I see Roe v Wade as government interference at the federal level and legislating from the bench. It likely is not apparent but I also distinguish between what is legal federally, at state level, individually, and my own preferences. Those distinctions are where you get the impression of me being off on consistency in instances like Roe v. Wade. Federally, I do not think the courts have rightful jurisdiction. I hold that view even if the ruling on Roe v. Wade was the opposite from what it is. My sole problem with Roe v. Wade is that I do not think it is the Feds business.
To further muck it up I personally do not think it is the States business either and would prefer the States stay out of it as well. Constitutionally however they probably do have the jurisdiction to make laws and judgements the that nature. I don't like it and even at the State level would fight against it. So there I find I make a distinction between what is legal/constitutional and what I think is best.
On the business and river example... yes, all those people would have claim and likely it would amount to the closure of said business do to cost of business due to their damages being too high. True, in the extreme case not everyone would be raking in the dough due to lawsuits but the offending business would be put out of business. As things are now they usually pay a slap on the wrist fine and move on.
If such market regulation was to run its course in most instances businesses. would have to become more conscious of their environmental impact and impact on their neighbors. This would lead to them self regulating and/or making arrangements with those about them so as to make the business functional. If functional terms could not be found the business would not be able to function or if they tried would end up being shut down in short order.
In general laws against pollution as they stand do not stop the pollution either and are often strongly influenced by the very interests they supposedly regulate. Individuals injured are much more likely to be a responsive counter to the pollution than the government. The cost of people bringing the suits would work to some degree to limit frivolous suits and such expenses could be passed on to the looser as part of such suits.
I would posit that laws against pollution are not as important as simply having the government justly enforcing property rights and damages in such cases. The governments burden should not be to bring such suits nor to subsidize it as that would only encourage more litigation and bog down the system. It should be touched on but is tangent I think that costs associated with such suits in such a free market system might very well be much cheaper than is current. I admit that such may not be the case and merits much more consideration.
I agree that in the not so distant past (and ongoing) environmental damages have occurred. But I posit to you that the real problem was not lack of regulation (Note: I'm not suggesting that all regulation and laws are bad) but a lack of respect for property rights and enforcement of said along with damages for the damage caused. In the bulk of those cases I suspect we would find business interests getting over on people due to connections with government.
Our current real world scenario is pretty much an nightmare where the biggest businesses get by with whatever they want because people do not really believe in property rights and the government will not aid the people in protecting their property.
I'm also not saying things would be utopian, perfect, shiney, and perfect in what I propose.
The problem with DOMA is that it actually defined marriage for federal purposes. This is mostly an issue due to tax reasons but as I have already mentioned I'm against special treatment one group for tax purposes. The part that RP supported most in the bill and the reason he probably would have voted for it had he been in congress at the time is the restriction in places on the feds forcing states to recognize licenses from other states regarding marriages. In that he is being consistent on the idea of 'states rights'. Here is link with citations regarding Ron on the topic ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage He seems to believe that ideally the government (fed or state) would have nothing to do with marriage as it is a private matter and we can call our association anything we want.
Regarding the Marriage Protection Act, I can see where he is coming from and it is 'states rights' position again. Not sure I like it or agree but I see where he is coming from in wanting to protect each states ability to decide on the issues as they see fit. Again, I reiterate that this would probably be a non-issue if there were no monetary benefits (tax benefits) and such associated with government sanctioned marriages.
Bottom line on that is that RP wanted to keep the Feds from forcing the states one way or the other.
Related to this I think state and federal government should recognize inheritance rights (and things like veterans benefits) for gay couples as a matter of enforcing and respecting private contracts between individuals.
I disagree with the statement that he is "a far right social & political conservative wolf in "libertarian" sheeps clothing..." Surprise right hehe. There is very few instances where you can find him pushing his christian beliefs and trying to force them on others. In fact, the defining marriage and protecting that definition via other legislation is the closest I can think of to such an argument. Thinking I understand where he is coming from there I think he was/is more interested in protecting states rights in that regard than defining but I do admit that it is a place for valid criticism and one I'm not totally pleased either.
BTW, enoying the conversation and the challenges it presents. It's good to reconsider ones ideas and put them through the fire. It's even led me to change my mind more than a few times
Cheers
