Friday, March 7, 2008

Ron Paul on Energy

I have taken some time to look at all the candidates' energy policies and I just have to do it: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz BORING! Like another student's blog claims - they all say the same darn thing. Sprinkle some important key words here and there; confuse Americans into voting for you.

You may have heard of the rEVOLution surrounding Ron Paul for President in 2008! If you cannot tell, I have freely joined the LOVE parade. The above title is linked to his stance on energy and the environment. Basically he highlights cheaper, cleaner, FREE MARKET energy.

Remember Dr. Webber's venn diagram that is involved with energy, technology, and policy? The three conflicting goals are national security, the economy, and the environment. I think it is true that it is hard to please all three of these. Ron Paul has the right idea in removing big government from the equation. Like editorial writer David Boaz said about the Libertarian view on government, "The challenge is to keep government constrained and limited so that individuals can prosper and solve problems in a free and civil society."

Again, I think I might be dreaming...


David Hoppock said...

Ron Paul is a strict libertarian, meaning he would basically eviscerate the government. Do you want to live without federal environmental laws? Do you want to eliminate the State Department? How about the FDA? CDC? I think most people like Ron Paul because he is touting the isolationist horn right now and people are sick of foreign commitments. What people fail to realize is just how much they want the government to do some things, as opposed to absolutely nothing at all. Ron Paul strictly interprets the constitution, meaning if it is not explicitly written in the constitution, the federal government has no right to do it. I think that there is a lot you reasonably believe the government should do that is not explicitly written in a 200+ year old document.

jason h said...

I have also been called a dreamer,

Ron Paul would “eviscerate” the federal government. The central government is a huge lumbering inefficient beast (i.e. FEMA). Limited central government leads to lean local government dealing with local issues. Many of the current federal responsibilities would be transferred to the states, like the original intent of the constitutional republic.

Federal environmental laws would be replaced with state environmental laws. Instead of protecting corporations, the government should protect public and private property from polluters. Let people to sue emitters for damaging the air we breathe and the water we drink, when the financial penalty is severe companies will willing slash emissions.

Ron Paul has only explicitly called for the elimination of the Dept. of Education (failure of No Child Left Behind) and the FED (the source of run-away inflation).

Non-intervention does not equal isolation. Even president Bush ran on a non-intervention platform in 2000 (i.e. no nation building). Republicans often criticized Clinton for intervening in Kosovo.

200 years old? 200 years young! With strict constitutionalism, if the people want the federal government to have more power, then the people will amend the constitution. Without strict constitutionalism, the government can tax, wiretap, and torture with little constraint.

Sorry for the short responses to the points you raise. I wish I could go into more detail.