See what no caps on liability gets you!!

Paying what you owe is retarded, according to animals who do not deserve a voice in our democracy like Three. This is why animals should not be GIVEN a voice.
 
I don't know if severe legal sanctions would have prevented this particular spill.

But, I've been lectured for two decades by tea bag libertarians that we don't need to significantly regulate the captains of industry, we just need to make sure they face severe and stiff legal sanction in court to deter them from nefarious or incompetent behaviour.

Outstanding to see libertarians turn on a dime, and suddenly proclaim we need neither regulations nor stiff legal sanctions. Will wonders never cease?

I wonder why BP felt enabled and thought it was appropriate and adequate to write an "environmental response plan" that looks like it was written by a 6th grader as a weekend homework assignment, per topspin's thread? What on God's green earth could have possibly made BP feel comfortable, enabled, and justified in putting out that piece of crap? Thoughts?

I'm assuming that the new libertarian position is that neither regulations or severe legal court sanctions are needed to force companies to be responsible for safety and the environment. I'm thinking the scary threat of a severe tongue-lashing from some dolphin huggers at Green Peace is all the oversight we need!
 
Cypress said:
I don't know if severe legal sanctions would have prevented this particular spill.

But, I've been lectured for two decades by tea bag libertarians that we don't need to significantly regulate the captains of industry, we just need to make sure they face severe and stiff legal sanction in court to deter them from nefarious or incompetent behaviour.

Outstanding to see libertarians turn on a dime, and suddenly proclaim we need neither regulations nor stiff legal sanctions. Will wonders never cease?

I wonder why BP felt enabled and thought it was appropriate and adequate to write an "environmental response plan" that looks like it was written by a 6th grader as a weekend homework assignment, per topspin's thread? What on God's green earth could have possibly made BP feel comfortable, enabled, and justified in putting out that piece of crap? Thoughts?

I'm assuming that the new libertarian position is that neither regulations or severe legal court sanctions are needed to force companies to be responsible for safety and the environment. I'm thinking the scary threat of a severe tongue-lashing from some dolphin huggers at Green Peace is all the oversight we need!
Click to expand...

Here are some of my thoughts. Firstly, there are over 35,000 wells drilled over a forty year period in the Gulf and there has never been an oil spill like this one except in the Mexican sector. That in itself is an impressive record considering the hostile nature of the conditions in the Gulf. Secondly, this rig was operated by Transocean and Halliburton, yet thus far there has been little mention of them. Why exactly is that? I suspect that much of it is down to xenophobia, as exhibited by Obama himself when he constantly refers to BP as British Petroleum which it hasn't been for some years now. Thirdly, if the share price is driven down much further it may cause a hostile takeover bid by one of the Chinese oil companies. I hope you will be happy then as you really will have something to be xenophobic about.

I am willing to bet that in all of the coverage over in the US, not much mention has been made of the Occidental owned Piper Alpha which exploded killing 167 men in 1988 or the Union Carbide explosion in Bhopal in 1984 which has killed upwards of 15,000 so far. Both those companies were American, where was and is the indignation and outrage over those events? It seems that pelicans are considered more important than poor Indian brown people.

Bhopal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Bhopal_road.JPG" class="image" title="A residential area in Bhopal."><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/Bhopal_road.JPG/250px-Bhopal_road.JPG"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/f/f4/Bhopal_road.JPG/250px-Bhopal_road.JPG

Piper Alpha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Piper_Alpha_memorial.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Piper_Alpha_memorial.jpg/220px-Piper_Alpha_memorial.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/d3/Piper_Alpha_memorial.jpg/220px-Piper_Alpha_memorial.jpg
 
Last edited:
they don't care about the Pelicans, it's cheap faux outrage to be marshalled as a politicle football. Not a single one of them will stop using oil.

Kudo's on pointing out the false outrage.
 
Become a Republican, never live up to any personal responsability, just demand that everyone else do so!
 
Topspin said:
drive a volvo with an Obama sticker displaying your phony outrage as you fill up. Buying gas is optional
Click to expand...

Nope never claimed it was, in fact I have said that offshore oil drilling is currently necessary.
 
Cypress said:
Outstanding to see libertarians turn on a dime, and suddenly proclaim we need neither regulations nor stiff legal sanctions.
Click to expand...

Where? I have not seen that. I say we sue the shit out of them, their partners and regulate them, SOME (in the absence of property rights in these commons), too.

But regulation failed as it will always fail. Another new batch of rules won't stop them from taking risks when we subsidize the mess caused by their risk taking. It will be used as cover for BP while making it look like the government is getting tough on them.

Libertarians have not changed tune. You are being dishonest to claim they have.

http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/lp-monday-message-liability-limits-make-oil-spills-worse

LP Monday Message: Liability limits make oil spills worse
posted by Staff on May 10, 2010

May 10, 2010

Dear Friend of Liberty,

You've probably seen a lot about the big BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Libertarians are sometimes attacked for not having good answers to environmental questions. In this case, I think there are problems that Republicans and Democrats in Congress have created, and Libertarians would have handled things differently.

(If you're not particularly interested in detailed policy studies or arguments, it's always good to remember that Libertarians try to base our positions on fundamental principles of freedom and personal responsibility.)

I think a big problem here is the fact that federal law limits the liability of BP (and Transocean, the company that actually owned the rig.)

The New York Times has reported that federal law limits BP's liability to $75 million, and Transocean's liability to $65 million.

These kinds of artificial liability limits distort the markets, and basically create "moral hazard" by encouraging companies to act in riskier ways than they would otherwise. If BP's well causes damage to property, then BP should be fully liable for all of the damage. It is BP's reponsibility to "make whole" whoever gets damaged.

If Congress hadn't limited BP's liability, it's likely that BP would have acted differently. Knowing that a spill could cost them billions, BP might have demanded additional safeguards for their well, or tested their safeguards more thoroughly. These choices would have been expensive, but they might have prevented the huge costs that the spill area is now facing.

BP has said that it will pay all "legitimate claims," even if they go past the liability limit. The problem is that when it comes to property damage, a court should decide what "legitimate claims" are, not the offending company!

Of course, now we're likely to see a flurry of reactive legislation, as members of Congress try to pile on BP for political reasons. And, Congress will probably use the spill as an excuse to increase its market interference and shovel more subsidies into uneconomical "alternative energy."

(It's possible that if energy companies did not have the benefits of artificial liability limits, the market might decide that some alternative energy would be cost effective. But that's for the free market to decide, not Congress using taxpayer subsidies.)

As the Libertarian Party platform says, "Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems."

Congress should take this opportunity to get out of the market, but instead they'll probably create new subsidies, special commissions and government agencies. It's just one more good reason to support Libertarian candidates in the elections this November.

Finally, be wary of politicians who make it sound like government can lead us to a utopia free of accidents. Even if a world with no man-made disasters were possible, natural disasters such as volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and epidemics would still happen.

Sincerely,

Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
I don't know if severe legal sanctions would have prevented this particular spill.

But, I've been lectured for two decades by tea bag libertarians that we don't need to significantly regulate the captains of industry, we just need to make sure they face severe and stiff legal sanction in court to deter them from nefarious or incompetent behaviour.

Outstanding to see libertarians turn on a dime, and suddenly proclaim we need neither regulations nor stiff legal sanctions. Will wonders never cease?

I wonder why BP felt enabled and thought it was appropriate and adequate to write an "environmental response plan" that looks like it was written by a 6th grader as a weekend homework assignment, per topspin's thread? What on God's green earth could have possibly made BP feel comfortable, enabled, and justified in putting out that piece of crap? Thoughts?

I'm assuming that the new libertarian position is that neither regulations or severe legal court sanctions are needed to force companies to be responsible for safety and the environment. I'm thinking the scary threat of a severe tongue-lashing from some dolphin huggers at Green Peace is all the oversight we need!
Click to expand...
? Who is "turning"?

If they put the people responsible in jail do you not think that the "leaders" of other companies might take notice? I think a few people in the MMS office just might need a long visit to their local enforced gang rape center as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top