The death of an environmental industry in its infancy often goes un-noted. Environmental detectives were just starting to gain steam early on in the industrial revolution. These detectives would find the sources of pollution on other people's property and sue for compensation. These detectives made money from polluters answering only to those who were being affected by it.

Then along comes the EPA and the government charges polluters "fines" for pollution in a broad brush stroke, killing the environmental detective industry.

So basically, the government makes money from polluters under the guise of caring for the environment. Incentive is no longer to stop polluting for fear of losing money...incentive becomes investment into the right candidate in power that will go easy on them.

And those affected by pollution no longer get compensation.

This is akin to having an agency that fines people for killing people...you're limited to killing 5 people a year and if you go over that limit you have to pay a fine to the Person Protection Agency (PPA). Then serial murderers start voting for and lobbying candidates that will raise the kill limit and reduce the fines.

--
Also, the fact is also ignored that the federal government is the country's largest polluter. Of course, they are immune to the EPA.

I think that the point Mr. Paul is trying to get across is that when the Government gets involved, regardless of their intentions, they most often fail.  They end up being pressured by interest groups because politicians are not experts and they must rely on others to tell them what is right; they listen to those with the deepest pockets...industry.  If we allow the market to capture the full and complete costs of damages both to person and property, it becomes too expensive for firms to pollute as usual and they will therefore find a way to curb emmissions as is demanded by the people.  Growth in government is not the answer b/c elected officials by their nature are not able to look at things long-term, beyond their immediate and most vocal constituents, or with in-depth knowledge that professionals are.

In your overview of Ron Paul, I believe you did not mention several topics that are of great importance to many Americans. I have listed them in the subject line. With regard to abortion, Paul is "unshakably pro-life." With regard to marriage, the family and homosexuality, Paul is conservative, but not completely so. I would like to see him more conservative on those things, as I feel that so long as this country maintains strong morals and strong families, it can withstand anything, even a nuclear bomb being detonated in one of our cities, should the sleep-walking left allow it to come to that.

Though I consider myself a bleeding heart liberal, I have to applaud Ron Paul for being the first Libertarian to bring up the following plank in the Libertarian Party platform...

No one should be permitted to release harmful pollutants that travel beyond THEIR property. It is essentially trespassing and violation of one's neighbors property rights. Clean air and water entering "your" space, should leave free of harmful chemicals. Industry would be forced to internalize all costs.

This is why Ron Paul believes, I think, strengthening personal property rights would protect the environment. It is a two-way street... protect industry's rights AND individual rights. This was brought up very briefly during an On Point interview of Ron Paul, but the host of the program failed to pursue this line of discussion. It is very disappointing that this plank of the Libertarian Part platform is not discussed more.

The same strategy could be used for protecting endangered species, since harming animals that travel independent of human boundaries or destroying ecosystems that provide important "services" deprives your neighbor of the pleasure of enjoying a healthy environment.

If Ron Paul truly wishes to apply the principle of not permitting activities the deprive your neighbors of their own right to clean air and water. AND if Ron Paul is truly committed to putting an end to military adventures, bringing all of our troops home, cutting military spending, and examining the ultimate causes of hostility in the world, I'm going to cast a vote for him in the primary and, perhaps, in the November election. I think the result would be a huge net gain for our nation, the environment, and the rest of the planet. A Democratic Congress should be able to prevent Ron Paul from inflicting any harm. Remember, legislation emerges from the House. Ron Paul would not be able to dismantle agencies like the EPA without Congressional support. Only the President can bring all of our troops home and dramatically cut military spending. Imagine the peace dividend available for building a sustainable green economy.

The Greens and Constitutionalists should join the Libertarians, in extending an open invitation for Ron Paul to be their candidate for US President in the event that, heaven forbid, Ron Paul loses the Republican nomination. In the process, a new and powerful third triparty could be created. Enough of these watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) running the show. The Constitution is Green.