3 responses to “Ron Paul: Protect the Environment by Respecting Property Rights”

  1. Laurie Walker

    I like Ron Paul's ideas on every issue but this one. I can't sort out how it could be possible to just "sue" the coal companies because my property is somehow at risk? What if my child develops cancer because of some chemical spill near my home last year? How is the average citizen supposed to fight BP in court? It's not likely to be conducive to "liberty" or the pursuit of happiness, that's for sure... Many people are not "property owners", so then what? they have no right to breath healthy air or eat healthy food, or drink clean water? It's too simplistic, and ineffective. And "owning" endangered species will protect them? There again, this makes no sense at all, because many species migrate, and many could be poached illegally on someone else's private property. Poaching is illegal, so because the Rhinoceros is on someone's private property, it's somehow not going to get poached? Come on. Too simplistic. This issue never gets discussed in any real way, and that's why I am sorry but I cannot place my faith in a vote for Ron Paul. It would be disastrous. He is not listening to science, and he doesn't acknowledge that we are all stakeholders in "the commons", so I can't take him seriously on these fronts. He fails to put individual rights over those of big corporations...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  2. Jeff Hall

    I have no ax to grind, and I agree that government agencies routinely overstep their bounds. However, in attempting to maintain a quickly declining ecosystem that benefits most, if not all, in the community they have a valid argument to make. For instance, if I owned 20 acres of swampland that ajoined my property, I could merely threaten to build on it, thus forcing the community at large to purchase it to prevent that. I'd end up getting a chunk of cash for land that didn't change, when I'd never intended to build anything. That would be increasing government spending and cheating the community. It would be immoral, but I can see those whose morality is suspect at best taking advantage of that.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  3. Kenneth

    Great point. It's also interesting to note that the EPA will go out of it's way to claim personal property for the sake of environmental preservation, however they have failed us in many ways on far more serious matters. That time and effort could have been used for a better purpose, such as investigating improper waste disposal or other major concerns.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply