InquiryLabs
Politics, Programming and Possibilities
Ron Paul Interview with Bill Maher
Author: Duane Johnson4 Apr
This discussion between Ron Paul and Bill Maher last week proved to be an interesting debate on small government vs. big government on such issues as global warming, foreign policy and self-protection.
One of the points I liked from Congressman Paul came when Bill suggested, “There are some jobs that are so enormous that only governments can do it,” citing global warming as an example. Said Congressman Paul:
Then you have to deal with the volcanoes, and you have to deal with China… so what are you going to do, invade China so they don’t pollute? … But that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do what we can to slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies. I don’t like subsidizing oil companies. They’ve been doing that for years. We go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more oil. So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming—by subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed. And that’s why we’re in the Middle East, to protect oil interests. So that’s one of the first things you would do if you were serious.
Watch the debate on YouTube.
PhotoStream
-
flickrRSS probably needs to be setup
29 Responses for "Ron Paul Interview with Bill Maher"
You are right to call it a debate because it most definitely was not an interview. So apparently Bill Maher is a libertarian, well, did you know that? It’s such an Orwellian method to take away the meaning behind people’s words. I’m sorry Bill, you are a STATIST. He knows it, and he won’t be the last to try to take away our ‘libertarian’ word. Bill Maher obviously tried to attack Ron at every chance he got. Ron showed off some amazing skills in this debate. Debating skills that I would not expect from a libertarian candidate (well at least he’s still a libertarian in my eyes). It was beautifully amazing for him to counter Bill’s attacks with such simply put logic and mater-of-factness. To move from the topic of global warming to oil subsidizing is pure genius. Ron knows that global warming is a tool being used for exactly what Bill Maher said he wants: bigger government. Instead of the losing strategy of attacking global warming, he simply directly attacks the premise that government could ever help the situation. Thus Ron always keeps the debate on topic, the topic of less government. He doesn’t argue about slavery, he agues about centralizing government. He doesn’t argue about global warming, he agues about how government can’t solve the problem, etc. etc. Ron is an on topic genius! This political debate hardening must have come from all his experience on the House floor. Go Ron!
Ron is a moron. Claiming that there are many respected scientists who argue against the fact that global warming is caused by humans is lying. Sure, there are a couple of dissenting opinions, but nothing worth mentioning.
The US government is absolutely part of the solution to global warming. Personally I want smaller government, but at the same time I realize that regulation is a critical piece of the solution. Most people are waking up to this fact as well, which is why people like Ron fortunately have no chance of winning any kind of elections in the future.
Oh, and Mr. Voyt… you missed the whole point. We do what we can to make things better (like alternate sources of energy instead of war over more oil) but we don’t make it the government’s responsibility to regulate every step of the way. THAT is what Ron was saying. Take PERSONAL responsibility in the part that YOU play in global warming and quit tring to involve yet another agency (that we need to pay for with taxes) to MAKE US do it. Don’t be so narrow minded that you miss the message.
So Mike Voyt, what exactly does the US Government have to do with Volcanoes and pollution in Chinia? I just can’t wait until we tax/regulate all CO2 emissions in the US. That way we can finally have a tax/regulation on breathing. This is like the statist’s holy grail. Oh my, getting rid of all that 0.04% of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is a tough job! I’m sure that the Federal Government (which is by the way, officially the largest polluter in the United States) is up to the task. I forget, what was it that Patrick Henry said? “Give me your liberties and I’ll let you exhale”… something like that anyway
I share Mike’s view that the U.S. government MUST be part of the solution. The average citizen doesn’t have the discipline to make environmentally friendly decisions when, in the short term, these are costly and individually make only negligible difference to the environment. A carbon tax would not be just another victory for “big government.” It would make environmentally poor decisions more costly for the average citizen and supply the funding necessary to reduce the cost and maximize the efficiency of alternative energy sources. This is something that cannot be done without either (1) “big” government or (2) a lot of time. And according to the current consensus, time is running out.
I think Paul’s views are very reasonable, and he presents them very well. If he has a fault, it is that he is too idealistic. His principles worked well in the days of the Founding Fathers, but in our complex, global society, lack of regulation and “small” government could rapidly destroy our environment, not to mention our economy. National parks were not envisioned by the Founding Fathers, who did not think the government should own vast portions of the country. But what would the state of our environment be without them?
As a consumer, I have very little choice in how I buy my energy. Yes, I have sold my Jeep and bought a hybrid; and yes, I bike to work; and yes, I try my best to minimize my energy consumption.
However, I cannot choose a utility that only produces energy from wind/solar; and I have very few choices for clean vehicles.
Sometimes in order to move forward, there must be mandates. When the incentive is something other than profit (i.e., mitigating global warming), simple self regulation will not work. Even libertarians must realize this.
Perhaps a better way to put it is like this: if you have the choice to save $200/year on your utility bill; or, contribute 0.00000001% less greenhouse gas emissions - which would you choose?
Even the most dedicated environmentalist would have a tough choice deciding this question. When you consider that most of our country’s 300 million people would probably choose to save the $200/year, our planet doesn’t stand a chance unless there’s at least *some* regulation.
One more comment, and then I’ll shut up - I totally agree with you regarding tax and spending - I certainly am extremely angry that my tax dollars have funded a $1 trillion dollar war/rebuilding in Iraq. However, I’m certainly not opposed to spending a small fraction of that toward saving our planet from the devastating effects of global warming.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done at all… I’m saying that constitutionally, it should be regulated at a “state” level, by state votes, with state taxes. That’s the way it is suppose to be according to the constitution that you and I have more of a say that actually counts for something!
What happened to all the comments?
Yesterday there were 11 comments to this post; today there are 6. All of the comments made by one reader have been removed, leaving the remaining comments very one-sided (these were part of a debate). I assume (hope!) that the comments were removed at the request of their writer, but I wonder…
I added a comment of my own to this post a few days ago, when it was still fresh and my comment was still relative. It was caught by your spam filter, but I sent it to you by email and you confirmed that you received it. Why hasn’t it been added?
Duane, I am surprised. Are you trying to censor your blog? You write well-written, moderately controversial posts which invite comments, yet you limit which ones get posted. This is very frustrating for a reader like me who feels he has something to contribute to the discussion but is prevented from doing so.
Any suggestions on how to fix this problem?
Mike, I would respect your point of view more if you hadn’t started with name calling. Ron Paul is an exceptional leader with character and intelligence.
You can disagree with his attempt to restore the federal government to its constitutionally mandated sphere of influence, but I’m not so sure you understand what that is anyway. I hope we can all become better acquainted with the constitution (myself included).
Re: Eric’s post… there has been no malevolent intent on my part, only a somewhat finnicky spam filter. Websites from wordpress.com were being blacklisted due to spam trackbacks from that domain.
In addition, some of Mike’s comments were retroactively removed because, apparently, the spam filter tries to remove comments when they are made abnormally often.
Government doesn’t need to be “big” to address global warming, they just need to set the true cost of carbon (assuming global warming is man-made) and the market will end up giving up on oil and coal because it will just be too darned expensive.
Duane,
Economy still strong. What is the cutoff date for your doomsday prediction?
So Mike Voyt and Eric Robeck, I’ll ask AGAIN… what exactly does the US Government have to do with Volcanoes and pollution in Chinia? And another thing, following your logic I assume you two would entrust a psychopathic mass murderer with a police authority in order that you might lower the murder rate? Because I’ll reiterate once again that the Federal Government is officially the largest polluter in the United States. And I even think calling the Federal Government psychopathic is not a stretch under the definition of that word. Now Mike Voyt and Eric Robeck I know a couple of things; firstly that you will choose not answer me directly on these very relevant topics I have outlined above and that you will instead divert to another sideshow topic as you have done so far. If you don’t continue on that then instead you’ll opt to ridicule and/or attack my character, as Mike did to Ron Paul above. These will earn you an A+ in the debate class where the audience’s average intelligence quotient is quite low. You will in fact “win” such a debate in such a setting; and I hope you feel special amongst such “special” children. However I feel quite confident that in this forum if you attempt to prolong these boring trite tactics and attempt to stay off topic then I will have won my point and the readers will silently ignore you, as will I. You will of course continue to post… and even reply to yourself… several times over… patting yourself on the back, and then complain that you’re being marked as spam… all on the premise that if you shout louder you’ll drown out all the reason in the world.
In reply to Jeff:
Are you so sure that the economy is still strong? Please read on…
http://goldsilver.com/the_dow_is_crashing.php
Oh I’m very sure Greg. That article is meant to deceive you. The DJIA is not the all purpose indicator you want it to be. In reality, there is no such thing. You can measure the market a million different ways and come up with different numbers. The DJIA is actually a pretty lousy indicator. One of the biggest methods of trickery I see used OVER AND OVER AGAIN, in this article and others, is this implied fact that lower exchange rates for the dollar are directly linked with the state of the economy. Duane has mentioned it many times, I think it’s at the very foundation of your argument. In fact, the primary effect of these shifts in exchange rates causes Americans to invest less in foreign markets, and more foreign investments in the American market. Like anything having to do with monetary and fiscal policy, there is a balance that must be had, and we’re currently purchasing far too many foreign goods. Finally, never trust financial advice from a company who’s PURPOSE is to sell you gold and silver. I can’t believe they’d pull such a ridiculous indicator as the DJIA vs OIL. I’ve never seen such blatant trickery. I’d pay more attention to your own intuition (cost of living, prospective job offers) and less attention to foreign exchange rates. Right now I see a lot of prosperity in the United States, and other US stock market investors seem to agree.
http://finance.google.com/finance?cid=983582
Greg,
The U.S. government has nothing to do with volcanoes or pollution in China. However, it has everything to do with pollution in the U.S. I suppose you could argue that U.S. consumers have something to do with pollution in China, since much of what is produced in their factories arrives here as cheap goods. But that would be diverting the topic, and you have requested me not to do so.
It is true that volcanoes emit vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. There is some scientific debate about the percentage of greenhouse gases contributed by natural vs. anthropogenic causes. Some scientists (a minority) argue that our emissions are only a small fraction of the total, and that we therefore are not the cause of most global warming. I have not studied enough to have an informed opinion, but I currently take the position of the majority of scientists who believe we are a significant part of the problem.
Your approach to this topic is very different than Mike’s and mine, and I think it would be useful to point out the differences in our approaches because they are fundamental to each viewpoint. You feel that the government is “psychopathic,” evil and cannot be trusted. Now, this claim is very debatable (and would make a very fertile “sideshow” debate, but I digress). Starting from this premise, your argument for small government makes perfect sense. Why give more power to a fundamentally evil entity?
I believe Mike and I share a similar premise that not everything the U.S. government does is evil, and that much is in fact good and vitally necessary in the complex global economy we live in. As I stated before, the government ownership of land is one of these things. The federal government owns 65% of all land west of Denver. This is a lot of territory, and you could argue that it is just another symptom of a bloated, inefficient and wasteful government. But consider what would happen if these lands suddenly were privatized. How long would it be before our national parks, wetlands and scenic areas were overrun by the nation’s 300+ million citizens, all seeking the best view from their kitchen window? Has any private organization, funded by citizen donations only, ever preserved anything as magnificent as our national parks? What would the state of our environment be without them? Consider, too, that a “small” or minimalist government could not adequately fund programs like the Forest Service or BLM which, despite their inefficiencies, do a wonderful job mitigating the environmental damages caused by industry. Is there waste? Of course. Can the system be improved? Absolutely. But I don’t think reducing the size of the government (at least not on the scale you advocate) is the answer.
Now I’ll get off that soapbox. You are correct that the U.S. government (in particular the Department of Defense) is the largest polluter in the U.S. It is an unfortunate irony that the very agency responsible for protecting the environment is the one which most pollutes it. You have alluded to this in your comments. But let us consider the reasons for this:
(1) Size. The primary reason is the government’s sheer size. A smaller, more efficient government would pollute less by virtue of being smaller. To a certain point, this would be very good, as there is a lot of inefficiency in the current system. But beyond that point of maximum efficiency (which is debatable), I think a further reduction in government size would be deleterious to the environment. Below a certain size, the government would be too small to enforce its own environmental policies, and industry as well as private citizens would have more free reign. History has shown that when personal profit and the environment come into conflict, the environment usually loses — unless regulated by an outside entity.
(2) Failure to follow regulations. The government owns a massive fleet of vehicles, many (most?) of which do not comply with strict emissions regulations. This is a problem that must be remedied at the level of the government, with older models being phased out by newer, more efficient ones over the next few years. Aside from reducing the size of the fleet, I don’t see how a smaller government is likely to fix this problem.
(3) Military spending. Let’s face it, the Department of Defense pollutes more than all other government organizations. This is not surprising when you consider the investments into aircraft, battleships, missile testing and uranium enrichment. I am personally opposed to the scale of these operations, as I believe they foment disastrous wars (e.g., Iraq), destabilize international relations, and siphon funds that would be better spent on the environment or, at the very least, on limiting our national debt. If America decided instead to be a model of goodwill while gradually decreasing the size of its military, our country, the world and the environment would benefit enormously.
I hope I have stayed sufficiently on track to answer your questions. I express my apologies to Duane for second-guessing his intentions when my comments kept getting caught by his spam filter. I should not have jumped to conclusions before all the facts were in. And Greg, I would love to continue this discussion if you have anything else to add to this debate. Perhaps Mike (or someone else) can add to what I have written here?
I think the United States is doing far, far, far more than any other country to combat so-called “Global Climate Change”. We harbor an army of private corporations who’ve dedicated billions of dollars to clean, renewable energy. Sometimes the best policy is to let the market find it’s own way.
Plastic solar cells are an entirely American discovery, and we’re just about to capitalize on it, with very little help from the government. I expect plastic solar cells to kick off the energy revolution.
http://www.nanosolar.com
Corporate incentives are one of the foundations of Newt Gingrich’s environmental policy.
http://www.amazon.com/Contract-Earth-Newt-Gingrich/dp/0801887801
http://www.newt.org
I agree 100% with Jeff that our corporations are turning green very quickly, in fact much more quickly than the government itself. This is very encouraging. While part of our greening is due to increasingly tight regulations, I believe he is correct that most of the change is occurring independent of the government. In the last few years, we have witnessed a transformation in public sentiment towards the environment, pushed by a growing and frightening awareness of global warming. Corporations, spurred by the humanity of their leaders and seeking to appease their market base, are capitalizing on this trend.
As Jeff pointed out, however, there is still room for government incentives to accelerate this trend. And we must consider that concern for the environment is only possible to the degree that we are affluent. Poor countries (like Mongolia, where I currently live), are consumed with survival and do not, in general, share the same concern for the environment. This is true for much of Asia, although I see signs of greening in China as its economy leaps forward.
In this period between poverty and wealth, government policies are vital for preserving the environment and limiting carbon emissions. Coal will continue to be a major fossil fuel in most countries for at least the next couple of decades. The only way to mitigate its effects is to install cleaner, more expensive plants. Industry will not do this unless it is profitable to do so.
Concern for the environment occupies one of the higher levels on Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs.” We in the West have the luxury of worrying about it, but it is not that way everywhere … yet.
Well if you think that the big flood is coming then you probably were just like me until I saw
The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://video.google.com/url?docid=4429075964350352012&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=global+warming+swindell&vidurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DPXc9H5JSyow&usg=AL29H22KB18KdwGue6-uquTm30aTiZ6YJw
PLEASE HELP SUPPORT RON PAUL FOR PRESEDENT GOTO http://www.pledgebank.com/RonPaul2008 TO PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT TODAY
To Jeff:
The DJIA is often used as an economic indicator by many people and the media. While there will never be one end-all-be-all indicator for anything I believe it’s silly to argue that the DOW means nothing in terms of the economy. The S&P 500 and NASDAQ are also listed; I suppose those aren’t considered by you to be valid economic indicators either? You attack the DJIA vs Oil but you don’t state what’s wrong with it, well… along that line I see that you like to attack a lot of good concepts without a reason following it to back yourself up. Here I’ll help you out on that one: Oil prices are going up because of the continuous draining of our earths oil supply and so of course the value of almost anything compared to oil should go down. However knowing that, I still that think that graph was included as a matter of interest and completeness, after all there are like 20 or so graphs on that page. Exchange graphs are valid since all those other countries are leaking the value of their money at a slower pace than we, the USA, are. You can’t talk about an economy without talking about the value of its currency. I mean seriously it’s amazing how often you’ve just tried to magically debauch every piece of data by metaphorically just saying the word “frivolous” every time. I love how you failed to even mention and attack the DJIA vs Stuff graph seeing on how it is the most important graph on the page and really the heart and point of the article once you get down to things. I guess you go for the low hanging fruit. What about how my personal pocket feels? It feels the loss of value of my fiat currency as shown in the SGS Alternate CPI. Ten years ago I could by a soda for $0.50 today it’s a $1.25 if that’s not the beginning of hyperinflation I don’t know what is. I like those gold and silver guys, and as far as vested interests go… doesn’t everyone have one? Why in fact… don’t you have one?
To Eric:
I have a small government bias only because our founding fathers had it too. I think they were pretty smart guys and helped to set the foundation for the best country in the world. I think it would be well to read their writings and take heed of them. I’m not sure on my stance on the good of National Forest stuff because I’m not all read up on the topic but I would be most likely be inclined to take agree with whatever the Ludwig von Mises Institute has to say about it. You are right in that the US exports a lot of its pollution to China in the form of importing China’s manufactured goods. You’re right that the government is too big, I heartily agree. You’re also right that the government doesn’t follow its own EPA regulations. For that matter when does it ever follow its own rules? Ever seen a cop speeding on the highway? You’re right that our “policing the world” policy will ultimately suck up all our resources and fail. I think you’ve stayed on topic, lol. So I think we’ve pretty well painted the picture here that the federal government is mostly irresponsible. It would be quite hypocritical of the government to punish its own citizens by regulation and tax for its own pollution mistakes and the mistakes of other countries around the world. As Reagan once said, the government is not the solution.
Thank you for the fun, I love the discussion, but since I can’t go on forever this should be my last post on this topic.
I’ve enjoyed reading all of your comments, thank-you. There was a recent post on slashdot that was an interesting read for me—the author asserts that Intellectual Property is America’s last economic stronghold, and that if we can’t convince the world to adhere to our standards of copyright law, we’ll lose that battle too. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233075&threshold=5&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=18952399
Hey, you were right, I was reading about Ron Paul and digging what Greg & Duane were saying and I could not even read the other guys’ comments they were so one sided and not even worth remembering their names. I was going to vote Democrat, now I’m all for Ron Paul!!! YEEEAH, America is BACK!
America is BACK! Those words are soothing to the soul of democracy. Thanks, T Mac, you made my day!
[...] A 2nd Interview with Ron Paul on Real Time (Bill Maher)It seems that Bill has had a change of heart since the first interview, explaining that after the Republican presidential debate, he realized “this is a person I really want to talk to a lot more.” [...]
So let’s go back to the top of the argument. Ron Paul is saying (my take on his comments) that if oil corporations were not being subsidized by the US Dept of Defense (ie U and Me) that the use of oil would be much less. Tobacco was sent a ‘bill’ for causing lung cancer. Why can’t we (through Congress) send the bill for the Middle East oil defense directly to the oil industry instead of our great grandchildren? Then the true cost of oil would reflected in the cost at the pump! Those plastic solar cells mentioned in a post above would probably have been on the market by now. When government buffers the true cost of any resource you end up with a false economy. Ron P is right! Another example:Just think where we would be if the government had not subsidized all these highways in this country. Industry would have figured out a way to get things around. The true cost of developing land would have fallen on the developers and we would not have all this crazy unsustainable suburbia. Less interstate commuting= less energy needed. We would have figured out how to live in our cities together and our crime rate would be a lot less, because the people who care would be in the cities, not living in MacMansions on Old MacDonald,s former farmland.
Regarding the government ownership of lands:
The U.S. Government does hold large tracts of land, that is true. The fact of the matter is that most of this land is too poor for anyone to desire to develop it. A great example of this is the Ozarks region which is practically devoid of habitation (compared to surrounding more fertile lands) because of its steep grades and rocky slopes. It is also interesting to note that the homestead act is still in effect with regards to most government owned lands, which supports that most undeveloped lands are that way because few people really want to live there. As far as the oil industry is concerned the subsidies need to stop. I propse that instead of subsidizing them to drill in the inaccssable regions of the world we let them develop known reserves in ANWR, as well as off the west and east coasts of the united states. This would provide american jobs that pay well, provide energy security and lower costs to the consumer. As I am sure that an outcry will follow this about the environment rest assured that federal regulations make it far too expensive for any oil company to mess around with the environment. I support Ron Paul because he is not beholden to special interests, and so is the only one who might actually be able to fight them in washington.
Its funny environmentalists and politicians alike have taken so easily to the fallacy that cars are the major source of pollution/energy consumption. especially when the real problem is so glaringly evident. Its not just the cars you drive whether you own a Prius or an SUV. Consider the fact that buildings account for the following:
In the United States alone, buildings account for:
• 65% of electricity consumption,• 36% of energy use,• 30% of greenhouse gas emissions,
• 30% of raw materials use,
• 30% of waste output (136 million tons annually), and
• 12% of potable water consumption.
The US has a great responsibility for setting a good example, but more realistically we have the ability to do so.
And what about the fact that living “sustainably”, atleast in the western context is something that many countries simply cannot afford? what comes to mind are these african nations that are the products of colonialism and the industrial revolution.
These countries inhabitants spend their time and money just trying to keep the general population at/above the poverty level. Furthermore, since government is always corrupt because people run it money will always outweigh common sense, whether its a western society or not.
Our government knows this and has factions that are moving toward designing “greener” buildings/ways of life but incentives are a long way off. And don’t be naive to the fact that companies are profiting big time off of these sustainable technologies in the mean time. They are the oil companies of tomorrow.
Besides this none of the candidates have talked much about what they will actually do to make our living situations viably (realistically) sustainable.
as an architect I have a responsibility to do my part, so in a sense it is up to the individual. However, I wonder about when the “craze” associated with this resurgence of radical environmentalism calms. What decisions will our government put in place to make our lives better. If you ask me, too much focus on nature, and not human nature, no point in saving the environment if theres no people around to enjoy it.
P.S theres some truth to that volcano theory too, i mean just think about that if the earth can clean up after a volcano….
Leave a reply