Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

BP's oil spill - should Statism come to the rescue?

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Or maybe, the US should have had Regulations that made this impossible.
    For example in that link i provided earlier, they mention additional failsafe's that Canada, Norway, Brazil and other countries mandate that the US don't.

    Also, the US could require that a company submit and review a DeepWater Drilling Emergency Plan before work commences.


  • Options
    #93
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    ei.sdraob wrote: »

    need I remind you that these "statists" are not even capable of putting a man in orbit anymore with the shuttle retiring ;) never mind the moon


    oh really? :rolleyes:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7106714.ece


  • Options
    #94
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    If the government steps in now, that means BP have to step aside

    and that will mean more wasted time and more pollution

    the question you should be asking is: how long would it take the US government to stop the leak?

    I don't think they can, either can BP which shows how good the market is at preventing these disasters? Are BP (the whole area of prevention and fixing the mess does fall under their remit) able to fix any future problems, are other companies able to do? At least oilc ompanies should be up front about their capabilities.


  • Options
    #95
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Wrong it brought out people who want BP to be held responsible and clean-up own mess, without getting the inefficient state involved and making matters worse

    The only reason people are talking about the US government stepping in is that BP can't handle it, it's been what 4 weeks or so and the behemoth of buisness can't fix it. I know some of this doesn't tie in with L Rand Hubbard philosophies but there you go.
    It's not about who should at this stage but who can, both BP and the US government have to step up and be honest about what their capabilities and limitations are.


  • Options
    #96
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I wish them luck also, I don't care who does it as long as it's done and quickly. Like I said I doubt the US government can fix it either and if BP (or the other compnay that done the drilling) can't fix it then I think it raises questions about their other operations
    Why has the latest bumper sticker slogan "statism" have to be dragged into debates now?


  • Options
    #98
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    fontanalis wrote: »
    Why has the latest bumper sticker slogan "statism" have to be dragged into debates now?
    It's the successor to "socialism".


  • Options
    #99
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    taconnol wrote: »
    It's the successor to "socialism".

    one requires the other in order to control the people


  • Options
    #100
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    one requires the other in order to control the people

    In a state with any degree of freedom (and that includes most states) people are controlled only to the extent that they consent to it. The trick is to win their consent, either by being straightforward or by being somewhat deceptive.

    Deceptive methods include propagandists' tricks like labelling things in order to attack them, such as calling all government action statism, and representing statism as a bad thing. It avoids the problem of having to consider government actions singly, and perhaps finding that some are good, others are bad, and most lie somewhere in between.

    Statism is unlike socialism or capitalism in that it is not a real ideology. It is simply the implementation at government level of the political choices made by the people, or at least with their consent. The only people who might see statism as an ideology are those whose own ideology is fundamentally opposed to the very idea of government. Personally, I regard such people as being on the lunatic fringe.


  • Options
    #101
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    one requires the other in order to control the people

    I think Glen Beck stole your chalk board :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    fontanalis wrote: »
    I think Glen Beck stole your chalk board :D

    I had to google his name :o


  • Options
    #103
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Just a question: if libertarians really are members of the "lunatic fringe" why do you spend so much time arguing with them, and why would you set up a thread targeted at libertarians?


  • Options
    #104
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Just a question: if libertarians really are members of the "lunatic fringe" why do you spend so much time arguing with them, and why would you set up a thread targeted at libertarians?

    I think libertarians almost fall under the term "herding cats" that sometimes is used for atheists. Basically it can be a catch all term and many people who label themselves libertarians might find it hard to unify in a party.
    Personally I think some of the ideas are good but I draw the line at the all powerful market notion.


  • Options
    #105
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Just a question: if libertarians really are members of the "lunatic fringe" why do you spend so much time arguing with them, and why would you set up a thread targeted at libertarians?

    Are you asking me?


  • Options
    #106
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    fontanalis wrote: »
    Basically it can be a catch all term and many people who label themselves libertarians might find it hard to unify in a party.

    Agreed. I don't like the way the forum has, of late, developed an "us vs them" attitude with respect to libertarianism, especially as it involves wide generalizations and sterotypes. Both sides have been guilty of this kind of thing, in fairness. I don't agree with calling everyone who isn't a libertarian a statist in the same way that I don't agree with calling everyone who is a libertarian a lunatic. By digging the trenches to deep and so ruthlessly the debate has descended into a pedantic and highly unenjoyable slagging match, with the common ground adopting a real "no mans land" feel: it has become, really, the place where no one dares to go.
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Are you asking me?

    Everyone, really. :)


  • Options
    #107
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #108
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,648 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    BP is trying something else right now:

    500x_topkill.jpg


    Live stream here:

    http://consumerist.com/2010/05/bp-top-hat.html


  • Options
    #109
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    I think it has come to a "us versus them" debate because some posters have particularly strong views and to debate with such views requires taking up the opposite view even if you don't believe the opposite is true either. In other words there is no middle ground when arguing with ideologues.


  • Options
    #110
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    ...
    Everyone, really. :)

    I'm the one who used the phrase "lunatic fringe". I applied it to "those whose own ideology is fundamentally opposed to the very idea of government".


  • Options
    #111
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I'm the one who used the phrase "lunatic fringe". I applied it to "those whose own ideology is fundamentally opposed to the very idea of government".

    I suppose atheists who oppose the very idea of religion were also called "lunatics" once upon a time, do remember it was the religious that ended up raping people...

    having no government or small government doesn't mean having no laws or regulations or welfare insurance or taking care of sick, but weve been thru that so many time on this forum its getting rather old


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I'm the one who used the phrase "lunatic fringe". I applied it to "those whose own ideology is fundamentally opposed to the very idea of government".

    I'm aware of that. My question was targeted at posters here in general.
    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Just a question: if libertarians really are members of the "lunatic fringe" why do you spend so much time arguing with them, and why would you set up a thread targeted at libertarians?

    Rather awkward phrasing, I realize. The the first "you" was meant to be plural; the second, singular.


  • Options
    #113
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Right, I'm calling time on both of these "statism" threads. Mostly because there's hotheadedness going on here that I don't particularly like with my moderator hat on. Fault on both sides and I'm locking this before I just ban about four of you to make my life easier.

    Note for this specific thread: comments on moderation don't go here, they go through the channels existing for those comments. I shouldn't have to make that reminder.

    Note for this specific thread re my own question in post 2 for those that answered in a first usage way: the term statism has been around since the 17th century. It gained currency when used by Mikhail Bakunin as the first part of the title of his last book (Statism and Anarchy)in 1873. Websters need to update their definitions. It's currently in print in English and easy to find if that's your bag, though he didn't use it in its modern general meaning. My question was in reference to its usage here on the forum and frankly I'm sorry I asked.

    Public bit: terms like "statism" aren't well defined as people disagree on what it means. Additionally it's one of those trigger words like "trots" or "teabaggers" that's often thrown to make an insulting point. Start with that sword (at least it'll be perceived by some to be so) in discussion and there will be blood as people assume there will. Just a seed for thought.

    Private bit: by PM to relevant parties / the guilty when I have time to write it.

    Enough, for those with hot heads, find a cold shower. Yes, I'm aware that locking this leaves no-one happy. I can live with that.

    /mod


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement