Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Libertarians and the oil spill?

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:42:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So....

You advocate for the privatization of a lot of stuff so how do you explain the disaster that has taken place?

Do you want government regulated privatization? (if there is a such thing)

Do you just shrug your shoulder and say. "Oh well, stuff happens".

How would you handle the clean up?

How would you help the people that were caught up in the disaster?
or
Would you just shrug your shoulder and say, "It not my fault they lived there. I choose not to so it is not my fault"?
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:21:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Spills happen and it is no use crying over them especially if it is milk
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:25:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:42:25 PM, comoncents wrote:
So....

You advocate for the privatization of a lot of stuff so how do you explain the disaster that has taken place?

I'm not a Libertarian but I'll give it a shot. I'm assuming that they're going to say that privatization has nothing to do with anything; the spill could have occurred even if oil was socialized. Although, it's true that because BP is a private company they are not really taking any responsibility to rectify the problem :/

Do you want government regulated privatization? (if there is a such thing)

There is lol it's called a mixed economy and we live in one :p

I'm sure they don't want it...

Do you just shrug your shoulder and say. "Oh well, stuff happens".

Yes, and they expect the market to regulate itself - which while I feel is largely ineffective, I think it's kinda happening in this case. I know BP got a lot of bad press and publicity for their actions. I personally have not bought gas from BP since the spill (not that I ever did before anyway just cuz of proximity reasons as far as gas stations and my house go :p ).

How would you handle the clean up?

??? They're going to say to have volunteers donate to help clean it (which is unreliable considering people in this economy don't have money to just go giving away) as well as pressuring BP to help through things like boycotting their product. This is pretty unreliable too; if people are boycotting then they aren't making money to clean it (or as an incentive to clean it). That's how it seems anyway.

How would you help the people that were caught up in the disaster?

They wouldn't lol. Which kinda sucks considering it's ruined the lives/jobs of many people - namely fisherman.

or
Would you just shrug your shoulder and say, "It not my fault they lived there. I choose not to so it is not my fault"?

This (they would say).
President of DDO
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:34:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 4:25:39 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:42:25 PM, comoncents wrote:
Would you just shrug your shoulder and say, "It not my fault they lived there. I choose not to so it is not my fault"?

This (they would say).

Not really.

A libertarian... err, rather, the subset of libertarian that is Ragnar would say that in a truly free market, the oceans would be privatized. This way, the owners of the ocean could sue BP for the harm they caused. In this massive tort lawsuit, fisherman would also be included.

That said, I do think it's ineffective. It's better to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the first place. You know, regulation. Norway, for example, mandates that all offshore drilling platforms have emergency shutoff methods. BP was too selfish and lazy to put emergency shutoff methods themselves, and therefore, I think, regulation would be good here.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:37:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Haha true PJ but since the ocean isn't really privatized (in the way you're speaking of) then I think shrugging their shoulders and saying "too bad" is the most likely response.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:39:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As I understand the oil spill, it happened for two real reasons.

One, the chain of command on the Deepwater Horizon broke down, failing to limit the impact.

Two, the US does not have a single brain cell devoted to effective safety on oil rigs.

The US has very lax safety regulations on oil rigs and platforms, which has allowed something like this to occur. Proper, mandatory safety checks were either never required for certain parts, or were never enforced. BP and Transocean and others got away with doing diddly squat because of a lack of proper oversight.

But it's not even just that: stupidity in regulations also f*cks things up. If you truly want to see stupidity in action: http://www.financialpost.com...

The Dutch offer their expertise in handling the oil spill, in protecting the marshlands and etc., and the best Americans say is "thanks, but no thanks."

Why? Because, oh, it isn't a "pure" enough system. American environmental regulations say that oil can only make up 15 parts per million of any "cleaned" water - and the advanced, pre-prepared Dutch and European technology, which does circles around the Americans who have little to no experience with this sort of thing, doesn't meet American standards.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. This could have been prevented by regulations, and now its also being hampered by them, and the stupidity of the US government. It's just a sad sack of losers down there.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:39:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Although, it's true that because BP is a private company they are not really taking any responsibility to rectify the problem :/

They aren't doing what?

They chose not to contest an escrow that they aren't constitutionally required to undergo, they've essentially given up any possibility of a fight and said "We're paying." They're also doing everything they can to try and stop the leak (in the hopes they can reduce their liability of course :P)

Poejoe is correct about the lawsuits if they don't.

That said, I do think it's ineffective. It's better to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the first place. You know, regulation.
You know, because oil is right now one of the most regulated industries there is, and that's been so effective.

BP was too selfish and lazy to put emergency shutoff methods themselves
No, just too stupid. Selfishness would have dictated AVOIDING the kind of massive liability they've brought themselves.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:40:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 4:39:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
As I understand the oil spill, it happened for two real reasons.

One, the chain of command on the Deepwater Horizon broke down, failing to limit the impact.

Two, the US does not have a single brain cell devoted to effective safety on oil rigs.

The US has very lax safety regulations on oil rigs and platforms, which has allowed something like this to occur. Proper, mandatory safety checks were either never required for certain parts, or were never enforced. BP and Transocean and others got away with doing diddly squat because of a lack of proper oversight.

But it's not even just that: stupidity in regulations also f*cks things up. If you truly want to see stupidity in action: http://www.financialpost.com...

The Dutch offer their expertise in handling the oil spill, in protecting the marshlands and etc., and the best Americans say is "thanks, but no thanks."

Why? Because, oh, it isn't a "pure" enough system. American environmental regulations say that oil can only make up 15 parts per million of any "cleaned" water - and the advanced, pre-prepared Dutch and European technology, which does circles around the Americans who have little to no experience with this sort of thing, doesn't meet American standards.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. This could have been prevented by regulations, and now its also being hampered by them, and the stupidity of the US government. It's just a sad sack of losers down there.

That is about how the government performs
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:54:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 4:39:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That said, I do think it's ineffective. It's better to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the first place. You know, regulation.
You know, because oil is right now one of the most regulated industries there is, and that's been so effective.

I'm getting real tired of you conflating what a leftist's ideal of regulation is and what we currently have.

It's almost cliché to say that big oil has been buying out the regulators and in some cases even dictating the regulatory laws. What we need is true regulation that is in the interest's of the common good--not big oil.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:58:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 4:54:14 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 7/2/2010 4:39:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That said, I do think it's ineffective. It's better to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the first place. You know, regulation.
You know, because oil is right now one of the most regulated industries there is, and that's been so effective.

I'm getting real tired of you conflating what a leftist's ideal of regulation is and what we currently have.
What we currently have results from leftist pressure. You think the conservatives wanted regulation? Other than in the bedroom. And there's not much else to be found. Libertarians sure didn't craft regulations :P


It's almost cliché to say that big oil has been buying out the regulators
Because regulation makes it necessary for them to seek to do so, and the only way to really prevent them from doing so when they have no other real choice (adhering to every regulation we have now, let alone every regulation in a universe "further left," would destroy them") is to destroy them anyway. Obviously, this is not a good thing, as it condemns everyone to a much lower standard of living.

and in some cases even dictating the regulatory laws. What we need is true regulation that is in the interest's of the common good
There is-- and can be-- NO SUCH THING.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:07:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:42:25 PM, comoncents wrote:
You advocate for the privatization of a lot of stuff so how do you explain the disaster that has taken place?

No answer needed here, seeing as how there is nothing privatized about this disaster.

Do you want government regulated privatization? (if there is a such thing)

No... and I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

Do you just shrug your shoulder and say. "Oh well, stuff happens".

Uhh, no. Seeing as how BP violated property rights, the government would handle the criminal and prosecutor case against BP.

How would you handle the clean up?

I wouldn't. BP would.

How would you help the people that were caught up in the disaster?

BP would.

Would you just shrug your shoulder and say, "It not my fault they lived there. I choose not to so it is not my fault"?

Personally, yes. Although for every single one of these question you use "you" -- am I supposed to be the Supreme Overlord of the US, or am I just a lowly individual?

===

Government set the liability cap on oil spills at $75 million for oil companies. If there were no liability cap, then BP would have had greater incentives to spend more on safety. Instead, BP got a false incentive to not be safe.

Furthermore, this is deep water drilling. Government made it illegal to drill within X miles (I think 500) of the coast. Thus, all these oil companies are forced to take greater risk with a greater chance of safety failures if they were otherwise located closer to shore. The government didn't like seeing oil rigs on the coastline, so the oil rigs moved into the middle of the ocean by force, and now everyone is paying the price.

The best regulation is self-regulation. Do you think BP is making money because of the oil spill? No, of course not -- it is losing crazy amounts of money at an alarming rate. Chief executives don't sit around plotting how to destroy the environment and create as much misery as possible. For the most part, these businessmen are in the business of making as much money as possible. With no government regulations or laws, BP would be forced to show how safe it is by itself. Insurance companies (who would insure BP) would make sure that BP is safe before insuring them. BP would make sure that BP is safe so it doesn't lose an unlimited amount of money.

Of course, the above will be disregarded by politicians. The response to disaster is always more regulations, more laws. The problem in the first place was caused by regulations and laws. The US Energy department and the MMS and the Interior Department was responsible for inspecting for BP -- which they gave top marks for safety. The US Congress was responsible for pushing oil drilling to the middle of the ocean thus creating more risk. The US Congress was responsible for the $75 million liability cap, instead of an unlimited cap. Barack Obama got more campaign cash from BP than any other politician in its' history. Regulations and laws were already more than abundant, so I find it slightly humorous that the solution is more regulation and laws.

In conclusion, this would have never happened in a free market. BP would have never taken the risk of drilling so deep and so far from the coast when there is plenty of space closer to the coast. Insurance companies would have never insured BP if BP couldn't prove if it was safe. BP would have been more safe-averse overall with a limitless cap rather than a $75 million limited liability cap.

PS -- I'd like you all to look around the room you are sitting in for a moment. Have you looked yet? Good. Everything in that room is there because of oil or gas. The shipping, transporation, and cargo all required oil. That computer you're typing was lubricated with oil. The car you drive to get to you and from school and work is filled up with oil. Your house gets heat and AC because of oil. I'm telling you this because it's a bit important to put some perspective into the ever so traumatic pictures of greased and oiled up birds and animals in the gulf. Sure, it's sad and a bit hard to look at. But oil runs the world. Without oil, this country would be nothing. Going on a crusade against oil is going on a crusade against life in general.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:25:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 4:58:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2010 4:54:14 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 7/2/2010 4:39:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That said, I do think it's ineffective. It's better to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the first place. You know, regulation.
You know, because oil is right now one of the most regulated industries there is, and that's been so effective.

I'm getting real tired of you conflating what a leftist's ideal of regulation is and what we currently have.
What we currently have results from leftist pressure. You think the conservatives wanted regulation? Other than in the bedroom. And there's not much else to be found. Libertarians sure didn't craft regulations :P

Do conservatives want regulation? Hell yes. The kind that favors Big Oil.

Leftists are the ones trying to fight against Big Oil.

There is both good and bad regulation, you know. Don't group all regulation together.

and in some cases even dictating the regulatory laws. What we need is true regulation that is in the interest's of the common good
There is-- and can be-- NO SUCH THING.

What's so friken evil about mandating emergency shutoff systems?

It's clearly in the interests of Big Oil to do.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:27:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:25:47 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Do conservatives want regulation? Hell yes. The kind that favors Big Oil.

Leftists are the ones trying to fight against Big Oil.

There is both good and bad regulation, you know. Don't group all regulation together.

regulation = regulation
= all bad

What's so friken evil about mandating emergency shutoff systems?

It's clearly in the interests of Big Oil to do.

Because the government obviously knows the best interests of private companies. /sigh
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:29:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:27:33 PM, Nags wrote:
At 7/2/2010 5:25:47 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
What's so friken evil about mandating emergency shutoff systems?

It's clearly in the interests of Big Oil to do.

Because the government obviously knows the best interests of private companies. /sigh

In this case, yes. Emergency shutoff systems would be good. Forcing Big Oil to be safe is good.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:32:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:29:41 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 7/2/2010 5:27:33 PM, Nags wrote:
At 7/2/2010 5:25:47 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
What's so friken evil about mandating emergency shutoff systems?

It's clearly in the interests of Big Oil to do.

Because the government obviously knows the best interests of private companies. /sigh

In this case, yes. Emergency shutoff systems would be good. Forcing Big Oil to be safe is good.

In this case, no. Emergency shutoff systems would be bad. Forcing Big Oil to be safe is bad.

My argument is better because you have the burden of proof. :P
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:32:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:25:47 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 7/2/2010 4:58:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2010 4:54:14 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 7/2/2010 4:39:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That said, I do think it's ineffective. It's better to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the first place. You know, regulation.
You know, because oil is right now one of the most regulated industries there is, and that's been so effective.

I'm getting real tired of you conflating what a leftist's ideal of regulation is and what we currently have.
What we currently have results from leftist pressure. You think the conservatives wanted regulation? Other than in the bedroom. And there's not much else to be found. Libertarians sure didn't craft regulations :P

Do conservatives want regulation? Hell yes. The kind that favors Big Oil.
Not Tea Partiers.


Leftists are the ones trying to fight against Big Oil.
The latter is worse. The best possibility is "Fight whoever's doing the bad things and leave the other people alone, even if they happen to share an inustry."


There is both good and bad regulation, you know. Don't group all regulation together.
Regulation: Stopping someone from doing something that violates no one's rights. :P.


and in some cases even dictating the regulatory laws. What we need is true regulation that is in the interest's of the common good
There is-- and can be-- NO SUCH THING.

What's so friken evil about mandating emergency shutoff systems?
Someone could have a better emergency shutoff system that would be banned for no good reason, simply because regulators are slow. The emergency shutoff systems might be worthless bloatware that doesn't shut off a damn thing-- you haven't actually told us what sort of system it's supposed to be. Emergency prevention is taken out of the game by the market distortion.

This is why the correct response is to prosecute based on what happens that actually violates someone's rights-- not based on someone building something that doesn't meet the opinions of an elected official, or someone appointed by an elected official, neither of which is likely to have a clue what they are doing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:35:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'll notice you haven't commented on unlimited liability for BP Poejoe. Are you against it?

(in the future anyway. I should hope you're against ex-post-facto law.)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:41:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
oh wait, of course you're not against ex-post-facto law, after all, you favor antitrust laws no?

(If you don't you're one unique lefty :P)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:42:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:32:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2010 5:25:47 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
What's so friken evil about mandating emergency shutoff systems?
Someone could have a better emergency shutoff system that would be banned for no good reason, simply because regulators are slow. The emergency shutoff systems might be worthless bloatware that doesn't shut off a damn thing-- you haven't actually told us what sort of system it's supposed to be. Emergency prevention is taken out of the game by the market distortion.

This is why the correct response is to prosecute based on what happens that actually violates someone's rights-- not based on someone building something that doesn't meet the opinions of an elected official, or someone appointed by an elected official, neither of which is likely to have a clue what they are doing.

OK. So, make the regulations work. Places like Norway have extreme and extremely good regulatory laws. That's why they have one of the safest offshore drilling records in history.

I'll notice you haven't commented on unlimited liability for BP Poejoe. Are you against it?

Well, I haven't thought much about this, but based on a couple seconds of thought, unlimited liability sounds good. Why you ask?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:44:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 4:25:39 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I personally have not bought gas from BP since the spill (not that I ever did before anyway just cuz of proximity reasons as far as gas stations and my house go :p ).

Everyone around here is buying BP b/c they think that the money will help the families down south.
(I do not but I know a lot of people that are.)
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:45:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:44:14 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 7/2/2010 4:25:39 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I personally have not bought gas from BP since the spill (not that I ever did before anyway just cuz of proximity reasons as far as gas stations and my house go :p ).

Everyone around here is buying BP b/c they think that the money will help the families down south.
(I do not but I know a lot of people that are.)

How can you tell if the gas you are buying is from bp?
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:46:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:42:46 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 7/2/2010 5:32:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2010 5:25:47 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
What's so friken evil about mandating emergency shutoff systems?
Someone could have a better emergency shutoff system that would be banned for no good reason, simply because regulators are slow. The emergency shutoff systems might be worthless bloatware that doesn't shut off a damn thing-- you haven't actually told us what sort of system it's supposed to be. Emergency prevention is taken out of the game by the market distortion.

This is why the correct response is to prosecute based on what happens that actually violates someone's rights-- not based on someone building something that doesn't meet the opinions of an elected official, or someone appointed by an elected official, neither of which is likely to have a clue what they are doing.

OK. So, make the regulations work.
How?
A dictatorship of oil experts?
But that still leaves the slow-responder problem.
There is no person on earth capable of economic regulation without these problems, nor any group of people. It is impossible.

Places like Norway have extreme and extremely good regulatory laws.
Demonstration?

That's why they have one of the safest offshore drilling records in history.
Demonstration of cause?


I'll notice you haven't commented on unlimited liability for BP Poejoe. Are you against it?

Well, I haven't thought much about this, but based on a couple seconds of thought, unlimited liability sounds good. Why you ask?
Well, it deters BP rather effectively, by promoting a culture where they go with the contractor's recommended reinforcers instead of a tiny fraction thereof. Poof. Emergency prevention. No shutoff device, real or imagined, necessary.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:47:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:45:17 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 5:44:14 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 7/2/2010 4:25:39 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I personally have not bought gas from BP since the spill (not that I ever did before anyway just cuz of proximity reasons as far as gas stations and my house go :p ).

Everyone around here is buying BP b/c they think that the money will help the families down south.
(I do not but I know a lot of people that are.)

How can you tell if the gas you are buying is from bp?

85% of the gasoline that BP Oil sells are to gas stations that are BP-labeled... at least, that's what I've heard from boycotters.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:47:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:42:46 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
OK. So, make the regulations work. Places like Norway have extreme and extremely good regulatory laws. That's why they have one of the safest offshore drilling records in history.

http://www.ft.com...
Norway's oil industry is eager for access to the estimated 1.3bn barrels of oil beneath the Lofoten islands of northern Norway to offset declining output from mature North Sea fields. Norwegian oil production has fallen by 50 per cent from its peak a decade ago.

Hmm.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:49:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:45:17 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 5:44:14 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 7/2/2010 4:25:39 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I personally have not bought gas from BP since the spill (not that I ever did before anyway just cuz of proximity reasons as far as gas stations and my house go :p ).

Everyone around here is buying BP b/c they think that the money will help the families down south.
(I do not but I know a lot of people that are.)

How can you tell if the gas you are buying is from bp?

It helps if the station looks like one of these:

http://www.bp.com...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:50:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:47:20 PM, Nags wrote:
At 7/2/2010 5:42:46 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
OK. So, make the regulations work. Places like Norway have extreme and extremely good regulatory laws. That's why they have one of the safest offshore drilling records in history.

http://www.ft.com...
Lol, that's very safe. Except for the economy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Christian1993
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 7:02:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm a libertarian, and I'll be perfectly honest on this one. This is an issue that confuses me because of my ideology. I will however make note that no one has a larger incentive to fix than BP. They're going to lose a load of money and their main resource, along with looking terrible in the court of public opinion. The longer it goes on, the worse it will be, and I think they understand this. I think the way the government is handling this currently is discouraging a solution being found.