for contractors to clear out streets? You mean forced people off the roads ? Why would they not hire workers if there is a demand to get workers to cleared the snow off the roads.

You misread (and you actually live somewhere that gets snow every day?) The efficiency of clearing snow off of city streets is strongly related to how often that city gets snow. Just recalling the complaints about the ineptitude of Washington, DC in clearing city streets - how many workers should they hire to clear snow off the streets?

The point is that there are always trade offs and sometimes the most efficient solution accepts a certain number of potholes, a certain number of traffic jams, etc. Perfect is often the enemy of good.

 

[BobG]

Well then what about the people in the town that the toxic chemicals are being shipped too? They would likely have a problem with chemical waste being dumped into their landfill as well and they would not tolerate the business dumping chemicals into their landfill dump. The local people would have a problem with toxic chemicals being dumped into the landfill because they would have access to information that would give them the knowledge that the company is engaging in deceptive practices by dumping toxic chemicals into another landfill and thus bad publicity would be generated for the company and hence they would lose profits. Don't forget this is the information age and if business were polluting in one area of the world but not in another area of the world , people will find out and they would not tolerate it.

This is where the idea of boycotts seriously breaks down. Only a very small percentage of people are more concerned by what you do to "them" than by what you charge to "us". Make the price cheap enough, and hiring child labor in Thailand is fine with us.

We're small group primates and we're not affected by what happens to people outside our group nearly as strongly as we are by what happens to people inside our group.

 

[noblegas]

You misread (and you actually live somewhere that gets snow every day?) The efficiency of clearing snow off of city streets is strongly related to how often that city gets snow. Just recalling the complaints about the ineptitude of Washington, DC in clearing city streets - how many workers should they hire to clear snow off the streets?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make . You think that just because it snows everyday in a city that it should be the government's job to handle the issue of clearing snow off the roads and that they are more effective at handling such a situation? There are human needs that need to be fundamentally met everyday such as eating food but the food industry is decentralized and that need is met by our relatively free market.

The point is that there are always trade offs and sometimes the most efficient solution accepts a certain number of potholes, a certain number of traffic jams, etc. Perfect is often the enemy of good.

Who ever said that the free market would be was perfect. the Free market is not perfect becauce the free market is created by human beings and humans beings by nature are a flawed species. The most efficient solution accepts a certain number of potholes and a certain number of traffic jams? So then if we follow your logic ,can a school accept a certain number of incompetent teachers or a certain number of failed results by students just because everybody can have an equal access to education? Quota's have nothing to due with efficiency , efficiency is about finding the best solution to the possible problem, not finding just a solution to the problem.

 

[noblegas]

We're small group primates and we're not affected by what happens to people outside our group nearly as strongly as we are by what happens to people inside our group.

We live in a more global world than we ever have throughout human history because we live in the information age . Sure people would be more concerned about what happens in their local environment than the global environment , but that does not mean that people would not show any concern for the problems and plights of other people in other region of the world. Otherwise , private charities would not exist and therefore , there would not be an urged to promote concerts like Live aid , we are the world, and the horrible reindition of the 'we are the wrong' concert to assist the people in Haiti. I think the concerns for other people will continue to grow as the global environment begins to feel more like a local environment.

I didn't wsnt this dicussion to change into why I think the free market is better than socialism ' type discussion, I sort of wanted to continue to talk about the discussion of the conservative movementand what changes would need to occur in the conservativism in order to wipe off the mark the neocons left on it.

This is where the idea of boycotts seriously breaks down. Only a very small percentage of people are more concerned by what you do to "them" than by what you charge to "us". Make the price cheap enough, and hiring child labor in Thailand is fine with us.

I don't think most people would boycott now because they believe that the government would take care of our environmental hazards and so there is no need to boycott. However, if an environmental agency provided by the government did not exist , then their would be growing numbers of people concerned with the environmental hazards produced by businesses and their would be a incentive to boycott. Sort of similar to the reason why people don't donate to charities now since we have a welfare system and their is no need for most americans to donate to charities , even though americans are the most charatiable people on the planet. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm

 

[BobG]

You think that just because it snows everyday in a city that it...

The point was gauging the efficiency of a government. The example was one where it does not snow every day - instead it snows sporadically and unpredictably.

 

[mheslep]

. Believe me if Fox news is even saying that ron paul won the debate at CPAC, a man they excluded from the republican debates ,then its legit.

Believe you? The video says nothing about Paul winning a 'debate'. It reports a truism, Paul won a simple straw poll, and then Fox then goes out its way to comment that the poll doesn't mean much, the crowd being made up of a bunch of college student Paul supporters, etc.

 

[Proton Soup]

That certainly says a lot about where the direction the conservative movement is heading in. Ron paul seems to have gotten people my age thrilled and euthiasitic about the concepts of liberty . I am surprised that he beat out mitt romney and sarah palin? THoughts?

Paul is more of a libertarian. that certainly appeals to people your age that spend a lot of time on internet message boards. young people in general? I'm not as sure about that. but it certainly appeals to a few young people that have read Ayn Rand, and other fiscally conservative, socially liberal types.

 

[mheslep]

Periodically I fine myself joining Paul on some of his ideas. Recently he's championed some visibility and transparency rules for the Federal Reserve Board that has gotten some backers in the House. More reporting seems prudent to me. The Fed has to answer to someone.

But then Paul gets a chance to hold forth at length and the crackpot surfaces. Here he is yesterday going on to Bernanke in conference about how the Fed financed Saddam Hussein, Watergate and soon had secret plans to bail out Greece. Bernanke, king of the restrained statement, calls the charges 'bizarre'. Next Paul will be reporting secret handshakes.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...alls-ron-pauls-allegations-absolutely-bizarre

 

[noblegas]

Believe you? The video says nothing about Paul winning a 'debate'. It reports a truism, Paul won a simple straw poll, and then Fox then goes out its way to comment that the poll doesn't mean much, the crowd being made up of a bunch of college student Paul supporters, etc.

Yes. Someone did note that 18-25 years mainly attended the CPAC event but not any other age group. But that says that there are a high concentration of libertarian oriented and paleo/constitutional conservatives that are distinguishing themselves from the neocons and likely that trend will probably continue.

 

[noblegas]

Periodically I fine myself joining Paul on some of his ideas. Recently he's championed some visibility and transparency rules for the Federal Reserve Board that has gotten some backers in the House. More reporting seems prudent to me. The Fed has to answer to someone.

But then Paul gets a chance to hold forth at length and the crackpot surfaces. Here he is yesterday going on to Bernanke in conference about how the Fed financed Saddam Hussein, Watergate and soon had secret plans to bail out Greece. Bernanke, king of the restrained statement, calls the charges 'bizarre'. Next Paul will be reporting secret handshakes.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...alls-ron-pauls-allegations-absolutely-bizarre

I don't know if their is validity to the claim that the federal reserve is financing saddam huessin because I have not research into this myself, but the government has engaged in acts of secrecy in the past such as the CIA toppling the government in Iran and COINTELPRO elliminating people they saw as a threat to their agenda, and therefore I would not automatically discount the possiblity that the federal reserve might finance Saddam's regime if the FBI secretly tries to take out members of the black panther party and hippies in the 1960's. But I would form an opinion since I have not examined the issue myself.

 

[projektMayhem]

.

The true power of the people lies within our government, which is of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is the best way in which we the people exert our power over greed and corruption that is inherent to big business.

I'm sorry but I have to take issue with this. The greed and corruption inherent in big business has poisoned our political system. Until we limit politicians to only accepting donations from living breathing citizens (plus a set amount of tax payer dollars) the corporations will be able to exert enormous influence over the political process.