Liberty MavenB.J. Lawson, Ron Paul Republican Interview Part 2
September 11th, 2008 10:40 pm | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Activism, Big Government, BJ Lawson, BJ Lawson Interview, Constitution, Economics, Election, Environment, Federal Reserve, Free Market, Individual Responsibility, Interviews, Liberty, Politics, Ron Paul | 1
A few months ago we at Liberty Maven interviewed B.J. Lawson following his decisive primary election victory for North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District. It is now time to continue that interview as his general election campaign continues to heat up.
Lawson has been called “Ron Paul Jr.” and has been enthusiastically endorsed by Ron Paul himself. Lawson faces an uphill battle in his largely Democratic district, but he is charismatic and is not your average Republican. We encourage all Liberty Maven readers to donate to his campaign. As you will see in this interview segment and the last one, B.J. Lawson is uncompromisingly dedicated to individual liberty and the U.S. Constitution.
Read the first part of Lawson’s interview here or read on for the second part.
LM: In recent political history there has been much debate about term limits for Congressmen yet not much has been done about it. What is your view on congressional term limits?
Lawson: I do not believe term limits are a panacea — they will limit the terms of good, principled representatives just as surely as they will limit corrupt and incompetent ones. Ultimately, voters need to enforce term limits.
I believe that eliminating the Congressional pension plan would be much more effective than simple term limits. It’s one thing to go to Washington to serve the people. It’s another thing to “serve the people” and receive a lifetime of pension benefits and free health care as a result. Congress must not have financial incentives that encourage it to be a career. When elected, I will not participate in the Congressional pension program that is an insult to the American worker.
LM: Working in the technology industry I’m affected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act with the extra work and money required to become compliant. Do you think business regulatory legislation like Sarbanes-Oxley should be repealed or reformed?
Lawson: Sarbanes-Oxley is typical bureaucratic overreach that attempts to shut the barn door after the horse is long gone. It provides job security for lawyers and accountants, greatly increases costs for law-abiding companies, and is an impediment to job creation and economic growth. Given the recent implosion of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, one can argue that Sarbanes-Oxley is not even an effective deterrent. Sarbanes-Oxley should be repealed.
LM: Ron Paul has advocated abolishing the Federal Reserve. Given that this is unlikely to happen what are some of the more “incremental” specific measures/legislation that you would advocate to help restore the U.S. economy?
Lawson: I would first work to advance monetary freedom through the Honest Money Act and Free Competition in Currency Act, and will also seek to repeal capital gains taxes on gold and silver. Finally, since our money and banking system is *not* a “free market” to begin with, I will pursue and support banking regulations that protect consumers who are otherwise at the mercy of the our credit cartel.
LM: What is your view of the new compromised warrantless wiretapping FISA bill recently passed? If you were in Congress and you were offered a compromise on the bill that kept the telecom immunity but removed the warrantless wiretapping portion, effectively keeping the bill unchanged from when Jimmy Carter signed the 1978 FISA bill (except for the immunity part) how would you vote?
Lawson: I am against both telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping. I would vote against telecom immunity.
LM: What is your position on global warming? Do you believe it is still a debate and not a foregone conclusion as some suggest? What, if anything, should the federal government do about it?
Lawson: I believe there is evidence for global warming, but that the cause of observed temperature changes is still open to debate.
Regardless of the cause of global warming, however, sustainability and pollution are two important reasons we should be concerned about our dependence on non-renewable energy. I do believe that we need a rational energy policy that emphasizes free markets and gets the government out of the business of picking winners and losers with respect to energy technologies. The federal government’s job should be focused on maintaining a level playing field so that different energy sources can compete and succeed based upon local feasibility, cost, and freedom from pollution.
The government does have a responsibility to protect private property rights, and must protect private property rights by recognizing pollution as a form of trespass. How much of that responsibility lies with the federal government, state governments, and an active tort system is a discussion I am currently exploring.
This concludes our 2nd interview segment with B.J. Lawson. Stay tuned for the 3rd and final segment. In the meantime head on over to his campaign site and make a generous donation for liberty. There’s also a new single day fundraiser for Lawson coming up on September 17th, 2008 (Constitution Day).
Loading ...
September 11th, 2008 at 11:40 pm (#)
[...] Here is part two of the Lawson interview. digg_skin = “compact”; [...]