Economic libertarians - tell me how an anarcho-capitalist state would prevent BP from ****ting all over the environment?

[Humodour]

BP ignored Halliburton's safety monitoring to save time.

 

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/11/27/12...re-To-Save-Time

 

Honestly, how could a state without a government, or with a minimal government, prevent big companies from committing various atrocities if it made them more profit? That one is for taks and Guard Dog and co.

 

Wals, this one is for you: do you still have faith that multinationals like BP would act to prevent environmental disasters and safety issues because it would be in their best interest to do so?

 

And generally, I think BP's ****up is a strong case to dump fossil fuels. Like we didn't already have reason to do so. But we're at a stage where it is now economically feasible to do so - alternative energy costs have fallen, technology has gotten way more efficient and reliable, fossil fuel costs are rising rapidly, and the economic costs of fossil fuels on our health and productivity (through climate change and general air pollution) are starker than they ever have been.

 

In the early 2000's here, the right-wing Howard government met with oil and coal executives to discuss what to do about wind power - it was too successful. So they did what such governments do and listened to the lobbyists. Wind power funding was cut, government investment severely curtailed. In NSW state (home of Sydney), the state government recently toned down the solar rebate scheme because it too was too successful. Too many people were adopting solar panels and the government wanted to waste their money on other things (which incidentally did not include public transport, health, education, or electricity infrastructure - I'm still not sure what NSW Labour has spent the past few years wasting our money on).

 

But Australia is still in a position where wind and solar are extremely viable alternatives to Australia's coal use. We could essentially make the switch now if our government had balls, and what I hear about America paints a similar picture. For instance:

 

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local...ld/2009820.aspx

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/82641/2010...law-pv-mlpm.htm

 

And Australia is at fault in another way, too - we supply China's coal needs. China then pollutes at record levels - they will be driving climate change in the next couple of decades. They're investing in alternative energy sources out of necessity for more energy, but they're also investing in more and more coal each day as well. So on average they're making the situation a lot worse. Australia should be shipping uranium to China, not coal - we own 1/4 of the world's uranium, as does Canada. At least nuclear is a bunch cleaner.

 

A few things to think about. Discuss.

[Hurlshort]

Wals, this one is for you: do you still have faith that multinationals like BP would act to prevent environmental disasters and safety issues because it would be in their best interest to do so?

 

Isn't BP in gigantic trouble right now because of this whole thing? Like, major financial losses kind of trouble? I thought I remember Exxon also nearly going belly up after the Valdez incident as well and had to change a bunch of their environmental stuff in order to recover.

 

What I'm saying is I think it is in their best interests, but unfortunately it takes a big disaster to remind them of that.

[Meshugger]

In a true anarcho-capitalistic society, BP wouldn't have existed in the first place. /smartass

[Humodour]

Wals, this one is for you: do you still have faith that multinationals like BP would act to prevent environmental disasters and safety issues because it would be in their best interest to do so?

 

Isn't BP in gigantic trouble right now because of this whole thing? Like, major financial losses kind of trouble? I thought I remember Exxon also nearly going belly up after the Valdez incident as well and had to change a bunch of their environmental stuff in order to recover.

 

What I'm saying is I think it is in their best interests, but unfortunately it takes a big disaster to remind them of that.

 

And, it seems, each company can only to learn the lesson itself rather than observing others in the past. This does not give me any confidence since in 20 years time some new oil company, or BP itself when most of the old faces are gone, will likely make the mistake all over again.

[Guard Dog]

Honestly, how could a state without a government, or with a minimal government, prevent big companies from committing various atrocities if it made them more profit? That one is for taks and Guard Dog and co.

 

You know, I almost did not respond to this. Posting in these threads on this board is usually a huge waste of my time because 1) Not many of you actually read the posts, 2) Most folks here are so utterly closed minded and hostile to opposing points of view that if they did read it, it never gets through.

 

Krezack, you my friend, fall squarely into the latter catagory.

 

Case in point, you seem to be under the impression I am either an anarchist or a plutocrat. I'm never sure which because your opinion changes with the topic. And your ignorance of the US and how it really works is always amusing. You see a few Micheal Moore flicks and read the Huffington Post every once in a while and you think you know ALL about the US. Heck I read through the Herald Sun about once a week but I'm not so arrogant to think than gives me an in depth understanding of Austrailia. Especailly since I've never even been there much less lived there. Thats why you never have to read me telling you what Austrailia is REALLY like That would just be absurd, don't you think?

 

Anyway, back on topic. Libertarian political philosophy, at least as it is applied in the United States, simply calls for all levels of government to act only within the bounds of their constitutional authority. The US Government is required oversee and administrate the use of natural resources. Furthermore, every state government has very broad authority to regulate commercial activity with regard to extraction of natural resources within state boundries and believe me, they excersize it. In fact this is one of the few areas where state authority overrides federal authority. I could rattle off a dozen or so cases where the SCOTUS has come down solidly on the side of States Rights because the federal responsibility is poorly defined but the state laws are specific and fairly broad.

 

So since I've laid all that out you can see why I have no problem at all with a state or the federal government taking a regulatory interest in activites such as oil or gas drilling and do not see such an interest as an overreach of government power. Now if the oil well is located in a state like Texas for example, and the EPA begins to usurp the Texas Department of Energy, then I have a problem with it. Get the picture about American Libertariansim? I'm afraid I really can't dumb it down much more.

 

Now the BP thing happened outside of the coastal waters of LA so it was under federal jurisdiction. The thing I find most interesting about this was the huge sums of money the current administration accepted from BP in campaign donations and then that same administrations people looked the other way on BP's safety issues. In fact it was also that same administration that really worked hard to supress the full extent of the spill and went so far as to impede clean up operations by state and local agencies and private volunteers. I wonder why no one was outraged by that?

 

*Don't get me wrong on my first point. There are many of you I do enjoy trading posts with, Wals, Monte, WoD, Calax, Pop, Enoch, Hurlie, Gifted, I could go on. But there are others who I think are either knee-jerk contrarians or are just plain closed minded.

[Rosbjerg]

Now the BP thing happened outside of the coastal waters of LA so it was under federal jurisdiction. The thing I find most interesting about this was the huge sums of money the current administration accepted from BP in campaign donations and then that same administrations people looked the other way on BP's safety issues. In fact it was also that same administration that really worked hard to supress the full extent of the spill and went so far as to impede clean up operations by state and local agencies and private volunteers. I wonder why no one was outraged by that?

 

Yeah that had me a bit puzzled too.. The problem is not so much socialism vs capitalism as it is greed. I think any administration would've probably done the same if they had been given such a large donation.

 

So since I've laid all that out you can see why I have no problem at all with a state or the federal government taking a regulatory interest in activites such as oil or gas drilling and do not see such an interest as an overreach of government power. Now if the oil well is located in a state like Texas for example, and the EPA begins to usurp the Texas Department of Energy, then I have a problem with it.

 

That's also an interesting, it could be considered problematic that a state has control over a resource that could pollute across state borders - in essence making any screw up a large regional (and multistate) or global issue. Could we for instance hold Texas responsible if they had hypothetically laxed on their responsibilities in a situation that resulted in a major spill?

[Guard Dog]

Yeah that had me a bit puzzled too.. The problem is not so much socialism vs capitalism as it is greed. I think any administration would've probably done the same if they had been given such a large donation.

 

Yup. There is a real history in the US of political corruption because of large campaign donations. Another US President accepted nearly $4M in total donations from Chinese nationals then looked the other way when it became obvious there was Chinese espionage going on at our nuclear research facility in Los Palamos CA.

 

That's also an interesting, it could be considered problematic that a state has control over a resource that could pollute across state borders - in essence making any screw up a large regional (and multistate) or global issue. Could we for instance hold Texas responsible if they had hypothetically laxed on their responsibilities in a situation that resulted in a major spill?

 

Actually there are a couple of cases on this point. Without looking it up the first one that comes to mind is Ohio Oil Co. vs State of Indiana. If the pollution crosses state borders then the affected state and Federal autority can take corrective and punative action. Generally speaking the State governments are on top of this. After all, no one loves your state like you do.

[Hurlshort]

GD, I think you'd be surprised at how many people really do read your posts and appreciate your different viewpoint. Also, Krezack is clearly a patriotic guy, so you two have that in common.

 

I just don't see how big government would have prevented the BP spill. The only part I can really agree to is the cutting down in fossil fuels, but I wouldn't say going nuclear is the best alternative either.

[pmp10]

The only part I can really agree to is the cutting down in fossil fuels, but I wouldn't say going nuclear is the best alternative either.

What would you see as a better solution then?

[Darth InSidious]

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Staying out.

[Walsingham]

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

 

Aphorisms are the first refuge of the cretin.

 

[Kaftan Barlast]

I would just like to add that modern anarcho-capitalism was formulated before anyone outside of the scientific community was aware of the negative effects of pollution on the enviroment.

 

 

On the topic, what I would assume to occur in such a society if a similar incident occured is that BP might be coerced to pay for cleaning up the mess by a coalition of companies whose economic interests in the region were compromised by the oil spill. But mostly likely the people and companies harmed would have to clean up BP's mess with their own money because they would have no means to force BP into doing anything about it.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Kaftan Barlast

[Walsingham]

Nice to see you involved, GD. But forgive me for having misunderstood you previously. I was under the impression that you felt companies never directly inflicted harm, and that only governments needed to be defended against?

 

You address the point about why and how state authority can be brought to bear on BP very clearly. I don't believe you address the deeper philosophical point.

[Tale]

The only part I can really agree to is the cutting down in fossil fuels, but I wouldn't say going nuclear is the best alternative either.

What's wrong with nuclear?

[Monte Carlo]

^ Absolutely nothing. But the Watermelons of the 'Green' movement don't like anything that might deflect them from their true agenda.

[Hurlshort]

The only part I can really agree to is the cutting down in fossil fuels, but I wouldn't say going nuclear is the best alternative either.

What's wrong with nuclear?

 

I'm no nuclear scientist, but isn't there quite a bit of risk involved with nuclear plants?

 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power5.htm

 

Here's a link about pros and cons.

[Tale]

I haven't a clue what a watermelon is in that context, but sign me up for it.

[Guard Dog]

Nice to see you involved, GD. But forgive me for having misunderstood you previously. I was under the impression that you felt companies never directly inflicted harm, and that only governments needed to be defended against?

 

You address the point about why and how state authority can be brought to bear on BP very clearly. I don't believe you address the deeper philosophical point.

 

Oh no, I've never claimed companies can do no harm. They absolutely can. What I've said is companies cannot take anything from you that you do not give them willingly. You know what corporations want, they want your money. You always know right where you stand with them. But they cannot compell you to give it to them. They are going to offer you something in return. If you don't like them, their product, how they do business you are free to not give them your money. You are even free to convince other people not to give them their money. It is all about freedom. Freedom is the most important thing in this world. I'll take freedom over security, wealth, a cold beer in the fridge. Taking Krezacks example of BP, setting aside all the civil and legal penalties they are paying if you are mad about what they did, don't by petroleum products that come from BP. Their business is suffering here in the US because of boycotts. It DOES work. Just ask GM & Citgo. Ask BP. Now with govenment there is no carrot, it is only the stick. You will do this or you will be arrested, your proerty seized, your assets lost, your freedom lost. With government it is ALL about compulsion.

 

Governments are expected to apply the law equally to companies and people alike but who applies the law to the government? What is to stop them from seizing my home and selling it to someone else? What stops them from arresting me for nothing? The largest and most powerful company in the world could not do that if it used it's entire treasury. The smallest government right here in Tennessee could do all those things. And before Enoch shows up squaking about due process, I'll ask again: who applies the law to the government? Who should I really be afraid of here?

 

If corporations want money, governments want power. The more power they have over you, the less you have over yourself. Freedom, unlike money is a zero sum commodity. there is only so much of it. The more they take, the less you have.

 

There are only two defenses against government. Really only one, because the the only one that works is to keep them as small as possible so they can do as much good as then need to and as little harm as possible. The second is bullets. That one really does not work well but at least you will have the pride of knowing you did not take it lying down. And it is far better than prison.

[Monte Carlo]

I haven't a clue what a watermelon is in that context, but sign me up for it.

 

Descriptor originally coined in Germany for left-wing environmentalists : Watermelon - Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

 

Most Greens are socialists in hippy clothing, at the end of the day they want to take your money and tell you how to live your life and how to think. The vehicle for their authoritarian leftist agenda is saving the planet.

[Tale]

I haven't a clue what a watermelon is in that context, but sign me up for it.

Most Greens are socialists in hippy clothing, at the end of the day they want to take your money and tell you how to live your life and how to think. The vehicle for their authoritarian leftist agenda is saving the planet.

So, they're just like all the other political activists, just with uglier shirts?

[Guard Dog]

I haven't a clue what a watermelon is in that context, but sign me up for it.

 

Descriptor originally coined in Germany for left-wing environmentalists : Watermelon - Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

 

Most Greens are socialists in hippy clothing, at the end of the day they want to take your money and tell you how to live your life and how to think. The vehicle for their authoritarian leftist agenda is saving the planet.

 

Totally agree. To quote HL Menken "The desire to save the world is just a false face for the desire to rule it"

[pmp10]

Governments are expected to apply the law equally to companies and people alike but who applies the law to the government? What is to stop them from seizing my home and selling it to someone else? What stops them from arresting me for nothing? The largest and most powerful company in the world could not do that if it used it's entire treasury. The smallest government right here in Tennessee could do all those things. And before Enoch shows up squaking about due process, I'll ask again: who applies the law to the government?

You mean aside from judicial institutions that are meant to ensure that the rule of law is followed?

Or the democratically elected opposition?

Or the free press?

Ultimately - consent of the people.

[Guard Dog]

Governments are expected to apply the law equally to companies and people alike but who applies the law to the government? What is to stop them from seizing my home and selling it to someone else? What stops them from arresting me for nothing? The largest and most powerful company in the world could not do that if it used it's entire treasury. The smallest government right here in Tennessee could do all those things. And before Enoch shows up squaking about due process, I'll ask again: who applies the law to the government?

You mean aside from judicial institutions that are meant to ensure that the rule of law is followed?

Or the democratically elected opposition?

Or the free press?

Ultimately - consent of the people.

Oh yes and all of those things did so well in Kelo v New London, Klammath Falls, Ruby Ridge, I could go on all day with just modern examples. Don't get me wrong, by and large the system does work, but not always, and certainly not for everyone. Do you really think the government should have the right to seize your house and sell it someone else because they will pay more taxes for it? Do you think it's right proper for the government to shut down a company and drive it to bankruptcy, at the same time putting an entire town full of people out of work all to protect the envorment of some worthless little bird that later turned out not to live anywhere near that area? Should missing a court appearence merit a death sentence from an FBI sniper all because a man refused to testify against people he was afraid of? Is it right for the federal government to turn off the water to an an entire town of farmers driving them all into forclosure because of the caprice of an EPA bueracrat? Have you ever been audited by the IRS? Ever had to take and level of government to court? They will grind you to nothing unless you find a lawyer who will work for free. Small chance of that if it's not a criminal case.

 

Heck I'm dealing with a problem right now because my property sits on the Hatchee River in TN and there are plans to use emminent domain to seize part of the land I bought and paid for to create a right away for the Hatchee wildlife management area. You know that will end up in court. How do you think I'll do there with my limited checking account. Your fourth amendment rights don't amount to a steaming pile of coyote spoor is the "government" decides it wants what you have.

 

Edit) Every one of these bad acts was done by the federal government. The US constitution did not give it the authority for any of it. It has simply "assumed" the authority because it is the federal government and no one can stop it. If that does not scare the hell out of you, what will? Take a good look at Obamacare. Does the constitution give the federal government the authority to compell you to buy something with the threat of jail and crippling fines if you do not obey? Of course it does not. But they have assumed the authority on their own and the so-called free press is lauding them for it.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Guard Dog

[Darth InSidious]

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

 

Aphorisms are the first refuge of the cretin.

 

Reversions of aphorisms are the first refuge of the unbearably smug cretin.