Deep water oil spill - libertarian solution

northwest100

How would Libertarians propose solving the current Deepwater horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?

From what i'm reading online, most commentators accept this ecological disaster is the result of deregulation by the Bush/Cheney administration, beginning with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

How would a Libertarian system of government prevent such a disaster?

Thanks.

silverharp

Currently the Gulf of Mexico is effectively owned and or regulated by the US government , a possible Libertarian solution is that the Gulf of Mexico would be private and owners of private propery tend to look after their assets more closely then regulators that can be bought off.

simplistic2

True news special in here .
The government that jails the innocent, tortures the meek and sells your children does NOT care about your frackin otters! The fascistic reality behind modern corporations, and a brief review of tenure for teachers.

Denerick

silverharp wrote: »

Currently the Gulf of Mexico is effectively owned and or regulated by the US government , a possible Libertarian solution is that the Gulf of Mexico would be private and owners of private propery tend to look after their assets more closely then regulators that can be bought off.

Thats not a solution, thats merely a faulty analysis that private businesses are better at regulating their environmental responsibilities than the State. There is as little reason to believe that as the alternative.

northwest100

Denerick wrote:

Thats not a solution, thats merely a faulty analysis that private businesses are better at regulating their environmental responsibilities than the State. There is as little reason to believe that as the alternative.

I'm sure there are companies with management who share the concerns of environmentalists, but they are few and far between.

BP certainly aren't environmentally conscience, nor are any oil company.

For me, the reason this catastrophe occurred is because BP avoided safety regulations in order to save money.

I understand why they acted irresponsibly.. they were behind schedule and needed to save money.

They had a responsibility to make money for the stock broker, and that's all they were concerned about.

The assumption an oil company would prioritise marine wildlife over profits is completely ludicrous.

I don't believe in all government regulations, but concerning environmental issues, certainly you cannot allow a monstrosity like BP or any oil company for that matter, to regulate itself.

This situation reminds me of "On Deadly Ground"

Apart from the bad acting and dialogue in parts, it has an important message which many people blissfully ignore.

White men are stupid.

silverharp

Denerick wrote: »

Thats not a solution, thats merely a faulty analysis that private businesses are better at regulating their environmental responsibilities than the State. There is as little reason to believe that as the alternative.

Its fairly reasonable to assume that state regulation will fail as its based on "faulty" assumptions. Not withstanding the fact that s*** happens a Libertarian solution will tend to match risk and rewards and will tend to avoid moral hazard and free riding in a way that a statist framework cant ever hope to achieve. For instance I gather BP had a limit on its liability here (moral hazard). There would be so such presumption in a free market. A driller would have to price in the risk of a serious spill and have adequate insurance. An interesting aspect of Libertarian philosophy on the limitied liability company ( a statist creation) is that we would be more willing to lift the corporate veil and would hold directors and founders financially responsible.

Denerick

silverharp wrote: »

Its fairly reasonable to assume that state regulation will fail as its based on "faulty" assumptions. Not withstanding the fact that s*** happens a Libertarian solution will tend to match risk and rewards and will tend to avoid moral hazard and free riding in a way that a statist framework cant ever hope to achieve. For instance I gather BP had a limit on its liability here (moral hazard). There would be so such presumption in a free market. A driller would have to price in the risk of a serious spill and have adequate insurance. An interesting aspect of Libertarian philosophy on the limitied liability company ( a statist creation) is that we would be more willing to lift the corporate veil and would hold directors and founders financially responsible.

Financially responsible? For Gods sake, in a Libertarian system, who would be forcing BP to pay anything? For that matter, in a Libertarian system, whats to prevent a massive oil company spending billions on PR in order to prevent the media reporting anything negative...

ETC... (There are far too many ETC.S in hypothetical Libertarian scenarios)

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

Financially responsible? For Gods sake, in a Libertarian system, who would be forcing BP to pay anything? For that matter, in a Libertarian system, whats to prevent a massive oil company spending billions on PR in order to prevent the media reporting anything negative...

ETC... (There are far too many ETC.S in hypothetical Libertarian scenarios)

I would imagine that they would clean it up for much of the same reasons they are doing it now; they are concerned about their international reputation. Who would want to do business with the guys who burst an oil well open and then fecked off? BP were only legally obliged to cover costs up to 75,000,000 million dollars initially and they have already pledged above and over that amount.

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

I would imagine that they would clean it up for much of the same reasons they are doing it now; they are concerned about their international reputation. Who would want to do business with the guys who burst an oil well open and then fecked off? BP were only legally obliged to cover costs up to 75,000,000 million dollars initially and they have already pledged above and over that amount.

So whats the solution? BP cleans up? Whats the difference in a system with no State intervention? how is this a Libertarian solution, considering BP is cleaning it up as we speak?

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

So whats the solution? BP cleans up? Whats the difference in a system with no State intervention? how is this a Libertarian solution, considering BP is cleaning it up as we speak?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Presumably there wouldn't be any significant environmental legislation, thus corporations would presumably have control of the 'high seas' to themselves? No?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In keeping with the initial comments, wherein it was stated that environmental legislation and regulation from the State seem to be part of a larger problem.

tommyhaas

northwest100 wrote: »

For me, the reason this catastrophe occurred is because BP avoided safety regulations in order to save money.

I understand why they acted irresponsibly.. they were behind schedule and needed to save money.

They had a responsibility to make money for the stock broker, and that's all they were concerned about.

You'v investigated it then have you? You dont know whether they'v acted irresponsibly, and I would be farily sure they didnt 'avoid safety regulations in order to save money'. I think you'l find that the operation conformed with the relevant safety regulations.

northwest100

tommyhaas wrote:

You'v investigated it then have you?

more than you.

You dont know whether they'v acted irresponsibly, and I would be farily sure they didnt 'avoid safety regulations in order to save money'.

that is precisely what happened and there's incontrovertible evidence to prove this.

I think you'l find that the operation conformed with the relevant safety regulations.

right.

Slouch

Here's Reason Magazine's view on the topic anyway;

"Going forward, the liability cap should be removed. This would align the future incentives of drillers and their insurers to take into better account the risks of offshore oil production. Lifting the cap would also mean higher gasoline prices for consumers and job losses in the oil industry. Ultimately, insurance markets may well tell oil drillers that with current technologies deep water drilling is just too risky."


Full article here: http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/15/whos-liable-for-the-gulf-oil-s

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

That still doesn't answer anything, though it was a good post. Presumably deep water drilling would still occur in a Libertarian system, and it also stands to reason that a spill of this magnitude could happen. How then, would a Libertarian society react to such a problem?

johnnyskeleton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Suppose Ireland was a libertarian free society as you advocate, and a tsunami hits Kerry, destroying lives and property. Virtually all of Kerry is destroyed - however, the majority of successful Irish companies are based in other parts of the country.

So what happens here to alleviate the suffering of the poor people of Kerry? Do we all join hands and dig into our bottomless pockets from our massivly productive intervention-free enterprises and help pay them out, or do we say "tough break Kerry, please don't damage my private property as you starve/freeze to death")?

I mean surely you are not suggesting that Hurricane Katrina was:
1) the US government's fault;
2) exacerbated by the admittedly poor quality and badly organised federal aid efforts?

I mean seriously?