PDA

View Full Version : Feel Sorry for BP?




Fox McCloud
05-05-2010, 12:33 PM
Mises Daily: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

It was 21 years ago that the Exxon Valdez leaked oil and unleashed torrents of environmental hysteria. Rothbard got it right in his piece "Why Not Feel Sorry for Exxon?"

After the British Petroleum–hired oil rig exploded last week, the environmentalists went nuts yet again, using the occasion to flail a private corporation and wail about the plight of the "ecosystem," which somehow managed to survive and thrive after the Exxon debacle.

The comparison is complicated by how much worse this event is for BP. Eleven people died. BP market shares have been pummeled. So long as the leak persists, the company loses 5,000–10,000 barrels a day.

BP will be responsible for cleanup costs far exceeding the federal limit of $75 million on liability for damages. The public relations nightmare will last for a decade or more. In the end, the costs could reach $100 billion, nearly wrecking the company and many other businesses.

It should be obvious that BP is by far the leading victim, but I've yet to see a single expression of sadness for the company and its losses. Indeed, the words of disgust for BP are beyond belief. The DailyKos sums it up: "BP: Go f*** yourselves." Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that the government intended to keep "its boot on BP's neck."

How about reality? The incident is a tragedy for BP and all the subcontractors involved. It will probably wreck the company, a company that has long provided the fuel that runs our cars, runs our industries, and keeps alive the very body of modern life. The idea that BP should be hated and denounced is preposterous; there is every reason to express great sadness for what has happened.

It is not as if BP profits by oil leaks, or that anyone reveled in the chance to dump its precious oil all over the ocean. BP gains nothing from this. Its own CEO has worked for years to try to prevent precisely this kind of accident from occurring, and done so not out of the desire to comply with regulations, but just because it is good business practice.

In contrast to those who are weeping, we might ask who is happy about the disaster:

1. the environmentalists, with their fear mongering and hatred of modern life, and
2. the government, which treats every capitalist producer as a bird to be plucked.

The environmentalists are thrilled because they get yet another chance to wail and moan about the plight of their beloved marshes and other allegedly sensitive land. The loss of fish and marine life is sad, but it is not as if it will not come back: after the Exxon Valdez disaster, the fishing was better than ever in just one year.

The main advantage to the environmentalists is their propaganda victory in having yet another chance to rail against the evils of oil producers and ocean drilling. If they have their way, oil prices would be double or triple, there would never be another refinery built, and all development of the oceans would stop in the name of "protecting" things that do human beings not one bit of good.

The core economic issue concerning the environment is really about liability. In a world of private property, if you soil someone else's property, you bear the liability. But what about in a world in which government owns vast swaths, and the oceans are considered the commons of everyone? It becomes extremely difficult to assess damages to the environment at all.
"The liability for environmental damage should be 100% at least."

There is also a profound problem with federal government limits on liability. That is central planning gone mad. The liability for environmental damage should be 100% at least. Such a system would match a company's policies to the actual risk of doing damage. Lower limits would inspire companies to be less concerned about damage to others than they should be, in the same way that a company with a bailout guarantee faces a moral hazard to be less efficient than it would be in a free market.

But such a liability rule presumes ownership, so that owners themselves are in a position to enter into fair bargaining, and there can be some objective test. There is no objective test when the oceans are collectively owned and where huge amounts of territory are government owned.

And it is precisely the government and the Obama administration that gain from the incident. The regulators get yet another lease on life. They are already sending thousands of people to "save" the region. "Every American affected by this spill should know this: your government will do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to stop this crisis," Obama said.

Are we really supposed to believe that government is better able to deal with this disaster than private industry?

Meanwhile, the Obama administration must be thrilled to have an old-fashioned change of subject, so that we don't have to notice every single day that its economic stimulus has been an incredible flop, with unemployment higher today than a year ago and the depression still persisting.

And why, by the way, when every natural disaster is hailed by the Keynesian media for at least having the stimulative effect of rebuilding, is nothing like this said about the oil spill? At least in this case, losses seem to be recognized as losses.

The abstraction called the "ecosystem" — which never seems to include mankind or civilization — has done far less for us than the oil industry, and the factories, planes, trains, and automobiles it fuels. The greatest tragedy here belongs to BP and its subsidiaries, and the private enterprises affected by the losses that no one intended. If the result is a shutdown of drilling and further regulation of private enterprise, we only end up letting the oil spill win.

Read more: Feel Sorry for BP? - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. - Mises Institute http://mises.org/daily/4331#ixzz0n56ScCsm

Very interesting article, and it definitely puts a different light on things when you think more along this kind of mentality. It's a perfect example of tragedy of the commons---which is perfectly logical.

BenIsForRon
05-05-2010, 12:47 PM
What a fucking schizophrenic article. First it's talking about how we should feel sorry for BP, then it goes on the standard tirade of how great it would be if some company owned the gulf of mexico, then it goes on to talk about the politics. It's a fucking rant, not an article.

And if the author thinks the term "ecosystem" is an abstraction, then he must think gravity or electricity is an abstraction.

Fox McCloud
05-05-2010, 01:03 PM
What a fucking schizophrenic article. First it's talking about how we should feel sorry for BP, then it goes on the standard tirade of how great it would be if some company owned the gulf of mexico, then it goes on to talk about the politics. It's a fucking rant, not an article.

And if the author thinks the term "ecosystem" is an abstraction, then he must think gravity or electricity is an abstraction.

You know what Ben, you're a Statist through and through---do you really support the ideas of liberty, at all, or is it merely a convenience of the moment ideal for you?

He discusses BP because of the ramifications of the company because of this accident; it means higher oil prices (and thus higher prices for consumer goods and transportation), there's been a loss of lives, and there's the possibility that hundreds of jobs could be lost.

Also, nowhere in the article does he suggest that one company or any company, in particular should own the Gulf--he merely states that when you have collectively owned commons and you also limit the liability ($75 million in this case) you create a moral hazard whereby companies will only plan and put forth that much effort to avert disasters that cost $75 million or less; if the disaster costs more than that (particularly way more), then they have no incentive to put that much investment into it, since they only have to pay $75 million.

Is he advocating private property in the oceans? Sure, because that's what allows conflicts to be resolved on land in this regard (which, in today's modern society, even land property rights are not enforced and we have a distorted view of them). Just because he's subtly advocating for private ownership of the oceans doesn't mean he wants one entity to own it all. To make such a claim is intellectually dishonest, at best, and downright dirty, at worst.

It's a political, economic, and property matter...how the heck else are you supposed to right an article discussing the recent "disaster"?

BenIsForRon
05-05-2010, 01:46 PM
I am not a statist. I believe in limited government.

I see from your posts throughout the forum, that you simply want to be the most "free market" guy on here. No one is as hardcore as you when talking about free market economics. You're the one who knows all the answers.

And I'm against limited liability too, but to suggest that they loss to BP's budget is more important than the health of Louisana's coastal ecosystem is fucking retarded.

And once again, this guy puts the world ecosystem in quotes. As if its not a real thing, something made up by environmentalists. If that guy doesn't understand what an ecosystem is, he needs to go back and take high school biology. He's an idiot.

Anti Federalist
05-05-2010, 01:49 PM
Also important to keep in mind is that BP did nothing wrong here.

If anybody is to blame, that is if human error caused this and not just a mechanical failure, then Halliburton and Transocean are the culprits.

They were the operators.

Anti Federalist
05-05-2010, 01:51 PM
He's an idiot.

Lew Rockwell is far from an idiot.

BenIsForRon
05-05-2010, 01:58 PM
Lew Rockwell is far from an idiot.

When it comes to the environment, he is a total idiot. Do a search on his site or mises if you don't believe me.

Old Ducker
05-05-2010, 01:58 PM
Where's the constitutional provision that empowers the federal government to limit the liability of private firms to accidents or acts of god? The commerce clause, I suppose...
This is corporatism at it's worst.

silverhandorder
05-05-2010, 02:07 PM
Didn't Rockwell also talk about how the ecosystem revocered earlier? Seems like you have selective reading Ben.

getch36
05-05-2010, 02:10 PM
I always agree with Lew Rockwell,but not on this one.I will not be shedding a tear for poor BP........

Stary Hickory
05-05-2010, 02:11 PM
If you are calling Lew Rockwell an idiot then you are also calling Rothbard an idiot. He wrote a similar article for EXXON.

Anti Federalist
05-05-2010, 02:12 PM
I always agree with Lew Rockwell,but not on this one.I will not be shedding a tear for poor BP........

Not saying that you should, but why is BP singled out one way or the other?

They didn't do anything wrong here.

Stary Hickory
05-05-2010, 02:16 PM
Well BP screwed up. Their rig blew up an caused a major ecological problem. So yeah they are 100% liable to clean it up. And if it costs them..so what. If it raises the cost of gas for a bit then fine. I don't feel sorry for BP but I do not think they are "evil" like some crazies. They actually do provide us a service. But they also collaborate with governments in fascist ways...which pisses me off.

getch36
05-05-2010, 02:27 PM
For one ,I don't like how they went around to residents they thought would be effected and tried to get them to sign waivers not to sue.I'm all for freemarkets ,but I don't like or trust big corporations.Enron being a fine example.....

aravoth
05-05-2010, 02:31 PM
Enron being a fine example.....

The market took care of Enron, they went bankrupt, and got tossed in jail for contract violations.

The Deacon
05-05-2010, 02:32 PM
Weren't 11 people killed in the accident? That's the real tragedy. But all of the enviro-loons care about is the so-called "ecosystem"...

awake
05-05-2010, 02:35 PM
BP is guilty of helping to sustain human life. 11 men died , they sacrificed their lives to help bring peace and prosperity to others.

People can't see through the anti-free market propaganda.

axiomata
05-05-2010, 02:37 PM
Why should I feel sorry BP? They have gotten in bed with the government and are only on the hook for 75 million is damages (plus cleanup). They are getting a bailout. It's the same moral hazard that the banks latched onto. If they were liable for the full cost of such a spill, perhaps they would have invested even more in its prevention and we wouldn't be in this mess. Lew just wrote this article to ruffle environmentalists feathers, something that makes no sense if you are trying to grow the libertarian tent.

tjeffersonsghost
05-05-2010, 02:53 PM
Feel sorry for BP? Wow... I guess we should feel sorry for the coal executives who looked the other way while their mines became a safety disaster and in fact now are being investigated for bribing regulators to look the other way.

The great conflicts on interests on the oil regulators and the oil companies once again regulators looking the other way and even trying to get coastal people to sign waivers to release liabilities.

The conflicts of the SEC and the banking industries.

We should feel sorry for Paulson and Geithner also, I mean, lets add in Bernenke and Greenspahn also I mean, it was just human error isnt it? We are just trying to hurt their bottom line right?

Give me a bleeping break we are right back in the Gilded Age when the so called captains of industry rule and the earth and peons who inhabit it be damned and that includes us common peons.

We dont need a corporatist Obama we need Teddy Roosevelt.

If I were the judge I'd make the oil execs swim in the gulf for a few hours, the coal mining execs at Massey work in their own mines for a year, and the banksters work for minimum wage in the midwest which they helped destroy. They dont need pitty they need accountability.

emazur
05-05-2010, 02:56 PM
Though off balance and I have some disagreements, I agree with the main premise of the article that people shouldn't be savaging BP - they provide us with a benefit and this accident is going to cost them dearly. Accidents happen. If someone crashes his car or his house catches on fire, we certainly shouldn't go crying to the government to nationalize the housing and auto industry (as if it hasn't already been...) so that big brother can make sure no more accidents take place. It's not as if government doesn't have accidents - we can just as easily say "Tennessee's Emory River toxic ash spill caused by a regulated, unfree market"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/13/coal.ash.illnesses/index.html?eref=rss_latest
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/HEALTH/07/13/coal.ash.illnesses/art.coal.ash.jpg
and it looks like there were attempts at government coverups
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090420/hearn

The Tennessee Valley Authority manipulated science methods to downplay water contamination caused by a massive coal ash disaster, according to independent technical experts and critics of the federally funded electrical company.


Didn't Rockwell also talk about how the ecosystem revocered earlier? Seems like you have selective reading Ben.
Here are one of the disagreements I mentioned I had w/ this article. Actually, it's Rockwell who has the problem of selective reading:
"21 Years Later, Exxon Valdez Scars Still Healing"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/04/eveningnews/main6461218.shtml

Faulkner lives in Cordova, the largest fishing town on the sound. Twenty-one years later, things look pretty normal.

"Well it does look nice and normal but we don't have any herring," Faulkner said.

That's why Mark King's boat is parked in a warehouse. The former herring fisherman used to pull in up to $150,000 per year. Now he makes about $50,000 fishing salmon. Herring basically disappeared within three years of the spill.

King's hope was to pass on his business to his kids.

"They're gone," King said. "They aren't involved in fishing. They didn't have the opportunities I had growing up here."

While herring populations are still devastated, other species such as salmon and bald eagles have recovered. But perhaps the most remarkable is what never went away - and you can find it just a short plane ride from Cordova. On the shoreline, all you have to do is move a couple of rocks and you strike oil - Exxon Valdez oil - 21 years later.

In fact, over 21,000 gallons of oil are left from the spill. It is naturally decreasing at a rate of 0 to 4 percent per year. So it could take decades - or even centuries - before it's all gone.

Researcher David Janka said that two decades later, the oil is still a threat.

"There are salmon streams nearby, there are birds that utilize these beaches," Janka said.

Along with the oil, a bitterness remains. A jury awarded fisherman and other residents along the sound $5 billion, but Exoon appealed and only had to pay $507 million, while the community has paid a heavy price.

"We've had tons of divorces, tons of domestic violence, alcohol abuse, and suicides," Faulkner said.
So prevention is now the focus. From the air you can see barges stationed on the water with equipment to handle a spill and oil spill drills are held regularly.

getch36
05-05-2010, 02:57 PM
The market took care of Enron, they went bankrupt, and got tossed in jail for contract violations.Tell that to the employees who lost everything.Weren't they also screwing everybody on their electricity bills..........

tjeffersonsghost
05-05-2010, 02:59 PM
The market took care of Enron, they went bankrupt, and got tossed in jail for contract violations.

After screwing countless people in California on their electric bills and their own employees. Fraud is fraud corruption is corruption and just because its a corporation doing it doesnt make it any less moral than if its our government.

Imperial
05-05-2010, 03:08 PM
Weren't 11 people killed in the accident? That's the real tragedy. But all of the enviro-loons care about is the so-called "ecosystem"...

Why is caring about the 11 people who died AND the ecosystem mutually exclusive?

Anti Federalist
05-05-2010, 03:13 PM
Well BP screwed up. Their rig blew up an caused a major ecological problem. So yeah they are 100% liable to clean it up. And if it costs them..so what. If it raises the cost of gas for a bit then fine. I don't feel sorry for BP but I do not think they are "evil" like some crazies. They actually do provide us a service. But they also collaborate with governments in fascist ways...which pisses me off.

I'm no far of big business especially when in league with big government.

But based on the facts as they appear now, BP didn't do anything to cause this.

They are liable under MMS lease agreements for the cleanup, yes.

But the operators, Transocean the driller and the well cementer, Halliburton seem to be where the problem was.

BenIsForRon
05-05-2010, 03:40 PM
All of you saying BP should be commended for making our modern lives possible, think of this. If BP didn't drill the oil, someone else would have. We don't owe them shit. They have helped overthrow governments that weren't selling oil cheap enough. Fuck the company, I hope they go bankrupt.

... but the british government would just bail them out, of course.

silverhandorder
05-05-2010, 03:46 PM
Ben considering this was an accident any other company would have had the same chance of it happening.

Galileo Galilei
05-05-2010, 04:01 PM
I own the Gulf of Mexico; GET OUT!!

BenIsForRon
05-05-2010, 04:07 PM
Ben considering this was an accident any other company would have had the same chance of it happening.

You missed my point. There are people saying that BP is such a great company because they provide the oil that makes the world economy possible. I'm just saying drilling for oil is an inevitability, that BP is just the company that their grubby fingers on it first.

silverhandorder
05-05-2010, 04:11 PM
And I am trying to say that anyone who is drilling oil is helping the industry and everyone else who relies on it.

LibertyMage
05-05-2010, 04:17 PM
This thread enters a tailspin in 3...2...

aravoth
05-05-2010, 05:52 PM
After screwing countless people in California on their electric bills and their own employees. Fraud is fraud corruption is corruption and just because its a corporation doing it doesnt make it any less moral than if its our government.

I never said it did. I'm not defending any of Enron's actions. I'm saying that once the corruption was exposed, the market dealt with that company.


Tell that to the employees who lost everything.Weren't they also screwing everybody on their electricity bills..........

Again, I'm not saying that what Enron did was right, clearly it was wrong, which is why the people responsible paid dearly for it. Yes it does suck to be an employee of a corporation that pulls that kind of shit. But what you have understand is that Enron didn't just vanish into the night, it's infrastructure was absorbed by competitors that know how to run a company without scamming an entire State. That infrastructure needed skilled labor to operate it, that skilled labor came from the people that formally worked for Enron.

I'm sorry that people went through that. But understand that Regulations did nothing, and can do nothing to stop things like this from happening. Ever.

You can either let the Market deal with corruption the way it did with Enron, that is, with the company going under, those responsible severely punished, and the employees hired on at another company that bought out the assets.

Or....

You can do it the "Regulatory" way. Have the Government launch an investigation that results in a slap on the wrist for those responsible, tighter regulations which stifle out any new competition in the field, a fine, and a government bailout so that employees can continue to work for a corrupt, non-profit-generating pile of shit that is now owned by the US Taxpayer.

So now.... you tell me. Which do you prefer?


This thread enters a tailspin in 3...2...

....1

RedStripe
05-05-2010, 06:46 PM
Very interesting article, and it definitely puts a different light on things when you think more along this kind of mentality. It's a perfect example of tragedy of the commons---which is perfectly logical.

Haha, first of all, Lew Rockwell is the prototypical vulgar, right-wing libertarian and this "article" perfectly encapsulates everything that is wrong with right-wing libertarianism.

Second of all, the so-called "tragedy of the commons" is one of the most misunderstood arguments in the history of political economy. There's nothing inherently wrong with property managed and owned in common (just like there is nothing wrong with all types of joint ownership, per se, which permeate our entire economy). Even the author of the original argument that gave rise to the phrase "the tragedy of the commons" regretted that it was not labeled "the tragedy of the unmanaged commons." (more on this issue (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/common-versus-government-property/))

Now I don't think the federal government should be the organization in charge of "managing" properties that are, by necessity, the commons (since having exclusive control and ownership of the ocean - which many many people are currently using - is ridiculous and impossible to establish aside from fiat law). But that's mainly because the federal government is clearly inept at doing so, probably because it represents a particular economic class (aka, the wealthy capitalists - though it may scapegoat a particular faction at a given time for political purposes).

Anyway, Lew's article is just plain stupid. Of course we should all be sorry about what happened - it's not like I do a fist pump whenever an army helicopter manufactured by some defense industry parasite crashes - but that doesn't mean we should feel sorry for BP, the fictional legal person (which has not, of course, simply been a passive recipient of government favoritism (as all corporations are), but is actually an active and prominent government parasite).

RedStripe
05-05-2010, 06:51 PM
All of you saying BP should be commended for making our modern lives possible, think of this. If BP didn't drill the oil, someone else would have. We don't owe them shit. They have helped overthrow governments that weren't selling oil cheap enough. Fuck the company, I hope they go bankrupt.

... but the british government would just bail them out, of course.

Yea seriously. Should we also be likewise "thankful" for the government in providing us with schools, roads, etc?

Ridiculous. Screw BP, and screw the government.

awake
05-05-2010, 07:59 PM
In fits of frustration we are trying to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Because the thing we commonly know as the state has systematically corrupted huge aspects of human life and has given quarter to unscrupulous businessmen seeking the safety of guaranteed profit at taxpayers expense, one should not loose sight of an important fact: oil companies still produce a market demanded commodity, right, wrong or indifferent. Like it or loath it, it stands irrefutable.

The one thing you must remember, that if it were possible to abolish government by morning, and every individual at once was bare to the full forces of unmolested free exchange, you would have at once oil companies that would be producing at the immediate command of the consumers who demanded their product. Accidents in the delivery of that wanted product would be rightly seen in its proper proportions; an unfortunate mishap; a loss to all those who could have benefited by the added supply which is now unavailable.

We should at least acknowledge the corrupting force of monopolistic parasitism that the state makes first possible before we condemn market participants as the sole source of it.

As for the common property thing...

"Property managed and owned in common" is the basis of all conflict. Some one must be the ultimate decider of who gets to use scarce resources. And if every one is the owner of all property, those who ordinarily under private property, who would own little or none, will ceaselessly misdirect the common property into lines of self interested misuse. If I own nothing I will have no incentive to properly manage common property, instead I have every incentive to use up and destroy as much property as I can as it would seem that there is more where that came from - virtually limitless.

Common property can only work on the smallest of levels, marriage and partnerships of limited scale, etc. If even then. In larger applications it pronounces the necessary existence of a monopoly government of the most ruthless favorites and favored to administer property, in a useless effort I might add, to mitigate the chaos unleashed. Look at any divorce proceeding and tell me common property is a basis of peaceful coexistence, or the truth of the matter, an outright war between the joint owners of property. It is in fact a judge that must reestablish property rights between joint owners to even attempt to bring back civility.

My body is my property - under community ownership I do not have a say in what can be done with it. If the community wants free labor, my body can be offered as a token to the community against my will - in other words, I am enslaved.

BTW "Haha, first of all, Lew Rockwell is the prototypical vulgar, right-wing libertarian and this "article" perfectly encapsulates everything that is wrong with right-wing libertarianism."

What makes you so secure that the same statement can not be retooled and leveled just as easily, if not easier, at left wing anarchists?

BenIsForRon
05-05-2010, 08:42 PM
Accidents in the delivery of that wanted product would be rightly seen in its proper proportions; an unfortunate mishap; a loss to all those who could have benefited by the added supply which is now unavailable.

That's the only negative side to this whole thing you can see? You are delusional.

Vessol
05-05-2010, 08:50 PM
Lol, BP has it's hands so deep in the government's pockets it's coming out the otherside.

awake
05-05-2010, 09:09 PM
That's the only negative side to this whole thing you can see? You are delusional.

Other than the obvious tragedy that 11 men traded their lives to deliver the rest of us oil...


I'm not sure where you get off using the term delusional as representative of any thing I have posted.


Please fill me in on the negatives you think I should be seeing?

BenIsForRon
05-05-2010, 10:33 PM
Please fill me in on the negatives you think I should be seeing?

Environmental destruction. There are many wetland preserves threatened by this spill. We don't know how long a recovery will take, or if there will be a full recovery in all the affected areas. There may be endangered species there.

The way you worded this statement --"Accidents in the delivery of that wanted product would be rightly seen in its proper proportions" -- shows that you believe the accident only has one serious consequence (the economic), and that the environmental concerns are illegitimate. Am I wrong, is that not what you were trying to convey?

charrob
05-05-2010, 11:34 PM
...have not read this thread, it would make me too irate to. But in case it hasn't already been mentioned, the dispersant BP is using is apparently toxic:


Dispersant 'May Make Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill More Toxic'
Scientists fear chemicals used in oil clean-up can cause genetic mutations and cancer, and threaten sea turtles and tuna
by Suzanne Goldenberg

Chemicals used to break up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill before it reaches shore could do lasting damage to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, environmental scientists say.
By BP's own account, it has mobilised a third of the world's supply of dispersant, so far pouring about 140,000 gallons (637,000 litres) of the cocktail into the Gulf as of today. Some of the dispersant has been injected directly into the source of the spill on the ocean floor, a technique never deployed before, deepening concerns about further damage to the environment.

A dispersant plane passes over an oil skimmer as it cleans oil from a leaking pipeline that resulted from last week's explosion and collapse of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico near the coast of Louisiana Tuesday, April 27, 2010. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) The dispersants are designed to break down crude into tiny drops, which can be eaten up by naturally occurring bacteria, to lessen the impact of a giant sea of crude washing on to oyster beds and birds' nests on shore. But environmental scientists say the dispersants, which can cause genetic mutations and cancer, add to the toxicity of the spill. That exposes sea turtles and bluefin tuna to an even greater risk than crude alone. Dolphins and whales have already been spotted in the spill.The dangers are even greater for dispersants poured into the source of the spill, where they are picked up by the current and wash through the Gulf.

The high demand for dispersant carries an additional risk. As BP runs through stocks of the chemical, called Corexit, scientists fear it will fall back on older stockpiles in the developing world that are more toxic than those approved for use in the US. "You are trying to mitigate the volume of the spill with dispersant, but the price you pay is increased toxicity," said Richard Charter, a scientific adviser to Defenders of Wildlife. "There are no good answers in a mess of this size."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/05-11


I personally hope the price of gas goes up by $5.00 per gallon. Feel sorry for John Doe with the big SUV? dream on! I hope John Doe gets blisters on his feet from walking.

My compassion goes to the innocent marine life who are dying slow, painful, deaths because of human greed. We've MURDERED life that we share the earth with: life as intelligent (if not more intelligent) then our own life forms when it comes to dolphins, porpoises, and whales.

The abject materialism of Corporatists makes me sick.

There are some things that a dollar sign can't be placed on: some things that are too priceless: some things that you NEVER take .000001% of a chance of ever hurting. All offshore rigs should be stopped immedately and never restarted: we'll get along: oil prices will rise and the market will naturally create alternate modes of transportation and fuels. We'll be hurting for awhile, but better it be us then innocent life that should not have to pay for our laziness.

charrob
05-05-2010, 11:56 PM
Environmental destruction. There are many wetland preserves threatened by this spill. We don't know how long a recovery will take, or if there will be a full recovery in all the affected areas. There may be endangered species there.


20 years after Exxon Valdez and the Alaskan areas around that as well as some of the species that were affected have still not recovered...only 8 percent of the oil spilled in Valdez was cleaned up: the environment had to take in 92 percent which wasn't cleaned up. And this disaster may be worse than Valdez.

No matter how much people will say that suing a company is the answer, that is just pure bullshit. Because the environment will never totally be healthy again. There are endangered species who live in that area, but it's not yet known if they will be affected, and to what extent.

The other threat is that unlike on the west coast, the Gulf Stream flows north on up the entire east coast. They are already predicting that we'll be seeing at least some of this all the way up to New England eventually. And, also unlike the west coast, the east coast in lined with critical wetlands for habitat.

DjLoTi
05-05-2010, 11:59 PM
Feel sorry for BP? Definitely not. They have harmed and destroyed the planet on an enormous scale.

Does it matter if it was BP? No. If it wasn't BP, it would have been some other oil company. It doesn't matter which one it is. They are all promoting the cars-need-oil fallacy.

I've said time and time again, cars don't need oil. We're destroying our planet for nothing and they have all the world that can blame them. I hope they go down as well as all oil companies......

.Tom
05-06-2010, 12:02 AM
My friend's dad was the Vice President of Enron and is currently in prison. I know how these corporate scumbags behave. I don't feel sorry for BP one bit. They fucked up, they pay the price.

RedStripe
05-06-2010, 12:43 AM
In fits of frustration we are trying to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Because the thing we commonly know as the state has systematically corrupted huge aspects of human life and has given quarter to unscrupulous businessmen seeking the safety of guaranteed profit at taxpayers expense, one should not loose sight of an important fact: oil companies still produce a market demanded commodity, right, wrong or indifferent. Like it or loath it, it stands irrefutable.

The one thing you must remember, that if it were possible to abolish government by morning, and every individual at once was bare to the full forces of unmolested free exchange, you would have at once oil companies that would be producing at the immediate command of the consumers who demanded their product. Accidents in the delivery of that wanted product would be rightly seen in its proper proportions; an unfortunate mishap; a loss to all those who could have benefited by the added supply which is now unavailable.

We should at least acknowledge the corrupting force of monopolistic parasitism that the state makes first possible before we condemn market participants as the sole source of it.

So? Yo haven't said anything that would make BP worthy of sympathy. The exact same could be said for Gazprom, or any other state-run enterprise or state activity. Wow, they produce goods and services. Wow, it's a corrupt system. Ok, and?



As for the common property thing...

"Property managed and owned in common" is the basis of all conflict.

Really? The source of ALL conflict? You could also say that property in general is the source of all conflict, which would be just as overly-simplistic and flat-out wrong as your statement. I mean, do you have any evidence for this extraordinary finding? The social scientists will be amazed!

Fact: Property managed and owned in common works out in millions of cases just fine.

With respect to certain types of property claims, it's the best solution to the problem of scarcity. No doubt, of course, that individualized private ownership, in some cases, is a better solution.

Please read the article I posted the first time. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/common-versus-government-property/



Some one must be the ultimate decider of who gets to use scarce resources. And if every one is the owner of all property, those who ordinarily under private property, who would own little or none, will ceaselessly misdirect the common property into lines of self interested misuse. If I own nothing I will have no incentive to properly manage common property, instead I have every incentive to use up and destroy as much property as I can as it would seem that there is more where that came from - virtually limitless.

Clearly you don't even understand what commonly owned and managed property is to begin with. Just because something is owned in common doesn't mean that someone with some rights to use the property can just do whatever they want - in fact, that's the exact opposite of what the managed commons are. They are managed because there are rules that govern the use of the property by those who have the right to use it. It's just a basic mixture of common law and contractual law.



Common property can only work on the smallest of levels, marriage and partnerships of limited scale, etc. If even then.

Yea, it's sooo difficult that's why an enormous amount of property is owned and managed everyday this way, and has been for a long time. :rolleyes:

All sorts of things are owned in common, and there are many ways of establishing common forms of ownership and management - from formal to informal.



In larger applications it pronounces the necessary existence of a monopoly government of the most ruthless favorites and favored to administer property, in a useless effort I might add, to mitigate the chaos unleashed.

Actually, historically it is the government which comes in and takes the commons away and divvies it up to hand over to the rich interests it serves. This is what happened in England, for example, to establish feudalism. But I guess history doesn't fit into your nice little categorical statements. Fishermen, for example, can manage their "commons" extra-judicially and effectively quite easily, if permitted to do so.

You might enjoy reading this: http://www.amazon.com/Order-without-Law-Neighbors-Disputes/dp/0674641698



Look at any divorce proceeding and tell me common property is a basis of peaceful coexistence, or the truth of the matter, an outright war between the joint owners of property.

Gee, I would use happy-married couples as an example of the merits of joint ownership but I'm intellectually honest enough to know that it's the quality of the marriage and not the system of property that makes the difference.



It is in fact a judge that must reestablish property rights between joint owners to even attempt to bring back civility.

And all people who own property individually get along just fine with each other, without the need of judges, in the planet you are visiting from, right?

Do you even realize you're essentially arguing that contracts are bad because judges have to settle disputes between the two parties to a contract?



My body is my property - under community ownership I do not have a say in what can be done with it.

No one's talking about "community" ownership, or your body. The fact that you would even bring up the idea of people owning each others bodies as an example of common property is not only hilarious but a telltale sign that you haven't even made an elementary effort into finding out what common property means.



If the community wants free labor, my body can be offered as a token to the community against my will - in other words, I am enslaved.

Ah, right. The inevitable descent into equating The Thing You Disagree With (but don't quite understand) to your own personal enslavement.



BTW "Haha, first of all, Lew Rockwell is the prototypical vulgar, right-wing libertarian and this "article" perfectly encapsulates everything that is wrong with right-wing libertarianism."

What makes you so secure that the same statement can not be retooled and leveled just as easily, if not easier, at left wing anarchists?

Because it does not contain an allegation that could be directed at an ideology, basically.

All the statement does is claim that 1) Lew Rockwell is a good example of someone who adheres to this particular ideology, 2) the article is a good example of all the things within that ideology which I judge to be wrong.

Honestly I just don't see what you're getting at with this whole "retooling and leveling the statement" against left anarchists. I mean, i guess you could find a left-anarchist author/article you didn't like and say the same things. More power to ya.

awake
05-06-2010, 04:44 AM
You skip around the property issue too well...

"those who oppose property rights inevitably support the state or other forms of aggression."

stu2002
05-06-2010, 06:27 AM
My friend's dad was the Vice President of Enron and is currently in prison. I know how these corporate scumbags behave. I don't feel sorry for BP one bit. They fucked up, they pay the price.

Right on

RedStripe
05-06-2010, 10:42 AM
You skip around the property issue too well...

"those who oppose property rights inevitably support the state or other forms of aggression."

Yea, except I don't "oppose property rights" simply because you have a narrow understanding of property rights.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: saying "property rights" as if that's some well-defined concept is just misinformed.

Free Moral Agent
05-06-2010, 01:14 PM
I don't feel sorry for BP at all - infact I hope this absolutely bankrupts them! This is the same corporation that with the help of the CIA and our government overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 1953 (see Operation Ajax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax)).

This article is childish. I know I'm being a bit facetious here, but Lew is the kind of Libertarian asshole that would waste energy or kill an endangered bird just to "stick it" to environmentalists or people that care about their environment.

I think its hilarious when he says this...


It is not as if BP profits by oil leaks, or that anyone reveled in the chance to dump its precious oil all over the ocean. BP gains nothing from this.

Then goes on to say...


Are we really supposed to believe that government is better able to deal with this disaster than private industry?

Hmmm define "deal" Lew... Because we know how important it is to BP's bottom line to make sure the coastline isn't full of sludge. :rolleyes:

The liability for any environmental damage should be 100% given the ocean is a public space, its ridiuclous that the company must first presume ownership. There is no more incentive to clean up ones own house than there is to clean up ones portion of the ocean which inherently is a shared ecosystem.

If I were to goto a public park and dump gallons of oil in a lake where people fish, do you think I would only be liable for 75% of the damage? Sounds to me like BP is getting preferential treatment, but thats nothing new... And yeah the fact that he calls the ecosystem an "abstraction" shows you how much of an idiot he really is.