The libertarian's guide to externality costing. What do we do about the oil spill?

[quote name='speedracer']Law enforcement branch? wtf?[/quote]

Judaical Branch rules on the Laws.
Legislative Branch makes the Laws.
Executive Branch enforces the Laws.

It's all pretty basic stuff.

The bully pulpit is a long tradition in American history Bob. Obama couldn't require BP to do shit. BP was not required to do shit. Obama had a choice: work with BP to fix it or completely sell BP out in the media and really make em look awful. He gave BP the choice, with the caveat being that if his administration works with BP, BP will open an escrow account because there might not be money left after the investors safely (and completely unfairly to those with civil recourse) take theirs out (to the tune of $100 billion so far).

So what part of that very basic political decision do you have a problem with?
Click to expand...

The part where this is exactly what we were talking about in the Extortion thread.

Other types of threats sufficient to constitute extortion include those to harm the victim's business and those to either testify against the victim or withhold testimony necessary to his or her defense or claim in an administrative proceeding or a lawsuit. Many statutes also provide that any threat to harm another person in his or her career or reputation is extortion.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Judaical Branch rules on the Laws.
Legislative Branch makes the Laws.
Executive Branch enforces the Laws.

It's all pretty basic stuff.[/quote]
Oh I get it. You're being cute. You're cute, bob.
Other types of threats sufficient to constitute extortion include those to harm the victim's business and those to either testify against the victim or withhold testimony necessary to his or her defense or claim in an administrative proceeding or a lawsuit. Many statutes also provide that any threat to harm another person in his or her career or reputation is extortion.
Click to expand...
I missed the part where they threatened to testify against the "victim" or withhold testimony necessary to their defense or threaten to harm their career or reputation (here's the important part, watch closely) unduly (which is, you know, the actual letter of the law).

The law can be tricky when you cite it and don't know it.
 
[quote name='Clak']It's extortion in the same way that the federal budget is exactly like your household budget.[/QUOTE]

Have my babies.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Judaical Branch rules on the Laws.
Legislative Branch makes the Laws.
Executive Branch enforces the Laws.

It's all pretty basic stuff.
[/QUOTE]

Your ignorance about our government is appalling. Study up a little more before trying to reduce our system to a Ford style assembly plant for legislation.
 
I'm curious - let's say this whole mess is investigated and it turns out that, somehow, this wasn't directly BP's fault. I mean, there's been a lot of speculation that this or that went wrong - but let's say it turns out that terrorists blew up the rig or it was a chain of faulty parts made and installed by TransOcean or Haliburton.

Would you support giving BP back every penny of their money - with interest?

[quote name='speedracer']Oh I get it. You're being cute. You're cute, bob.

I missed the part where they threatened to testify against the "victim" or withhold testimony necessary to their defense or threaten to harm their career or reputation (here's the important part, watch closely) unduly (which is, you know, the actual letter of the law).

The law can be tricky when you cite it and don't know it.[/QUOTE]

I suppose it was just a random coincidence that the AG had just announced a criminal investigation into BP execs and he happened to be at this extortion meeting?

I'm sure we'll never know until Obama releases the video of this meeting. Because he's all for open government and all. I mean, I'm sure he wants to be transparent and let the people know what's going on instead of having closed door, backroom deals with high dollar executives. But it seems pretty obvious to me that some variation of "give us money or we're going to make things really, really hard on you." very likely happened.

[quote name='cindersphere']Your ignorance about our government is appalling. Study up a little more before trying to reduce our system to a Ford style assembly plant for legislation.[/QUOTE]

Checks and balances, my friend. If the executive branch - be it the President or the cop down the street (yeah, yeah, cops are local/state executive while the President is Federal) - gets to start deciding what punishments they get to hand out for what crimes... that's a scary world.
 
[quote name='Strell']I'm going to sue my parents for all those times they extortion'd me to clean my room up.[/QUOTE]

I'm going to sue your parents for having unprotected sex while wearing groucho masks.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
Checks and balances, my friend. If the executive branch - be it the President or the cop down the street (yeah, yeah, cops are local/state executive while the President is Federal) - gets to start deciding what punishments they get to hand out for what crimes... that's a scary world.[/QUOTE]

Again, you don't understand our government. Study the "Checks and Balances" you speak of, both formal and informal. Then study the roles of the branches themselves.

The executive branch has a surprisingly large amount of power over the sentences handed out by the judiciary branch. Look at the way Reagan gamed the judiciary branch to give longer sentences to drug offenders during his war on drugs. What, did you think the judiciary was reacting to new laws made by the legislative? Hell no, sentences were made longer because of formal checks the executive branch has.

Pop quiz. What branch relies the most on informal powers?
 
[quote name='cindersphere']The executive branch has a surprisingly large amount of power over the sentences handed out by the judiciary branch. Look at the way Reagan gamed the judiciary branch to give longer sentences to drug offenders during his war on drugs.[/QUOTE]

Was all this before or after the offender was prosecuted and found guilty?
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Both before and after.[/QUOTE]

You're saying that Regan coerced the Judicial Branch into giving out longer sentences to individuals who had not been found guilty? Then enforced these sentences on the individuals before there was any kind of trial or verdict?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You're saying that Regan coerced the Judicial Branch into giving out longer sentences to individuals who had not been found guilty? Then enforced these sentences on the individuals before there was any kind of trial or verdict?[/QUOTE]
Misunderstood what meant in you previous post. After the defendant has been found guilty. I see where your going with this line of thinking. However a counterpoint that you can push is the role of Guantanamo and the military tribunals. Recently the exec has tested these waters but not fully yet.

The sentences handed out are influenced by the executive. Hell even the decisions made by the supreme court are affected by that actions and powers of the executive branch.

BTW answer to my question. The judicial branch.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Misunderstood what meant in you previous post. After the defendant has been found guilty. I see where your going with this line of thinking.[/quote]

Exactly - there was no trial, no verdict. Just Obama and the AG with a whip and an open purse.

The sentences handed out are influenced by the executive. Hell even the decisions made by the supreme court are affected by that actions and powers of the executive branch.
Click to expand...

That's how the system works. Likewise, the legislative branch makes laws influenced by the desire of the executive branch *and* by guessing how the judicial branch will rule on particular language. The Executive branch's power of enforcement is limited by what the other two branches allow. The Judicial Branch is (ideally) limited to what's written and how they can reasonably interpret it (and that pesky little thing where they're appointed by the Executive branch).

But this action by Obama was not based in any laws written by the Legislative branch. It was not based on any rulings by the Judicial branch. It was Obama, on his throne, determine the guilt and punishment of someone else in a way that we the people have no information on the process involved. There's no court records to review. There's no legal precedent to study.

As much as BP probably deserves to pay (more than they did) - the way this entire thing went down is rather scary.

I mean, could you imagine if Bush rounded people up and punished them without any court decisions or public review? Something like that would have been nasty.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Exactly - there was no trial, no verdict. Just Obama and the AG with a whip and an open purse.



That's how the system works. Likewise, the legislative branch makes laws influenced by the desire of the executive branch *and* by guessing how the judicial branch will rule on particular language. The Executive branch's power of enforcement is limited by what the other two branches allow. The Judicial Branch is (ideally) limited to what's written and how they can reasonably interpret it (and that pesky little thing where they're appointed by the Executive branch).

But this action by Obama was not based in any laws written by the Legislative branch. It was not based on any rulings by the Judicial branch. It was Obama, on his throne, determine the guilt and punishment of someone else in a way that we the people have no information on the process involved. There's no court records to review. There's no legal precedent to study.

As much as BP probably deserves to pay (more than they did) - the way this entire thing went down is rather scary.

I mean, could you imagine if Bush rounded people up and punished them without any court decisions or public review? Something like that would have been nasty.[/QUOTE]

You have almost no point. Does it matter that the judicial branch didn't have a say. It was a power play made by the executive branch by using its position as the head of the federal bureaucracy. He's not punishing BP per se, he told them what he wanted and they complied after enough threat and favors were exchanged. In other areas this is called diplomacy, except this time it's with a foreign company.

Again your understanding of our federal system is still a bit off. The appointment of judges is not the only power the exec has over the judicial. Look at Elena Kagan.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']It was a power play made by the executive branch by using its position as the head of the federal bureaucracy. He's not punishing BP per se, he told them what he wanted and they complied after enough threat and favors were exchanged.[/QUOTE]

Extortion.
 
Not according to you. That fine in your world right?
[quote name='UncleBob']Running under the assumption that the shopkeeper has correctly identified a shoplifter*, is it really wrong for them to say "Hey, I know you were shoplifting. Give me $400 cash, or I'll prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law."? With either part of that equation (settling out of court or calling the cops and pressing charges) is perfectly legal and - most of us would likely agree, reasonable, right?

Should the shopkeeper get to be the sole person to make the decision between paying up or taking the heat?

If the party is guilty, then, of course, everyone would win with an out-of-court settlement. The police aren't bothered with a relatively minor crime, the shopkeeper is saved the time, trouble and costs associated with court and prosecution and the shoplifter likely gets a better deal, saves the time and trouble *and* saves face.

*Again, assuming the party is guilty. If they're not guilty, then there should be no qualms with the shopkeeper calling the cops and letting them investigate.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Not according to you. That fine in your world right?[/QUOTE]

Keep in mind, in that entire thread, I never once said something wasn't extortion.
 
Meh, either way it is not extortion. They did not trade a pardon from prosecution for the money. Nice try with the big rhetoric. Show the extortion first, actually show where the overstepping of boundaries was.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Meh, either way it is not extortion. They did not trade a pardon from prosecution for the money. Nice try with the big rhetoric. Show the extortion first, actually show where the overstepping of boundaries was.[/QUOTE]

We don't know what they "traded" for the money. The meeting was a backroom deal behind closed doors. The kind of thing Obama said he was against.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm curious - let's say this whole mess is investigated and it turns out that, somehow, this wasn't directly BP's fault. I mean, there's been a lot of speculation that this or that went wrong - but let's say it turns out that terrorists blew up the rig or it was a chain of faulty parts made and installed by TransOcean or Haliburton.

Would you support giving BP back every penny of their money - with interest?[/quote]
BP has admitted its fault. Its own engineers have admitted it. Its partners in the venture has openly stated BP acted with, and this is a real quote, "gross negligence". The market has reduced BP's market capitalization by $100 billion. Why, why, why, do we have to dance through your pretend world?
I suppose it was just a random coincidence that the AG had just announced a criminal investigation into BP execs and he happened to be at this extortion meeting?
Click to expand...
When everyone, including inside personnel and business partners, are screaming at the top of their lungs that BP is committing crimes, then yes Bob. You open a criminal investigation. While at the same time your CDS rate goes through the roof, you lose $100 bil in market cap, and you're paying gargantuan fees for lent money, it makes sense to demand an escrow account.

You can peer through that ridiculousness you call analogous thought and refusal to engage in reality long enough to see that BP is in deep shit and this is what happens to companies that lay this much waste.
I'm sure we'll never know until Obama releases the video of this meeting. Because he's all for open government and all. I mean, I'm sure he wants to be transparent and let the people know what's going on instead of having closed door, backroom deals with high dollar executives.
Click to expand...
I was going to say even you're not damned fool enough to believe that the executive must publicize all negotiations, but then I realized that's not true.
But it seems pretty obvious to me that some variation of "give us money or we're going to make things really, really hard on you." very likely happened.
Click to expand...
"You've dicked this thing all up."
"Yea. Our bad."
"We're going to regulate the shit out of you."
"Yea. We figured."
"You should set up an escrow account to prove that you have the resources to handle this thing."
"Ok."
Checks and balances, my friend. If the executive branch - be it the President or the cop down the street (yeah, yeah, cops are local/state executive while the President is Federal) - gets to start deciding what punishments they get to hand out for what crimes... that's a scary world.
Click to expand...
When even Bill O'Reilly disagrees with you Bob, you know you're in outer space. For the longest time I thought you were dumb. I'm pretty sure you're just crazy.
 
Here is another one of BP's greatest hits.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100...jA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNicHNwZW50cm91Z2g-
Monday night on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow laid out a rather startling set of numbers: In the past three years, BP has netted $58.3 billion in profit, yet has spent only $29 million (0.05% of the profit) on safer-drilling research. Over the same period, BP hasn't spent one penny on researching how to respond to any type of oil spill, much less one as huge as the breach currently fouling the Gulf.
Click to expand...
.05% folks, that's how much of the billions in profits BP felt it should spend on safe drilling research. The lack of research on how to respond to a spill isn't surprising.
 
[quote name='speedracer']BP has admitted its fault. Its own engineers have admitted it. Its partners in the venture has openly stated BP acted with, and this is a real quote, "gross negligence". The market has reduced BP's market capitalization by $100 billion.[/quote]

They were also drilling deeper than they were supposed to, so even if for argument's sake the actual accident was due to non-negligence they would still be in the cacky because they are unable to cap the leak because of said depth.
 
[quote name='speedracer']"You've dicked this thing all up."
"Yea. Our bad."
"We're going to regulate the shit out of you."
"Yea. We figured."
"You should set up an escrow account to prove that you have the resources to handle this thing."
"Ok."[/quote]

Sounds good.

Wonder what the AG was doing there.

When even Bill O'Reilly disagrees with you Bob, you know you're in outer space. For the longest time I thought you were dumb. I'm pretty sure you're just crazy.
Click to expand...
Wait, people who disagree with Bill O'Reilley are crazy now? Maybe I should be paying more attention to the Fox News thread...
 
[quote name='depascal22']I can't believe people are still defending BP.[/QUOTE]

Defend a foreign corporation for irreversibly ruining an entire coastline, get mad at some immigrants for taking all the strawberry pickin' jobs.

Makes 100% sense.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I can't believe people are still defending BP.[/QUOTE]

Who's defending BP?

[quote name='depascal22']But Jesus would do the same thing right?[/QUOTE]

Wait - you believe in Jesus now?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Who's defending BP?



Wait - you believe in Jesus now?[/QUOTE]

When did I ever say I didn't? I just choose to believe his teachings that said you don't need a church to hear and be a part of his Word. I know it's a shock but you can believe in Jesus but not in church.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Ah. Well, see - we can both forum uneducated opinions on one another.

Interesting...[/QUOTE]

Nah. You're anti-immigrant and pro-discrimination. Those are both from your posts.

And before you say you're not anti-immigrant. You're more interested in mass deportation but kind of defend businesses that hire illegals and you believe in the "right to associate with those I choose" even when it applies to public businesses in fairy tale land.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Nah. You're anti-immigrant and pro-discrimination. Those are both from your posts.[/QUOTE]

Saying I'm "pro-discrimination" is about like saying someone who's pro-choice is "pro-death".
 
So who would you associate with when you open your magical business? There gonna be a test? Maybe just eyeball everyone and anyone you deem suspicious would get the boot without explanation.

And note there was no defense of the anti-immigrant statement.

And back on topic, why do you defend BP with such fervor?
 
[quote name='depascal22']So who would you associate with when you open your magical business? There gonna be a test? Maybe just eyeball everyone and anyone you deem suspicious would get the boot without explanation.[/quote]

Personally, I don't believe I'd discriminate against anyone.

And note there was no defense of the anti-immigrant statement.
Click to expand...

Would you believe me if I wasted my time to explain it to you? I mean, I've already posted several times my feelings on the subject and you obviously haven't read them.

And back on topic, why do you defend BP with such fervor?
Click to expand...

Please provide one quote from me where I depend BP. Please.
 
When you say that Obama and the AG's treatment of BP was unfair.

You have a huge disaster in the Gulf, admissions from BPs executives and engineers, and share holders admissions but you're bitching about a trial.

And like others have said, the evidence against ACORN was way shakier but you and the Party of No fools were calling for ACORN mythical head on a stake.

You're a hypocrite plain and simple.
 
[quote name='Clak']He's "pro right to discriminate if a business wants to." That any better?[/QUOTE]

Much.

[quote name='depascal22']When you say that Obama and the AG's treatment of BP was unfair.[/quote]

I don't believe I said it was unfair. Potentially illegal, yes. Scary as hell, yes. Unfair? I suppose you could say I said that when I said that BP should have paid a lot more.

You have a huge disaster in the Gulf, admissions from BPs executives and engineers, and share holders admissions but you're bitching about a trial.
Click to expand...

Damn our justice system! Damn our laws! Always getting in the way of getting things done quickly.

And like others have said, the evidence against ACORN was way shakier but you and the Party of No fools were calling for ACORN mythical head on a stake.
Click to expand...

There may have been some that did. Most of what I read, though, was calling for an investigation - not for ACORN to give the US government $20 Billion.

You're a hypocrite plain and simple.
Click to expand...
And you've completely and utterly failed to provide any quote from me that shows that I'm defending BP as you claim. You're a liar at best and you know it.
 
[quote name='Clak']He's "pro right to discriminate if a business wants to." That any better?[/QUOTE]

Welcome to the Salty Spitoon, how tough are ya?
 
You know, I'd let Bob have his way if I thought people would do the right thing and not actually discriminate against anyone. You say the business would fail and naturally go away? I know some areas around here where the business would probably flourish rather than fail. The same places that go out of their way to make you very aware of how conservative the business owner is.
 
[quote name='Clak']You know, I'd let Bob have his way if I thought people would do the right thing and not actually discriminate against anyone. You say the business would fail and naturally go away? I know some areas around here where the business would probably flourish rather than fail. The same places that go out of their way to make you very aware of how conservative the business owner is.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe that a business that discriminates will necessarily go under. I do believe some can find a niche market that they cater to. Hell, there are websites out there that sell KKK-esque merchandise, they've obviously found a niche... I can't imagine very many minorities order stuff from them.

And I completely agree that it's disgusting, representable and immoral to set aside a group of individuals based on, say, skin color and decide you want nothing to do with them. I don't honestly think there's many people on this forum that would disagree with that.
 
[quote name='Clak']You know, I'd let Bob have his way if I thought people would do the right thing and not actually discriminate against anyone. You say the business would fail and naturally go away? I know some areas around here where the business would probably flourish rather than fail. The same places that go out of their way to make you very aware of how conservative the business owner is.[/QUOTE]

You mean gas stations in the South where you can find signs like this?

"If the sun don't shine, I betta not see your black behind."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm curious - let's say this whole mess is investigated and it turns out that, somehow, this wasn't directly BP's fault. I mean, there's been a lot of speculation that this or that went wrong - but let's say it turns out that terrorists blew up the rig or it was a chain of faulty parts made and installed by TransOcean or Haliburton.

Would you support giving BP back every penny of their money - with interest?[/QUOTE]

Let's say terrorists blew up the rig. The terrorists certainly didn't impede BP from stopping the endless flow of oil from the well (though I'm sure you could find some way to stop blaming BP), so BP should pay every penny regardless of how the rig blew up.
Longcat-iwo-jima.jpg

Responsible party is the responsible party.
 
Louisiana Governor Seals Oil-Spill Records

But elected officials in Louisiana and members of the public seeking details on how Mr. Jindal and his administration fared in their own response to the disaster are out of luck: late last week the governor vetoed an amendment to a state bill that would have made public all records from his office related to the oil spill.

...

In his veto letter, the governor asserted that opening the records could give BP and other companies involved in the Deepwater Horizon blowout an advantage in future litigation over damages to the state.

“Such access could impair the state’s legal position both in responding to the disaster that is unfolding and in seeking remedies for economic injury and natural resource damage,” Mr. Jindal wrote.

But Zygmunt Plater, a law professor at Boston College who served as chairman of an Alaskan legal task force after the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, called the governor’s legal rationale flawed, particularly in regard to tallying environmental damage.

“It’s extremely difficult for me to see why natural resource claims would be at all compromised,” he said. “The natural resource damages part of that makes no sense to me.”

Mr. Plater said that the governor’s broader argument, that opening the records could give BP a legal advantage during future litigation, was also illogical. Any documents relevant to such litigation would have to be disclosed during the discovery process, he said.

“In the long-term, anything that’s relevant to a legal action by the state is going to be discoverable. It’s going to be revealed in open court,” he said.

Louisiana has an open records law, but it does not apply to records in the custody of the governor’s office.
Click to expand...
wtf?
 
[quote name='speedracer'][quote name='UncleBob']5.) Bonus x2. Smack the crap out of any BP personnel or BP hired goon that tries to keep reporters off of public property. That just ain't right.[/quote]
State =! Federal. I would think a brave constitutional warrior like yourself would understand that.

So what should Obama do again?[/QUOTE]

Oh, here's what Obama should do.

http://www.examiner.com/x-34929-Man...ment-rights-in-covering-damage-from-oil-spill

On Thursday, the Obama White House tightened its already stringent rules preventing news organizations from showing images of the damage done by the Gulf oil spill.

News photographers and reporters are no longer allowed to come within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms on the water or on beaches.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much BP paid the Obama administration to get them to help stop reporters from obtaining images of the damage from the oil spill...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top