"Top-Kill" positive karma thread

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Really? Then why did one of the most currently famous Libertarians around chastise Obama for being "UnAmerican" enough for daring to criticize BP?

You're going to have to let me know what, specifically, you are talking about here. While you're at it, you should also let me know why it has become my responsibility to defend some statement that some other guy somewhere said. I didn't realize I all of a sudden became the proxy representative of all libertarians and have to defend every comment every one of them throws out there.

[DarrylS]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

I think both the Boston Globe and James Carville spelled out exactly what he should be doing. As I explained in another thread, I cannot embed video in here and I am not going to transcribe James Carville's comments but you can see them at ABCnews.com.

Where were all you "what can he do?" people when it came to FEMA '05? Many of you had join dates from before that summer... I can only imagine the comments from this forum's left leaning members if I did a search.

let me make this as simple as I can, as obviously in your reading of Red State and the such unables you to discern the actual truths..

Katrina, was a natural disaster, Brown and his crew were incompetent in getting supplies and the such to NOLA... that could have happened, and is government business... in retrospect much of what happened was based on the shortcoming of Army Corps of Engineers and all of the support agencies.. about 1500 people died in that natural disaster..

In terms of that disaster, due to its magnitude and impact, there is plenty of blame to go around on all levels of government.. but the agency with the most resources, was very slow to respond.

BP allowed this man made disaster to happen, due to their incompetence and their ability to skirt many of the rules and regulations.. i.e. they were reckless. The US does not have the resources or assets to stop this disaster, they can insure that everything is being done and insure that the clean up is done correctly. A poster mentioned previously about a submersible going into the Marianna Trench or the tired putting a man on the moon, but the difference is both of those activities were planned..

What I hear is a whole bunch of partisan rhetoric, but no one has said what can be done differently.. right now there are 1000 US boats and over 20K personnel located there..

[mcgraw_wv]

Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa

I'm confused. I thought Libertarians were all about private companies being protected from government interference.

That's one facet of it. However a bigger pillar to most libertarians is that here we have a private entity that is infringing on hundreds and thousands of other people's property.

This is what most people don't get about Libertarians... They say, if we follwed Liberty, we would allow big business to destroy the environment, it's simply false, becuase once you can prove the creek on your land is ruined, or something else has been effected than that company has destroyed your personal proprty...

And to libertarians, there is nothing more important than private property.

BP is destroying personal homes, businesses, and all other things that rely on the beach for their income, or paid a lot of money to have that beach out their backyard.

I personally travel every year to Clearwater for the Blues fest, and would hate to go their next year to an oil covered beach.

[Mrs.PatsFanInVa]

Originally Posted by mcgraw_wv

That's one facet of it. However a bigger pillar to most libertarians is that here we have a private entity that is infringing on hundreds and thousands of other people's property.

This is what most people don't get about Libertarians... They say, if we follwed Liberty, we would allow big business to destroy the environment, it's simply false, becuase once you can prove the creek on your land is ruined, or something else has been effected than that company has destroyed your personal proprty...

And to libertarians, there is nothing more important than private property.

I thank you for the answer, Mcgraw, and I appreciate your taking time to give it to me. I really just don't understand, I guess, and your explanation does help.....but it does lead to more questions, of course.

On one hand, we have Libertarians saying that private businesses should be allowed to serve or not serve whoever they want - that it's their business, they own it, and they have the right to refuse dealing with anyone they don't want to deal with.

But now you say that if someone infringes on your individual property, destroyed part or all of it or otherwise caused it harm, doesn't that also lead to this:

You own a home in a nice little suburb, home values are high and your neighbors are all pretty much alike.....until the house next door to yours is sold to someone "different." Someone you wouldn't do business with if you had a business. You are pretty sure your home values are going to plummet - doesn't that give you the right now to say that you don't want this person living next door to you and wouldn't a Libertarian government support your right to somehow prevent that person from moving next door to you?

It's far-fetched maybe, but people are stupid and cruel for the most part, and I can honestly see this happening.

Can you tell me it wouldn't? That the new owner would find protection somewhere?

Or is it a real possibility?

[PatsFanInVa]

Originally Posted by mcgraw_wv

That's one facet of it. However a bigger pillar to most libertarians is that here we have a private entity that is infringing on hundreds and thousands of other people's property.

This is what most people don't get about Libertarians... They say, if we follwed Liberty, we would allow big business to destroy the environment, it's simply false, becuase once you can prove the creek on your land is ruined, or something else has been effected than that company has destroyed your personal proprty...

And to libertarians, there is nothing more important than private property.

BP is destroying personal homes, businesses, and all other things that rely on the beach for their income, or paid a lot of money to have that beach out their backyard.

I personally travel every year to Clearwater for the Blues fest, and would hate to go their next year to an oil covered beach.

So let's talk about something effective, preventing the next one of these disasters.

A good libertarian should, by the above logic, also see a compelling interest in preventing drilling in circumstances that make these catastrophes more likely. A good libertarian should, by the above logic, be in favor of the strictest regulation of businesses that could foul the environment in this small local way, or in a global way.

In short, a good libertarian ends up being in favor of robust state regulation of at the very least the oil and chemical industries.

Or is "Libertarian" just a code-word for "Ostritch," able to go with the crowd's sentiments after the fact, but unable to preventively act to make these man-made disasters not happen in the first place?

A national energy policy could, over (say) 50 years, make these disasters as quaint as 19th century cholera outbreaks. Surely a good libertarian sees the wisdom of the government's role in such a policy.

Once again - can a Libertarian proactively do the right thing, or only reactively?

PFnV

[mcgraw_wv]

Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa

I thank you for the answer, Mcgraw, and I appreciate your taking time to give it to me. I really just don't understand, I guess, and your explanation does help.....but it does lead to more questions, of course.

On one hand, we have Libertarians saying that private businesses should be allowed to serve or not serve whoever they want - that it's their business, they own it, and they have the right to refuse dealing with anyone they don't want to deal with.

But now you say that if someone infringes on your individual property, destroyed part or all of it or otherwise caused it harm, doesn't that also lead to this:

You own a home in a nice little suburb, home values are high and your neighbors are all pretty much alike.....until the house next door to yours is sold to someone "different." Someone you wouldn't do business with if you had a business. You are pretty sure your home values are going to plummet - doesn't that give you the right now to say that you don't want this person living next door to you and wouldn't a Libertarian government support your right to somehow prevent that person from moving next door to you?

It's far-fetched maybe, but people are stupid and cruel for the most part, and I can honestly see this happening.

Can you tell me it wouldn't? That the new owner would find protection somewhere?

Or is it a real possibility?

I don't think that situation applies becuase your not directly affecting / damaging physical property. You may think "My house value has dropped, it's affecting my property" but there is nothing I have ever read that associates "perceived value" with real property.

If that were the case then you could say that a hypothetical war of Israel attacking Iran effecting my stock prices, and therefore I am going to sue the country of Israel.

Now, if my Neighbor was dumping motor oil in a hole in the ground, and that seeped over into my yard and destroyed trees and my lawn, we have a problem.

Value is a tricky word, becuase what I value and for how much differs from what you value and for how much, so changes in a perceived value can not be a corner stone in any ideology.

[mcgraw_wv]

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

So let's talk about something effective, preventing the next one of these disasters.

A good libertarian should, by the above logic, also see a compelling interest in preventing drilling in circumstances that make these catastrophes more likely. A good libertarian should, by the above logic, be in favor of the strictest regulation of businesses that could foul the environment in this small local way, or in a global way.

In short, a good libertarian ends up being in favor of robust state regulation of at the very least the oil and chemical industries.

Or is "Libertarian" just a code-word for "Ostritch," able to go with the crowd's sentiments after the fact, but unable to preventively act to make these man-made disasters not happen in the first place?

A national energy policy could, over (say) 50 years, make these disasters as quaint as 19th century cholera outbreaks. Surely a good libertarian sees the wisdom of the government's role in such a policy.

Once again - can a Libertarian proactively do the right thing, or only reactively?

PFnV

I'd hedge on the side that people are innocent before proven guilty, and if you buy a large piece of land, and want to put an oil well on it, you should be able to do that. If you screw up you should expect to pay lots and lots of money.

That aspect will raise the risk factor for others looking to do the same, so it would not become economically feasible to drill for oil of you have to pay out billions if you screw up the environment.

As far as drilling in the Ocean, I have yet to understand how to think about that. On one hand, no one person owns the ocean, so who gives them permission to do that, what property taxes do they pay to do it?

Overall I see it as a very very bad idea to allow people to drill and extract things from property they don't own, and as we see the risk and impact is too large to even think about.

I highly expect the lawsuit and money extracted out of BP should put BP close to out of business. This in turn would factor into the risk of other companies looking to drill in the Gulf or any other body of water.

From an ideology standpoint, I can see the point of view where certain practices always end with destruction of private property and therefore would require permission from those around it, and/or not be allowed, due to the safety and chances of failure, and destruction of property.

Libertarians are not anarchists, we need government. Government is there to enforce property laws, protect the rights and laws of the land as set forth by the constitution, Defend the country from foreign invaders, etc... They aren't there to take from me and re-distrubute it to others. They aren't there to prop up private enterprises. They aren't there to ensure live is fair for everyone.

[sdaniels7114]

Good job HD, your karma seems to be working.

Now if you'd just turn your attention the Celtics/Magic series please.

[Holy Diver]

Originally Posted by sdaniels7114

Good job HD, your karma seems to be working.

Now if you'd just turn your attention the Celtics/Magic series please.

the officials obviously WANTED a game 6, the fix was in.

[Holy Diver]

Originally Posted by sdaniels7114

Good job HD, your karma seems to be working.

Now if you'd just turn your attention the Celtics/Magic series please.

BP temporarily suspends 'top kill' effort - CNN.com

apparently they have stopped the "top-Kill" for the day to reasess the mud, and the oil is still frickin gushing....