Keystone Pipeline

[erowe1]

The Keystone Pipeline never seems to come up here. But other Republicans always want to talk about it. Do people here have any thoughts about it or care either way?

I know it's mainly just a talking point. But it seems like we ought to have something to contribute to the discussion.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't really know much about it. What are they talking about? Are they talking about the government building a pipeline, or allowing a private developer to do so?

I'm all for drilling here in the US, and all against statism. Beyond that, I don't know what my POV is.

[erowe1]

I don't really know much about it. What are they talking about? Are they talking about the government building a pipeline, or allowing a private developer to do so?

I'm all for drilling here in the US, and all against statism. Beyond that, I don't know what my POV is.

It's about allowing a private developer too.

But of course it's not that simple. It's a huge project running North-South through the country, so obviously government would be heavily involved, including seizing a lot of peoples' property by eminent domain most likely.

[Christian Liberty]

It's about allowing a private developer too.

But of course it's not that simple. It's a huge project running North-South through the country, so obviously government would be heavily involved, including seizing a lot of peoples' property by eminent domain most likely.

Then what's the debate? Every libertarian should be against it, in that case.

[erowe1]

Then what's the debate? Every libertarian should be against it, in that case.

What else is involved though? Why is the federal government standing in the way of their building it in the first place? What law allows them to do that? And is that a good law? What does the legislation that the GOP supports have in it? Is eminent domain actually part of it, or just an expected consequence of passing it? And would that eminent domain happen at the state level or the federal?

[Keith and stuff]

The Keystone Pipeline never seems to come up here. But other Republicans always want to talk about it. Do people here have any thoughts about it or care either way?

It seems to be mostly good. IMO, though, since it requires the use of Eminent Domain to steal property for the benefit of a private foreign company, it violates the US Constitution. The SCOTUS disagreed in the Kelo Vs. New London case. Though, I feel the Supreme Court was wrong, just like the Texas law that allows the Keystone Pipeline. It's for the greater good perhaps, but anti-liberty. I wouldn't have a problem with it if eminent domain wasn't used, but it's already too late for that

On the plus side, it is good for the US economy. Though, if there is a pipeline bust, that could cause some major problems within several miles of the bust.

[erowe1]

It seems to be mostly good. IMO, though, since it requires the use of Eminent Domain to steal property for the benefit of a private foreign company, it violates the US Constitution.

Does it actually require that? I know the private company behind it is pushing for that. But is that an actual part of the federal legislation?

What do you mean when you say that it's already too late for that? The pipeline still hasn't been approved.

[Keith and stuff]

Does it actually require that? I know the private company behind it is pushing for that. But is that an actual part of the federal legislation?

What do you mean when you say that it's already too late for that? The pipeline still hasn't been approved.

It's already been partially built. ED has already been used. This has already been talked about on RPFs before.

[erowe1]

It's already been partially built. ED has already been used. This has already been talked about on RPFs before.

Got a source?

Are you maybe talking about the part of it that's in Canada?

[eduardo89]

Got a source?

Are you maybe talking about the part of it that's in Canada?

[Natural Citizen]

It's already been partially built. ED has already been used. This has already been talked about on RPFs before.

And...it's already leaking all over the place.

[helmuth_hubener]

Those for it are for it for the right reasons: let business do business, stop being enviro-whacky-mental cases. Those against it are against it for the wrong reasons: Oil is Satan, let's tap into the power of a nationwide tree hug.

So I would be hesitant to oppose it too loudly, unless I had an audience with sufficient time and interest that I could go into the subtleties. Subtlety is usually lost on most people on such topics. And I don't see it as a major issue. So I pretty much keep my mouth shut and ignore it, and leave the opinion-making on this topic to Bill O'Reilly and Rosie O'Donnell.

[Christian Liberty]

What else is involved though? Why is the federal government standing in the way of their building it in the first place? What law allows them to do that? And is that a good law? What does the legislation that the GOP supports have in it? Is eminent domain actually part of it, or just an expected consequence of passing it? And would that eminent domain happen at the state level or the federal?

I have no idea. Those are good questions that I can't really answer. I think Justin Amash had the right idea with voting "present" unless and until I learn enough to say that he was wrong.

Those for it are for it for the right reasons: let business do business, stop being enviro-whacky-mental cases. Those against it are against it for the wrong reasons: Oil is Satan, let's tap into the power of a nationwide tree hug.

So I would be hesitant to oppose it too loudly, unless I had an audience with sufficient time and interest that I could go into the subtleties. Subtlety is usually lost on most people on such topics. And I don't see it as a major issue. So I pretty much keep my mouth shut and ignore it, and leave the opinion-making on this topic to Bill O'Reilly and Rosie O'Donnell.

Yeah, there's that too. I've always said, and I still do, that America should drill its own oil. HOW is another question.

I don't know if eminient domain is part of the bill or not, but I think at some point that does have to be addressed, though.

[erowe1]

I have no idea. Those are good questions that I can't really answer. I think Justin Amash had the right idea with voting "present" unless and until I learn enough to say that he was wrong.

Thanks for mentioning Amash. I found his statement defending his vote, and it looks good.

I voted present on H R 3, Northern Route Approval Act. The Keystone XL pipeline is a private project owned by TransCanada Corporation. This bill improperly exempts TransCanada Corporation—and no other company—from laws that require pipeline owners and operators to obtain certain government permits and approvals.

I support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and holding it up for over four years (with no end in sight) for political reasons is wrong. It's improper, however, for Congress to write a bill that names and benefits one private project, while doing nothing to address the underlying problems that allowed such delays to occur. The Constitution gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," but the Rule of Law requires that legislation be of general, not specific, applicability. A proper bill would address the circumstances that allow *any* such project to be held up for political reasons, not just Keystone XL.

As F.A. Hayek explained in The Constitution of Liberty: "It is because the lawgiver does not know the particular cases to which his rules will apply, and it is because the judge who applies them has no choice in drawing the conclusions that follow from the existing body of rules and the particular facts of the case, that it can be said that laws and not men rule. Because the rule is laid down in ignorance of the particular case and no man's will decides the coercion used to enforce it, the law is not arbitrary. This, however, is true only if by 'law' we mean the general rules that apply equally to everybody. This generality is probably the most important aspect of that attribute of law which we have called its 'abstractness.' As a true law should not name any particulars, so it should especially not single out any specific persons or group of persons."

My commitment to my constituents when I took office was that I may vote present on legislation in three extremely rare circumstances (this is the 12th present vote out of nearly two thousand votes in Congress): (1) when I could otherwise support the legislation, but the legislation uses improper means to achieve its ends, e.g., singling out a specific person or group for special treatment; (2) when Representatives have not been given a reasonable amount of time to consider the legislation; or (3) when I have a conflict of interest, such as a personal or financial interest in the legislation—a circumstance that hasn't happened yet and I don't anticipate happening.

H R 3 uses improper means to accomplish its laudable goal by singling out TransCanada Corporation and its Keystone XL pipeline for special treatment.

It passed 241-175-1.

https://www.facebook.com/repjustinam...57041991001878

This was his same reasoning when he opposed the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

[Christian Liberty]

Thanks for mentioning Amash. I found his statement defending his vote, and it looks good.

https://www.facebook.com/repjustinam...57041991001878

This was his same reasoning when he opposed the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

I'm glad I was able to read that again, I had read it awhile back. Amash seems to know what he's doing.

[erowe1]

Those for it are for it for the right reasons

What makes you think that?

To me it smells like a wag the dog situation. Nobody would even be talking about it if it weren't for someone who stands to make big profits from it pushing it as an issue. And the people who seem to be the most zealously for it are the Republican establishment.

I don't know enough to be decided on it. But I am inclined to distrust the whole thing. I just want to make sure I have my ducks in a row before I start telling people they should oppose it.

[helmuth_hubener]

What makes you think that?

Very limited experience, hearing people talk about it. It's framed as a pro-business vs. pro-environment issue. I'm talking about regular folks, of course, not power players. The bigwigs who support it have their own reasons for supporting it -- no doubt self-interested ones, and no doubt ones largely unrelated to the publicly stated reasons. That's just politics.

Now whether it should be framed as it is -- business vs. environment -- is dubious. But that is the perception; that is the narrative. You may decide the best course when talking about this issue would be to back up and explain, not your position on the issue at first, but rather why the entire way that they think about the issue is flawed. In other words, convince them to throw out the narrative they know, to toss the entire framework, and instead accept an entirely different Keystone narrative and then base their Keystone opinion upon that. Probably the new narrative would have to do with private property rights vs. (stealing for) the common good.

[Christian Liberty]

@erowe1- Well, most conservatives I know personally think its ridiculous that the US constantly has to deal with OPEC in order to get oil when we can just drill our own oil. Some of them even recognize that the War in Iraq was at least in part for oil, and they think that we should have drilled our own instead. They're mad at environmentalist wackos who don't want to drill American oil because "oh the horror, the environment." That, to me, says their hearts are in the right place. The ED issue rarely even gets discussed.

Its possible, probable, that the developer who is pushing for it has poor intentions. I know FedGov has poor intentions. But the average person on the street, at least in my experience, who supports it does so for good reasons.

[erowe1]

But the average person on the street, at least in my experience, who supports it does so for good reasons.

The average person on the street wouldn't know the first thing about it if the issue weren't being pushed by someone. They're just repeating after whatever conservative talking head they listen to. It's like the jedi mind trick.

[Christian Liberty]

The average person on the street wouldn't know the first thing about it if the issue weren't being pushed by someone. They're just repeating after whatever conservative talking head they listen to. It's like the jedi mind trick.

Yes, this is probably true. As Helmuth_hubener said, most people who support this just support the idea of drilling local oil and not wanting to be tied down by the middle east or environmentalist wackos. They don't know the nuances like we do, or like Justin Amash does.

[ILUVRP]

i had a farm and i know i would not want it going thru my land .

there is no way this is going to help america except for the short time jobs to build it . once the oil ( if thats what people call it ) gets to texas refinery the products will be shipped over seas .

the price we pay for gasoline will go up at least 50c a gallon because the refineries will be doing the tar sands then shiping it overseas .

if it was such a great deal for america why don't they build refineries up north .

more than anything i want america to get off arab oil and getting gi's killed over it . natural gas is our only near term answer .

[Brian4Liberty]

Forum hiccup.

[Brian4Liberty]

i had a farm and i know i would not want it going thru my land .

there is no way this is going to help america except for the short time jobs to build it . once the oil ( if thats what people call it ) gets to texas refinery the products will be shipped over seas .

the price we pay for gasoline will go up at least 50c a gallon because the refineries will be doing the tar sands then shiping it overseas .

if it was such a great deal for america why don't they build refineries up north .

more than anything i want america to get off arab oil and getting gi's killed over it . natural gas is our only near term answer .

Yep, one of the major reasons that the oil companies push the pipeline "solution" is so that they can export refined products out of the country via the Texas ports. CEOs have publicly stated that it is a big problem that oil in the US is too cheap, and it needs to be exported so that they can drive the price up.

[Seraphim]

AFAIK a lot of the oil sent down would be consumed by Americans in the Gulf region.

i had a farm and i know i would not want it going thru my land .

there is no way this is going to help america except for the short time jobs to build it . once the oil ( if thats what people call it ) gets to texas refinery the products will be shipped over seas .

the price we pay for gasoline will go up at least 50c a gallon because the refineries will be doing the tar sands then shiping it overseas .

if it was such a great deal for america why don't they build refineries up north .

more than anything i want america to get off arab oil and getting gi's killed over it . natural gas is our only near term answer .

[Zippyjuan]

Yes, this is probably true. As Helmuth_hubener said, most people who support this just support the idea of drilling local oil and not wanting to be tied down by the middle east or environmentalist wackos. They don't know the nuances like we do, or like Justin Amash does.

Do you consider Canada tar sands to be "local oil"? Tar sands oil requires lots of refining and the places to do that are mostly in Texas and Louisiana so they want to build a pipeline all the way from Canada down to there- instead of either building a refinery closer or using trains to transport the oil. Without government help, a private company can't get all the continuous land needed to build a pipelline.

[erowe1]

Without government help, a private company can't get all the continuous land needed to build a pipelline.

If stands to be that profitable, I bet they could.

But that's a good point. How much of this is all about eminent domain?

[Christian Liberty]

Do you consider Canada tar sands to be "local oil"? Tar sands oil requires lots of refining and the places to do that are mostly in Texas and Louisiana so they want to build a pipeline all the way from Canada down to there- instead of either building a refinery closer or using trains to transport the oil. Without government help, a private company can't get all the continuous land needed to build a pipelline.

This isn't really about what I think. I didn't say I agreed with them.

[Brian4Liberty]

I am strongly opposed to the eminent domain aspect of the pipeline.

IMHO, it would be better to build a refinery closer to the oil fields, rather than piping the oil across the country, and then trucking the gasoline back. Of course the crony government/oil company partnership makes sure that no new refineries can be built.

[erowe1]

and then trucking the gasoline back.

I imagine that there would end up being more trucking of the gasoline to America if the refinery were in Canada than there will be trucking it to Canada from a refinery in Texas.

[Brian4Liberty]

I imagine that there would end up being more trucking of the gasoline to America if the refinery were in Canada than there will be trucking it to Canada from a refinery in Texas.

It's about refining the oil closer to where it is used. One huge central refining hub in Texas requires more trucking of gasoline. Adding regional refineries cuts down on distance to pipe oil and distance to truck gasoline. There are already plenty of pipelines. Oil does not have to be solely refined in either Canada or Texas.

The Keystone XL is just a new express pipeline extension from Canada to Texas.