We didn’t limit BP’s liability. They still owe the whole smash for fixing this and cleaning it up. What was limited was the punitive damages, the after-the-fact lawsuit liability. And that limitation has been on the books since 1990.
That distinction is important because people get confused and think that BP is only liable for $75 million total here. Nothing could be further from the truth.
One more opportunity to repeat Doctor Randall “Rand” Paul’s recent statement:
Of course, Rand is running as a Republican. But he’s widely considered to be a True Libertarian, at heart. Just like his dad!
I can’t picture this guy doing anything so un-American as doing away with liability limits for BP.
There’s a difference between lawsuit liability and punitive damages. Lawsuit liability includes anyone suing for damages, not just punitive ones. So if you own a beach resort that lost a lot of business due to being covered in oil , BP would be off the hook assuming they’ve already shelled out 75 mil in total damages for the spill already.
Your right that BP will still have to pay for the initial clean-up (which ought to be a few billion). But the Oil Pollution Act would appear to protect them from paying for the fiscal damage the spill will due to various Gulf Coast communities.
I actually don’t think the 1990 act protects oil companies from punitive damages at all, though I could be wrong.
Yeah. Sorry if I was unclear upthread.
I can. But if you have a quote from him saying that he wouldn’t, then lets see it. The quote you gave had nothing to do with that.
All that shows is the real crime not increasing MPG requirements was. There might not have been the market for that oil for them to drill in the first place.
Every idiot driving an 11 mpg POS increased the likelihood of that happening by necessitating more drilling.
Further damages shouldn’t be capped. If a company incompetently trashes the gulf coast then it should be sued in to bankruptcy. It’s punishment should be decided in court. Not preordained.
"That’s libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves." - Kim Stanley Robinson. A quote I came across that pretty much sums up how I see libertarianism; they want to be able to do whatever they want to whomever they want, and want the only function of the government to be preventing their victims from retaliating. They are sometimes called “the anarchists of the Right” for a reason.
Excellent quote! But please use the big-L version of Libertarian. Most of these remarks deal with a political movement based on… well, nothing that makes sense, but liberty doesn’t seem to have much to do with it.
I don’t know that anarchists get away with calling themselves libertarians, but on this MB a lot of people mistakenly think Libertarianism = Anarchism.
As for liberty not being part of Libertarianism… that’s an interesting opinion, based on what I can’t imagine. Liberty is the core value of Libertarianism. Cutesy quotes (courtesy of DT) don’t make for intelligent debates.
OK, here’s your first cite: Red vs. Blue Blog: Countdown - Oil industry whistleblower Mike Mason: BP's BOP tests are bogus
I can’t attest to this guy’s credibility, but BP refuses to comment so far. Do you have any counter evidence? He could be lying, maybe he lost his gruntle. But this conforms with BP’s past behavior. If you don’t believe that last statement, show me that you’ve done some research.
Also, I showed you one of mine, show me one of yours: What does ‘attempting to dictate success’ have to do with anything? Sounds like an argument against doing anything ever. If you say ‘You can’t dictate success’, that’s an attempt at an aphorism, that still doesn’t make sense. Read this: ‘You must be successful’. See? I just dictated success, not an attempt, I did it. So what? There is no way to guarantee that any action will result in success. Do you know any rational person who thinks otherwise?
In fairness, I see you are a network engineer, based on your profile. So you probably understand why I often tell people, “Don’t just do something, stand there!”. I don’t advocate action for it’s own sake. But you made an assertion that sounded like ‘Nothing else can be done’. Can you back that up, or clarify?
addendum: RL? Rhetorical Language?
Its kinda like how America’s understanding of credit default swaps and real estate securitizations got a lot better after the meltdown. BP might be doing everything in its power to stop the leak and mitigate the damage but the damage is still being done and some people feel that this was an avoidable accident.
I did not know that. I thought the 75 million number was for actual and economic damages as well. If it is only for punitive damages then the argument is a bit different.
Wait, so thats NOT how it works?
Well BP has crossed their hearts double pinky swore that they would pay for all legitimate claims so I’m sure that the 75 million dollar cap in this case is meaningless but the idea of there being a cap for actual and economic damages is really extraordinary.
It couldn’t hurt to read the link I gave, or the law itself (linked at the bottom of the page).
BP is absolutely on the hook for mitigation/remediation after the well is capped or otherwise gotten under control.
Because in practical terms that’s what it is, in the pejorative sense of the word “Anarchism”. Just as Communism talked about equality and a government that withered away while actually being a tyranny by an ideological elite, libertarianism talks about freedom and rights while in reality being about the law of the jungle and government shielded predation. And in the long run, social collapse into warlordism; something like Somalia is the actual ultimate endpoint of libertarianism, regardless of what they claim or intend. A place with no law, no protection for the helpless or unlucky, and where the only thing that matters is who has the most thugs.
No, it’s not. Social Darwinism isn’t liberty. “Let the helpless suffer and die, screw anyone but myself, and have the government protect me from the consequences” isn’t liberty, except for the worst of the worst.
I’m still not sure what you mean by “mitigation/remediation”. To me, remediation would mean recouping the economic costs suffered by third parties due to the spill, which BP is not on the hook for (beyond the first 75 million). But the bit you highligted simply says they’re responsible for covering the cost of the cleanup. Cleaning up a spill you made isn’t really “remediation”, IMHO anyways. Paying people for the damages caused by said spill is.
Wrong. And I’m not going to waste my time debating this with you. Been there, done that. Believe what you want to believe, and I’ll let the reader decide.
Its not such a great deal for the oil companies as it sounds, after the first 75 million, the costs for damages are covered by the federal government, which in turn takes the money from a fund raised by a tax on the oil companies. So the end result is that damages created by one company are paid for by the industry as a whole, which is good if your the one doing the spilling, but crummy if you’re an oil company that hasn’t pumped a million gallons of oil directly into a major body of water lately.
The idea is to ensure in the case of a less well-heeled company then BP doing the spilling, you won’t simply go bankrupt from the damages you’ve caused and leave others footing the rest of the bill. Basically, the gov’t is forcing the oil companies to buy insurance from the gov’t.
Presumably that wouldn’t be the perfered method in Libertaria. Which I guess raises a question relevant to the OP, in a Libertarian society how do you keep companies from taking risks that are both profitable but have a small chance of causing catestrophic damages that would dwarf the ability of the companies to cover damages. The rational thing for a CEO to do in that position is roll the dice, if they win they make a lot of money and if they loose someone else ends up sucking most of the damage.
Sounds like a standard tactic of the Right and its defenders on this board; the “you aren’t worthy to debate me” routine.
You are free to think that if you wish.
For you and Airman, my point was unclear. SteveG’s comment was conflating the risk of the spill with the monetary risk of the company.
On the liability limitation, I did not have the facts clear. My apologies. But BP has practised in the past, and only a few weeks ago, attempts to rig the system to avoids responsibility. Limiting punitive damages will only provide them an incentive to continue that practise.
As for the ‘shit happens’ moment, if you chop down a tree next to your house, and it falls on your house, is that just a ‘shit happens’ moment? How do you find this different? Before the current catastrophe, if you heard that an oil well was being drilled at this depth, and there was no known way to deal with this situation, would you have said, ‘Well they should just do it anyway’? Please follow my battle with xtisme as we seperate truth from Libertarian philosophy.