News Ron Paul voted the most popular speaker at CPAC

[noblegas]

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?

 

[Topher925]

I think Ron Paul was the only guy there that has more than two brain cells. Hopefully conservatives are starting to get wise and realizing the majority of their party leaders are idiots.

 

[Evo]

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?

I think he's a sandwich short of a picnic. If I had to choose between Sarah Palin and Ron Paul <shudder>, no I can't even think about it.

Ron Paul voted the most popular speaker at CPAC

This was a poll of attendees, not a poll of the public.

And we got their presidential straw poll winner, Ron Paul (the conservative version of Dennis Kucinich) whose last attempt for president amassed him 41,905 votes - and whose CPAC victory with 31% was booed by the very convention that voted for him! Apparently CPAC attendees just like to boo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/cpac-the-partys-over_b_473024.html

 

[noblegas]

I think he's a sandwich short of a picnic. If I had to choose between Sarah Palin and Ron Paul <shudder>, no I can't even think about it.

Please post the link to the poll.

. 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.

 

[DavidSnider]

http://66.147.244.188/~conserz8/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2-10-CPAC-Straw-Poll-Final-Compatibility-Mode.pdf

Page 11

(The link looks odd, but it is right off the CPAC home page http://www.cpac.org/)

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

. 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.

I threw up in my mouth a little bit watching that video

 

[Evo]

. 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.

It was a vote by attendees, a large portion of which were his followers. It's meaningless, see below. Edit: I just watched your link, that's not valid as a supporting link. That's a bunch of news clips pieced together. That was pretty bad.

Paul was far and away the most widely anticipated speaker at the three-day conference, with his base of "Paulites" streaming into the main auditorium to hear him rail against government overreach and neoconservativism on Friday afternoon. In many respects, his win in the CPAC poll seemed pre-ordained -- his band of followers having a well-earned reputation for flooding polls and forums like these.

What it portends for a possible 2012 presidential run is anyone's guess. Paul had a similar cult-like following during the 2008 election, only to garner a relatively small chunk of the actual vote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/20/cpac-2010-straw-poll-resu_n_470319.html

 

[DavidSnider]

The poll was 64% male and 54% 18-25 year olds.

 

[BobG]

It does. Considering the age of the members supporting Ron Paul, it would be accurate to say it's the direction the conservative movement is headed.

It probably doesn't say much about the current state of the conservative movement, though.

Couple things about CPAC.

http://www.cpac.org/registration.html ).

How the straw poll broke down: The math behind Ron Paul's victory.

This isn't the kind of result that will be likely to provide Ron Paul any personal success, but it is an indication that younger conservatives are more libertarian, which could definitely affect the type of Republican candidates we'll be likely to see by the end of this decade.

In fact, any party that makes it a policy to drive out the moderates, as Republicans seem intent on doing, winds up making it easier for an equally committed minority to take over the party on its own terms. Not a bad principle, since it's this principle that winds up keeping both parties from being taken over by extremists. In this case, incompatibility between libertarians (in general) and social conservatives could result in a much smaller political plank focusing only on the issues that both groups could agree on - which would be fiscal policy.

It's not a wholly bad development, even if Ron Paul is a flake. I guess it could wind up providing some rather bizarre choices in the short term, as I kind of agree with Evo about having to choose between Ron Paul and Sarah Palin.

 

[rewebster]

I've heard a few times whether the republican party is going to survive or just fall apart

 

[noblegas]

I think he's a sandwich short of a picnic. If I had to choose between Sarah Palin and Ron Paul <shudder>, no I can't even think about it.

Ron Paul and Sarah palin are not even in the same leaugue with each other. What do you have against ron paul's politics? To me, He seems to be the only level headed politician in Washington right now. He really stands behind what he believes in and does not alter his politics to appeal to a broader base.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't think Ron Paul would claim that there is a Dept of Law.

 

[DavidSnider]

Any candidate that says "I'm going to turn everything upside down and change the world!" is going to have broad support among 18-25 year olds who have almost nothing invested in the status quo.

I think what is more likely is that the current crop of young republicans will grow out of it.

 

[rewebster]

Ron Paul and Sarah palin are not even in the same leaugue with each other. What do you have against ron paul's politics? To me, He seems to be the only level headed politician in Washington right now. He really stands behind what he believes in and does not alter his politics to appeal to a broader base.

Sarah Palin seems to stand for what she believes in ----I don't know what it is, but she's says most things with 'conviction'---maybe that's all it takes

 

[noblegas]

Seriously, all the poll means is that 31% of the attendees were part of Ron Pauls group.

And its not just ron paul attendees and followers that approve of him. Ron paul has one of the highest congressional approval ratings in congress right now((http://www.opencongress.org/search/....x=0&submit.y=0&submit=Search&search_congress[111]=111&search_bills=1&search_people=1&search_committees=1&search_issues=1&search_comments=1&search_gossip_blog=0) , while congress pathetically has an approval rating of 14 percent( http://www.gallup.com/poll/108856/congressional-approval-hits-recordlow-14.aspx) and so called more well known politicians like McCain have an approval rating of 40 percenthttp://www.opencongress.org/search/result?q=++++++++++Sen.+John+McCain+[R%2C+AZ]+++&submit.x=40&submit.y=18&submit=Search&search_congress[111]=111&search_bills=1&search_people=1&search_committees=1&search_issues=1&search_comments=1&search_gossip_blog=0) and Nancy peloci has an approval rating of 10 percent(http://www.opencongress.org/search/...=29&submit.y=13&submit=Search&search_congress[111]=111&search_bills=1&search_people=1&search_committees=1&search_issues=1&search_comments=1&search_gossip_blog=0. You might have to type the words John McCain and Nancy Pelosi into the search box. But the numbers are there

 

[Evo]

And its not just ron paul attendees and followers that approve of him. Ron paul has one of the highest congressional approval ratings in congress right now((http://www.opencongress.org/search/....x=0&submit.y=0&submit=Search&search_congress[111]=111&search_bills=1&search_people=1&search_committees=1&search_issues=1&search_comments=1&search_gossip_blog=0) , while congress pathetically has an approval rating of 14 percent( http://www.gallup.com/poll/108856/congressional-approval-hits-recordlow-14.aspx) and so called more well known politicians like McCain have an approval rating of 40 percenthttp://www.opencongress.org/search/result?q=++++++++++Sen.+John+McCain+[R%2C+AZ]+++&submit.x=40&submit.y=18&submit=Search&search_congress[111]=111&search_bills=1&search_people=1&search_committees=1&search_issues=1&search_comments=1&search_gossip_blog=0) and Nancy peloci has an approval rating of 10 percent(http://www.opencongress.org/search/...=29&submit.y=13&submit=Search&search_congress[111]=111&search_bills=1&search_people=1&search_committees=1&search_issues=1&search_comments=1&search_gossip_blog=0

Noblegas, this is not acceptable. opencongress is not an acceptable mainstream source, not to mention your links don't work except to lead to a search page. Please post from mainstream sources and make sure your links work.

 

[Kronos5253]

I think he's a sandwich short of a picnic. If I had to choose between Sarah Palin and Ron Paul <shudder>, no I can't even think about it.

Before attacking and throwing useless statistics out that people who agree with this statement probably don't really care about, how about asking a simple question first:

Why?

I'm interested to hear your stand point on him, and why you say that.

 

[noblegas]

Noblegas, this is not acceptable. opencongress is not an acceptable mainstream source, not to mention your links don't work except to lead to a search page. Please post from mainstream sources and make sure your links work.

Thats why I said that you might have to type the names of members of the congress that I listed in the Search box on the website. What is wrong with opencongress.org? They showcase what bills are being currently proposed and what bills have been passedThey don't lean towards any particular political affiliation and you posted me a wikipedia link last week and many have disputed the validity of wikipedia links since people can add just about any source to them. This section of the site list all of the approval ratings of the representatives in congress along with their approval rating. (http://www.opencongress.org/people/representatives#T). Ron Paul is at 93 percent. Wow. There are a lot a congress representatives with F's right now.

 

[Evo]

Before attacking and throwing useless statistics out that people who agree with this statement probably don't really care about, how about asking a simple question first:

Why?

I'm interested to hear your stand point on him, and why you say that.

It's not an attack, and the staistics on the vote are from the convention itself. I've listed my reasons for my opinion of Paul before and really don't care enough to bother with it. It's my opinion and I don't have to back up an opinion. If you can't see what I see then it's pointless discussing it.

@ Noblegas,

OpenCongress seeks to address these issues by merging official government data with news and blog coverage, social networking, and public participation tools to give you the real story behind what's happening in the Congress.

It's basically a blog that posts links to bills.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I wouldn't equate Ron Paul to Sarah Palin. Paul is a physician with 40 years of experience in Congress. Sarah Palin went to six colleges; has a degree in media something or other; served as mayor in a two-horse town, and then quit her job as Governer after two years. I don't think Paul is Presidential material, but to put him on the same plate as Palin indefensible.

The problem that I see with Paul is that he is an idealist to the point of being impractical.

 

[noblegas]

It's not an attack, and the staistics on the vote are from the convention itself. I've listed my reasons for my opinion of Paul before and really don't care enough to bother with it. It's my opinion and I don't have to back up an opinion. If you can't see what I see then it's pointless discussing it.

@ Noblegas, It's basically a blog that posts links to bills.

Yes. But it says blog and news coverage. Just about every other 'legitimate' news site has blogs along with news coverage. And if they are using data from govtrack.us , a source that even 'legitimate' news sources like the New York times uses as a resource to gain information on congress and congressional members(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GovTrack#cite_note-0)What is the big deal?

 

[DavidSnider]

Let's just take one simple aspect of Ron Paul's policy:
Returning to the gold standard

Could somebody outline each step of the process of how this would be achieved? (or provide a link that does so)

 

[turbo]

There is one part of Ron Paul's philosophy that I share: Stop fighting undeclared wars and bring our military to a defensive posture, so we can cut rampant military spending. That is a truly conservative position that would be fought tooth and nail by the neocons running the GOP, so don't expect Paul to be on the ticket in 2012.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Let's just take one simple aspect of Ron Paul's policy:
Returning to the gold standard

Could somebody outline each step of the process of how this would be achieved? (or provide a link that does so)

He has some radical ideas. I can't speak to that one, but I do know that his position is often misinterpreted. For example, he wants to enforce environmental laws through the courts. The headline was that Paul want to eliminate the epa, or something close to that. What he wants is for industry to be held accountable by landowners. If company X is ruining my water supply, I don't call the epa, instead I sue the company. His position is not that companies should be left to run amok, as some would claim. He just wants to regulate emissions through landowners rights and the courts, and not through Government agencies.

Is that practical? Probably not. However, as a hybrid libertarian, I can appreciate his motives.

 

[Kronos5253]

It's not an attack, and the staistics on the vote are from the convention itself. I've listed my reasons for my opinion of Paul before and really don't care enough to bother with it. It's my opinion and I don't have to back up an opinion. If you can't see what I see then it's pointless discussing it.

I understand that it's not an attack, and that part of my post wasn't intended for you. It was intended for everyone else who was throwing out links and info that you probably don't care for because of your standpoint on Paul. I apologize, that was a poorly structured post.

I haven't been on the forums for an extending period of time, so as for your opinion of Paul I don't believe I've been around long enough to have seen it. I'm sure I could search for it though, but it would take some time. I didn't want you to back up your opinion, I just wanted to know what your opinion was.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but if I have my own opinion, and you have yours, without actually hearing your opinion it makes it kind of hard to see what you see. But maybe that's just me! Guess everyone else on here has super-empathetic skills that supercede computer dynamics and allow them to understand the standpoints and opinions of others without direct communication...

I'll work on developing those skills, I apologize.

 

[DavidSnider]

He has some radical ideas. I can't speak to that one, but I do know that his position is often misinterpreted. For example, he wants to enforce environmental laws through the courts. The headline was that Paul want to eliminate the epa, or something close to that. What he wants is for industry to be held accountable by landowners. If company X is ruining my water supply, I don't call the epa, instead I sue the company. His position is not that companies should be left to run amok, as some would claim. He just wants to regulate emissions through landowners rights and the courts, and not through Government agencies.

Is that practical? Probably not. However, as a hybrid libertarian, I can appreciate his motives.

How are ordinary land owners supposed to know that a private landfill down the street is dumping trichloroethylene into the ground water? Somebody needs to watchdog this kind of stuff.

 

[noblegas]

How are ordinary land owners supposed to know that a private landfill down the street is dumping trichloroethylene into the ground water? Somebody needs to watchdog this kind of stuff.

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

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 you 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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How are ordinary land owners supposed to know that a private landfill down the street is dumping trichloroethylene into the ground water? Somebody needs to watchdog this kind of stuff.

Note that I labeled myself as a hybrid libertarian. I agree that his solutions are often not practical. He seems to be a true idealist who goes right over a cliff in practical terms. I would never equate him to someone like Palin except to say that, like Palin, he is not a viable Presidential candidate.

 

[noblegas]

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.

I would like to see a source to that story. Yes, there are cases where businesses in the free market has shown themselves to be reckless with the environment, but that does not mean that they are the rule. Information in China is greatly restricted and so people would not educate themselves about the milk filled with melamine. People would not continue to conduct their business with companies that intentionally poisoned their customers , because another business would pop up that did not filled their milk with melamine and they would competite against them. The people naturally would want an clean environment and the free market would meet this demand . This occurs with businesses in the US now United States. San Diego Zoo would be a prime example for it is certainly cleaner than the zoo in Washington DC. Now, keep in mind that the world worst environmental disaster, specifically the nuclear disaster Cyneroblyl , C occurred in the Soviet Union were all property that existed was virtually owned by the state(http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900130&slug=1053482) . So individuals in government are just as capable as being reckless as people in the free market, but at least in the free market, you have a choice not to do business with the business responsible for food poisoning.

 

[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.