Cap and Trade Will Lead to Capital Flight

[SOCALHUSKER]

Cap and Trade Will Lead to Capital Flight

 

Read all 1428 pages of HR 2454 for yourself and decide.

 

By Ron Paul

 

In my last column, I joked that with public spending out of control and the piling on of the international bailout bill, economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress. It is getting harder to joke about such a thing however, as the non-partisan General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated that the administration’s health care plan would actually cost over a trillion dollars. This reality check may have given us a temporary reprieve on this particular disastrous policy, however an equally disastrous energy policy reared its ugly head on Capitol Hill last week.

 

The Cap and Trade Bill HR 2454 was voted on last Friday. Proponents claim this bill will help the environment, but what it really does is put another nail in the economy’s coffin. The idea is to establish a national level of carbon dioxide emissions, and sell pollution permits to industry. HR 2454 also gives federal bureaucrats new power to regulate a wide variety of household appliances, such as light bulbs and refrigerators, and further distorts the market by providing more of your tax money to auto companies.

 

The administration has pointed to Spain as a shining example of this type of progressive energy policy. Spain has been massively diverting capital from the private sector into politically favored environmental projects for the better part of a decade, and many in Washington apparently like what they see. However, under no circumstances should anyone serious about economic recovery emulate an economy that is now approaching 20 percent unemployment, where every green job created, eliminated 2.2 real jobs and cost around $800,000 each!

 

The real inconvenient truth is that the cost of government regulations, taxes, fees, red tape and bureaucracy is a considerable expense that has to be considered when companies decide where to do business and how many people they can afford to hire. Increasing governmental burden directly causes capital flight and job losses, as Spain has learned. In this global economy its easy enough for businesses to relocate to countries that are more politically friendly to economic growth. If our government continues to kick the economy while its down, it will be a long time before it gets back up. In fact, jobs are much more likely to go overseas, compounding our problems.

 

And for what? Contrary to claims repeated over and over, there is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming is getting worse or that it is manmade. In fact over 30,000 scientists signed a petition recently directly disputing the claims on which this policy is based. Legitimate environmental claims should instead be directed towards the public sector. The government, especially the military, is the most serious polluter in the country, and is exempt from most EPA regulations. Meanwhile Washington bureaucrats have classified the very air we exhale as a pollutant and have gone unchallenged in this incredible assertion. The logical consequence is that there will come a time when we will have to buy a government permit just to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from our own lungs!

 

The events on Capitol Hill last week just demonstrate Washington’s audacity in manufacturing problems just so they can expand government power to solve them

[SOCALHUSKER]

Do you think anyone in Congress even read the entire bill?

[huskertim]

Do you think anyone in Congress even read the entire bill?

 

 

Just the parts that put money into thier pockets.

 

Ya know SOCAL, I used to think RP was a bit of a whackjob, but I'm really warming up to the guy.

[The Maudfather]

Paul makes a very compelling arguement.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Do you think anyone in Congress even read the entire bill?

 

 

Just the parts that put money into thier pockets.

 

Ya know SOCAL, I used to think RP was a bit of a whackjob, but I'm really warming up to the guy.

 

He's a man of outstanding character and a warrior for liberty, especially within the current system. However, his assumption that the government can be reeled in and held to a standard, one it has proven it cannot adhere to, is in my view no more than wishful thinking and actually quite contradictory to the very idea of freedom.

 

Ron Paul has shown through his support for the free market and his relationship with those at the Mises Institute/Independent Institute; Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Robert Higgs and other's who advocate market anarchism, that he is quite aware and open to the idea of real freedom both personally and economically. I sometimes wonder if he is just playing the system and working to help people better understand liberty, which should be the goal for anyone who wishes for freedom, or if he truly doesn't agree? I wrote him asking that very question but still haven't received a response. I probably won't either, seeing as he is a politician in our current political system, which literally makes answering the same as job suicide.

[hosker]

for those of you that don't like to read:

d7QkAr6GLeU&feature=channel

[huskerjack23]

he doesn't believe in evolution though.

[SOCALHUSKER]

he doesn't believe in evolution though.

 

Does it really matter what his personal religious beliefs are? Does that make him a bad person? Also, is he forcing his views of creation upon anyone?

 

(On a side note, religion might be the reason why he doesn't publicly support Anarcho-Capitalism. He is a religious man and most religions thrive on practicing the "virtue" of sacrifice. Sacrifice is something anyone who actually wishes to live freely and survive, should never be required to do.

 

Sacrifice is the act of giving up a greater value for a lesser value, a non-value or a dis-value. Morris Tannehill said it best when he said, "Sacrifice is always wrong, because it is destructive of the life and well-being of the sacrificing individual. In spite of traditional "moralities" which glorify "a life of sacrificial service to others," sacrifice can never benefit anyone. It demoralizes both the giver, who has diminished his total store of value, and the recipient, who feels guilty about accepting the sacrifice and resentful because he feels he is morally bound to return the "favor" by sacrificing some value of his own. Sacrifice, carried to its ultimate end, results in death; it is the exact opposite of moral, pro-life behavior, traditional "moralists" to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

A man who is acting in his own self-interest (that is, who is acting morally) neither makes sacrifices nor demands that others sacrifice for him. There is no conflict of interest between men who are each acting in his own self-interest, because it is not in the interest of either to sacrifice for the other or to demand a sacrifice from the other. Conflicts are produced when men ignore their self-interest and accept the notion that sacrifice is beneficial; sacrifice is always anti-life.

 

In summary: man, by his nature, must choose to think and produce in order to live, and the better he thinks, the better he will live. Since each man's own life makes his values possible, chosen behavior which furthers his life as a thinking being is the moral, and chosen behavior which harms it is the immoral. (Without free choice, morality is impossible.) Therefore, rational thought and action and their rewards, emotional, physical, and material, are the whole of a man's self-interest. The opposite of self-interest is sacrifice which is always wrong because it's destructive of human life.")

[huskerjack23]

he doesn't believe in evolution though.

 

Does it really matter what his personal religious beliefs are? Does that make him a bad person? Also, is he forcing his views of creation upon anyone?

 

(On a side note, religion might be the reason why he doesn't publicly support Anarcho-Capitalism. He is a religious man and most religions thrive on practicing the "virtue" of sacrifice. Sacrifice is something anyone who actually wishes to live freely and survive, should never be required to do.

 

Sacrifice is the act of giving up a greater value for a lesser value, a non-value or a dis-value. Morris Tannehill said it best when he said, "Sacrifice is always wrong, because it is destructive of the life and well-being of the sacrificing individual. In spite of traditional "moralities" which glorify "a life of sacrificial service to others," sacrifice can never benefit anyone. It demoralizes both the giver, who has diminished his total store of value, and the recipient, who feels guilty about accepting the sacrifice and resentful because he feels he is morally bound to return the "favor" by sacrificing some value of his own. Sacrifice, carried to its ultimate end, results in death; it is the exact opposite of moral, pro-life behavior, traditional "moralists" to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

A man who is acting in his own self-interest (that is, who is acting morally) neither makes sacrifices nor demands that others sacrifice for him. There is no conflict of interest between men who are each acting in his own self-interest, because it is not in the interest of either to sacrifice for the other or to demand a sacrifice from the other. Conflicts are produced when men ignore their self-interest and accept the notion that sacrifice is beneficial; sacrifice is always anti-life.

 

In summary: man, by his nature, must choose to think and produce in order to live, and the better he thinks, the better he will live. Since each man's own life makes his values possible, chosen behavior which furthers his life as a thinking being is the moral, and chosen behavior which harms it is the immoral. (Without free choice, morality is impossible.) Therefore, rational thought and action and their rewards, emotional, physical, and material, are the whole of a man's self-interest. The opposite of self-interest is sacrifice which is always wrong because it's destructive of human life.")

that was THE WORST thing i have ever heard. period. full stop.

 

i just watched the daily show where a north korean refugee has spent like the last 10-15 years helping other north koreans escape through an "underground railroad" to freedom. this man, like so many others, have been sacrificing their own safety to stand up for what they think is right.

 

you say that the recipient always feels guilty. do you think that that person can turn that guilt into a positive? maybe the sacrifice changes that person's worldview, he starts working harder and thinking more clearly and more rationally. how does that not improve that person's worth, especially if they start from the bottom?

 

your thought process for sacrifice assumes that everyone is on equal footing, in class, intelligence, etc. my belief is that someone of high class, intelligence, etc. can use their high value to teach and ultimately give of themselves to people of lesser value so that those people may reach a potential of equal value because, in reality, people are not on equal footing.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

that was THE WORST thing i have ever heard. period. full stop.

 

i just watched the daily show where a north korean refugee has spent like the last 10-15 years helping other north koreans escape through an "underground railroad" to freedom. this man, like so many others, have been sacrificing their own safety to stand up for what they think is right.

 

you say that the recipient always feels guilty. do you think that that person can turn that guilt into a positive? maybe the sacrifice changes that person's worldview, he starts working harder and thinking more clearly and more rationally. how does that not improve that person's worth, especially if they start from the bottom?

 

your thought process for sacrifice assumes that everyone is on equal footing, in class, intelligence, etc. my belief is that someone of high class, intelligence, etc. can use their high value to teach and ultimately give of themselves to people of lesser value so that those people may reach a potential of equal value because, in reality, people are not on equal footing.

You need to read the full chapter, Man & Society, before you rush to the inaccurate judgments you post. Some of the thoughts stated in the quote require taking the entire context into consideration to make sense. I posted it on the Marijuana Legalization thread or you can read the entire text here

 

Also, did it ever occur to you that government forces people to act against their best interest and they are then forced to sacrifice? If anything, your example makes the point of sacrifice even more credible. Do you know how much the North Korean values freedom or helping others? His actions are not sacrificing if he values spreading freedom and the joy of helping others to safety, more than he values the risk of getting caught. He is also making the free choice to help others. It is the existence of government, and the coercion and force it employs that forces man to sacrifice. Without the government restricting freedom the North Korean man would not be sacrificing anything. So in this case, the point that sacrifice can ultimately lead to death is 100% true!! Again, without government, or anybody else for that matter, interfering with freedom there would be no need sacrifice.

 

Your idea that sacrifice is merely giving up something is not true. Instead, it is giving up something, for something of less value or nothing at all. Sometimes it is forced, such as taxation or liberties, and other times it is for religious reasons. If any person is receiving an equal or better value in return, they are then not sacrificing, for they are being compensated. I may give to a charity because I value the joy of giving more then what I am giving up, but I am not sacrificing. If I give up something so that it puts me in favor with the church, others or the government, that is sacrifice. What do any of those give in return? Charity is a great way to help people, as long as someone is not sacrificing in order to be charitable. Charity is voluntary too; the sacrifice you suggest is not.

 

Yes, people can turn guilt into good, but when it is expected or forced there is very little hope for any change. You’re right, it may improve one person’s worth, but what about the people’s worth who give up something for that person to be helped, does that worth not matter? Or do you just assume they must have everything they need so who cares? How can people ever get better if they are required to give something up? Do you really need me to explain the entire welfare system to you and the complete lack of responsibility or drive it incurs? Give me a break!! How many people actually change their lives due to welfare? Sure there will always be a few exceptions, and in the case of welfare not much, but the ones who do are the people who actually still feel guilty. The rest are products of a nanny government system that doesn’t allow them to feel guilty and fosters an entitlement society, which leads to nothing but poverty. The best thing that can be done is to allow people to reap the benefits from their success and not stop them from learning from their mistakes. That’s the surest bet to achieving freedom and prosperity.

 

We may not all be on equal footing as far as money, looks or intelligence goes, but such is life. When free to do so, we all have the equal ability to make choices and if allowed to choose that which would make a person more successful, the majority will choose those choices that do. Sure, we're human so some will make mistakes and make bad choices but that’s how you learn. Government doesn’t allow individuals to make choices and therefore doesn’t allow people to learn. It forces a man to do that it deems good, that which is good for it.

 

Some people work harder than others, does that mean they shouldn’t be able to enjoy all the fruits of their labor because others don’t feel like working all that hard? If you had your way they wouldn’t, and guess what? Soon you would have a bunch of people who wouldn’t work because working wouldn’t matter. Sounds great to me, let’s punish all that’s productive and successful because sometimes life isn’t fair, then we can all live in equal poverty. History is filled with failures of this type of action. The thought is actually quite disturbing and even worse is people thinking that it helps.

[huskerjack23]

there you go turning into a government thing again.

 

sacrifice is one of the most noble things any one person can do. and you sully it by saying "if it weren't for government, you would have never had to do that" as if the person had no choice in the matter.

 

i believe that if a person sacrificing heard that, they would want to lay back and hit you, because you don't know their thoughts and feelings. you're telling them what their thoughts and feelings should be.

 

that's so infuriating.

[SOCALHUSKER]

there you go turning into a government thing again.

 

sacrifice is one of the most noble things any one person can do. and you sully it by saying "if it weren't for government, you would have never had to do that" as if the person had no choice in the matter.

 

i believe that if a person sacrificing heard that, they would want to lay back and hit you, because you don't know their thoughts and feelings. you're telling them what their thoughts and feelings should be.

 

that's so infuriating.

 

There you go again!! Spouting off opinions with absolutely no evidence to back up what you say. I never said people doing things for others is wrong, I said sacrifice is wrong. And it is!! Please prove it to be OK!!

 

Also, since you brought it up, what choice do those being forced to sacrifice have? What choice did your North Korean buddy have? Oh wait he could choose to let the government trample his and other's lives. That sounds like a helluva choice to me!! Isn't giving up the fruits of your labor for the supposed benefit of others called sacrifice? Is taxation a choice? Maybe you can tell all those drafted during Vietnam that sacrifice is a choice. I'm sure you'll get a lot of agreement there. As for me telling people what to do, there couldn't be anything further from the truth. I'm merely suggesting sacrifice is anti-life, and something I would not like to be part of, nothing more. If you disagree, please feel free.

 

By the way, isn't this a political thread?!?!