Sympathy for the Devil, BP
Posted by Kevin Carson on May 12, 2010 in Feature Articles • 57 commentsLet none say that Lew Rockwell is a stereotypical right-winger. As ever, his heart bleeds for those poor souls who would meet with nothing but condemnation from the more hard-hearted and judgmental among us. For example, he finds it within him to sympathize with the suffering of poor BP, the real victim in the recent oil spill disaster. Even though BP is the “leading victim,” Lew has “yet to see a single expression of sadness for the company and its losses.” In fact, “the words of disgust for BP are beyond belief”!
Oh, the humanity! Why, after all it’s losing thousands of barrels of oil a day (seriously, folks, that’s what he said–and the kid who murdered his parents is an orphan!). Their stock is declining in value. And eleven of their employees were killed. Besides, the environmentalists are ecstatic over the chance to blame someone, so we know BP must be on the side of the angels.
Honestly, any day now I expect to see a piece at LRC or Mises.org boo-hooing because Monty Burns got a scratch on his paint job running over a worker in the street with his Bentley.
So if I did something stupid to injure or kill myself, and in the process also did billions of dollars worth of damage to other people’s property, I’m entitled to sympathy? I’m wracking my brain trying to think of a parallel case involving anyone besides rich people or a corporation, where Rockwell wouldn’t be screaming about “cultures of entitlement” and “victimology.”
So what if they’ve hurt themselves? They did it through their own negligence. I’m waiting for Lew to shed tears for all the poor people living in misery they brought on themselves. Crickets chirping.
Considering that the economic and environmental damage will probably amount to hundreds of billions of dollars, and that BP’s liability is capped by law at the amount of direct cleanup costs plus $75 million, their senior executives should be rejoicing that the entire company hasn’t already been liquidated.
As for those eleven workers who died, why exactly is that supposed to be a tragedy for BP? BP probably had dead peasant insurance on them from the same company where Massey Coal had its policy.
By the way, I can’t let this kind of sheer, breathtaking stupidity get by unchallenged: “The abstraction called the ‘ecosystem’ … has done far less for us than the oil industry, and the factories, planes, trains, and automobiles it fuels.”
Um, it seems to me that the evolution of life itself, the existence of an atmosphere of breathable oxygen, the existence of a food chain capable of supporting hominids long enough for them to become the dominant species and invent those factories and cars–all of this stuff falls pretty clearly under the heading of “ecosystem.”
Is there a bit of a disconnect here? Someone from a philosophical tradition that stresses all the Hayekian knowledge problems involved in central planning, arrogantly claiming that a handful of hierarchical organizations directed by human central planners sitting behind desks have done more for us than the complex unplanned system responsible for bringing us and the entire biosphere into existence?
Burke is often quoted against the hubris of social engineers and central planners: “An ignorant man who is not fool enough to meddle with his clock, is however sufficiently confident to think he can safely take to pieces, and put together at his pleasure, a moral machine of another guise, importance and complexity, composed of far other wheels, and springs, and balances, and counteracting and co-operating powers.” What about those fool enough to do the same, not to society, but to the entire biosphere?
Let’s get something straight. BP did hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage to other people and their property, and the government–the government which Rockwell says “treats every capitalist producer as a bird to be plucked”–is protecting it from tort damages over and above about a tenth of a percent of the actual economic harm it did. Sounds to me like BP did some plucking of its own.
C4SS (c4ss.org) Research Associate Kevin Carson is a contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective, and The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto, all of which are freely available online. Carson has also written for such print publications as The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty and a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.
I was just using "property" in a broad sense, for the general material conditions a lot of people's livelihood depended on. I guess in the sense that people have access rights to certain material resources, that their livelihoods continued on such access (which could have been reasonably expected), and that someone destroyed those resources, it's property damage. It's certainly a tort, in the same sense that would have resulted from contaminating groundwater or making a general neighborhood less livable.
No, but if there were a Nobel Prize for tags I'd nominte "ignorant corporate handjob."
“BP did hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage to other people and their property”
I haven’t been listening too closely to this story, but who are the property owners that suffered billions of dollars of damages? Are you including the ocean as a valid form of common property and adding this into the tab? Or are you talking strictly about damages to private property?
While I’m not opposed to the notion of common property, I’m curious to know what position you are taking here.
Kevin, I don't think you are very good here. You seem to have this outrage against corporations and BP in general that you apparently think can be taken for granted as justified. It's not.
"So if I did something stupid to injure or kill myself, and in the process also did billions of dollars worth of damage to other people’s property, I’m entitled to sympathy?"
Yes, of course–assuming you are going to pay damages to the victims. That means the billions of dollars of damage falls on BP. Of course justice is not perfect, but let's assume they do $50B of damage, and pay all the victims. They are "made whole" (at least in theory), but BP now loses $50B. Why would they not be entitled to sympathy? Just because you dislike corporations? Because they have unclean hands? What exactly is your argument? They made a terrible mistake that cost them tons of money.
"I’m wracking my brain trying to think of a parallel case involving anyone besides rich people or a corporation, where Rockwell wouldn’t be screaming about “cultures of entitlement” and “victimology.”"
Kevin, you know full well Lew is a compassionate and principled libertarian. This is an unfair portrayal of him–"screaming"? Come on.
"So what if they’ve hurt themselves? They did it through their own negligence."
Kevin, what kind of argument is this? Let's posit they were negligent, and this will cost them $50B. This is bad for them; you can feel sympathy for them, of course! Why not? They are producing something beneficial for mankind–oil, energy–and made a mistake. Mistakes are inevitable, as humans are not infallible. The endeavor of extracting oil and providing it to consumers is a productive human endeavor. A company doing something good for mankind made a misake, that will cost it dearly. Why would you not feel sympathy for them? If a friend is negligent while driving and wrecks and is paralyzed, do you say "so what? he did it by his own negligence"?
"I’m waiting for Lew to shed tears for all the poor people living in misery they brought on themselves. Crickets chirping."
Kevin, this is really unfair. Lew and other principled libertarians champion the free market and private property rights in large part out of concern for the welfare of the poor and are of course very concerned about the plight of the poor.
"Considering that the economic and environmental damage will probably amount to hundreds of billions of dollars, and that BP’s liability is capped by law at the amount of direct cleanup costs plus $75 million, their senior executives should be rejoicing that the entire company hasn’t already been liquidated."
Of course, NO libertarian is in favor of the $75M liability cap. NO one. Due to Obama's threats, BP has already agreed to pay all claims and not to rely on the cap (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36933743/). Moreover, Congress is poised to undo the cap, retroactively–the same one that granted the corrupt cap. And it was granted in exchange for a tax–do you think when BP is forced to pay full damages, it will get a refund on the taxes it paid? Will leftists say that in all fairness this tax should be refunded to them? Not likely.
Stephan, I think the outrage is over the idea that BP is engaged in criminal activity in collaboration with the State (assumed by their status in the world oil market, but I'm not too familiar with the specific company or industry). The idea is that these guys are criminals, they caused a bunch of damage to the ecosystem, and wasted a whole bunch of resources in the process, yet Lew wants to talk about all the good they do. This isn't necessarily a case of bad things happening to good people. It could conceivably be bad things happening to bad people. This analysis depends on a couple assumptions about how BP actually conducts business. I don't know if I'm comfortable making those assumption, maybe Kevin has evidence that BP actively engages in creating barriers to entry. It'd seem highly probable, but I wouldn't be able to say for sure.
Another point is the seeming hypocrisy. When a business accidentally causes a disaster, some libertarians will come out and defend it. I haven't seen many posts on LRC boo-hooing the plight of people actually on welfare. I hear welfare moms get called parasites. I haven't heard BP be called a parasite. That double standard is pretty glaring.
Kevin, enjoyable read. I agree given the certain assumptions stated above, but lets say BP were a free market organization (or even an honest business in the Statist construct). Do you still think they'd be undeserving of sympathy?
@Stephan: "Let’s posit they were negligent, and this will cost them $50B. This is bad for them; you can feel sympathy for them, of course! Why not? They are producing something beneficial for mankind–oil, energy–and made a mistake."
This is question begging to the extreme– not only are you expecting us to accept the hidden premise that "because bad things happen to people it is OK to feel bad for them" (which, if I might editorialize, makes me wonder about how sympathetic you are towards executed war criminals and tyrants), but you're going pell-mell for the black gold of question begging when you state that they are producing something beneficial for mankind!
"Kevin, this is really unfair. Lew and other principled libertarians champion the free market and private property rights in large part out of concern for the welfare of the poor and are of course very concerned about the plight of the poor."
This is some sort of cruel joke, right? The Blockean rape contracts and Rockwellian paleo-conservatism aside, Lew Rockwell has only made statements in defense of the poor when it either concerns the abolition of minimum wage, the abolition of child labor laws, and complaining about the culture of dependency welfare creates. Or maybe you have never seen this pattern in his "concern" (or should I say, prioritization) for the welfare of the poor.
I am just stunned at the suggestion that Rockwell is anti-poor, has no compassion or sympathy for the downtrodden. This is base calumny. How dare you? He's one of the greatest advocates of human liberty alive? What is wrong with you?
Were you responsible for the user-contributed tags of “ignorant corporate handjob” and “asshat”? If so, I’m going to wear seven hats, so I can tip them all off to you.
@AnarchoJesse-
I believe that Block has long recanted from his opinion on the secretary-cum-prositute scenario that he wrote about 34 years ago, and for a fact this was taken out of the subsequent editions of "Defending the Undefendable". So you might just be dragging skeletons of out a paleo-closet… or, as I suspect, this is just a cheap attempt to poison the well.
And I agree with Kinsella, Lew is heroic for advocating against the state, even if he doesn't target the parts you hate the most– and that's no reason for hatin'.
There's a lot that I admire about Lew, and a few things I don't — but I would think the point to keep in mind is that nobody ought be considered beyond criticism (even if it's rather insulting). Rather, the critique stands or falls on its own merits. While no one can see into another's heart, we can examine the content of published writings.
re: "Lew Rockwell has only made statements in defense of the poor when it either concerns the abolition of minimum wage, the abolition of child labor laws, and complaining about the culture of dependency welfare creates."
Those actually ARE positions in defense of the poor, ones that defy a conventional wisdom that's based on economic illiteracy. That's courageous on Lew's part. However, more could be said (in defense of the poor) that perhaps doesn't so easily pass muster with the crowd that incomprehensibly sees Big Business as a persecuted minority, which seems to be the sentiment you were trying to articulate.
*plugs LRC en ess*
Brad:
"There’s a lot that I admire about Lew, and a few things I don’t — but I would think the point to keep in mind is that nobody ought be considered beyond criticism (even if it’s rather insulting). Rather, the critique stands or falls on its own merits. While no one can see into another’s heart, we can examine the content of published writings."
Of course. This goes without saying. But what do we see here? Vague accusations "I don't recall seeing much in defense of the poor on his site." that kind of nonsense. Things like this must be said by someone unfamiliar with decades of output from LRC and the Mises Institute. This is incredible.
Rockwell ignores that ecosystems are important to human life. If wenare to take him athis word, all environmentalists are commies in disguise. Rockwell doesn’t seem to care about the long term consequences of an oil filled Gulf of Mexico.
re: "But what do we see here?"
Among other things…
"…question begging to the extreme…"
Just to be clear, I consider it shameful that energy monopolists (which I consider to be right up there with the biggest banks and "defense" contractors) are being defended on Mises.org.
BP has to pay for all this, but it is a complete non sequitor to equate feeling bad for someone who has had something bad happen to them to mean that they don't think they should be held responsible for they did.
Lempa: Rockwell doesn’t seem to care about the long term consequences of an oil filled Gulf of Mexico."
Nonsense. Of course he "cares" about it. He just has priorities: humans first; we need energy, even if it is risky and has costs; etc.
Brad: "Just to be clear, I consider it shameful that energy monopolists (which I consider to be right up there with the biggest banks and “defense” contractors) are being defended on Mises.org."
Brad, can you explain exactly why? What is the right position to take on "energy monopolists"? That we should cheer if they go bankrupt? What?
@Stephan I hope you are right that Mr. Rockwell cares about the long term effects in the Gulf. Your comment regarding priorities is what I don't get. These catastrophes threaten human life. They threaten our energy production.
Here's what Rockwell and many people miss (via the above article) "[I]t seems to me that the evolution of life itself, the existence of an atmosphere of breathable oxygen, the existence of a food chain capable of supporting hominids long enough for them to become the dominant species and invent those factories and cars–all of this stuff falls pretty clearly under the heading of “ecosystem.”"
Ecosystems are not abstract. The environment isn't abstract. Life on this planet is a symbiotic relationship. We are doomed if the oceans, forests, and other species are wiped out.
Humans like energy. This is true. We especially like cheap energy. Energy is kept cheap through corporate welfare schemes. The same people receiving said welfare run PR campaigns that smear environmental concerns.
Addendum
I think it is telling that Rockwell doesn't address his critics. I realize that he is busy and can't answer each and every article, blog post, etc. However, this seems a probable topic for a follow-up article.
Lempka;
It's not "telling" at all. He's very busy and productive and has done more for the cause of individual freedom and liberty than probably any other living human being. I mean that quite literally. He is a hero for all libertarians, so these comments are just unbelievable.
"I hope you are right that Mr. Rockwell cares about the long term effects in the Gulf. Your comment regarding priorities is what I don’t get. These catastrophes threaten human life. They threaten our energy production."
What is the point? We have to have energy to survive. We have to have oil to have energy (especially because the so-called "environmentalists" have hobbled and hampered the safest and best form of energy, nuclear power). To get oil you have to drill. E&P is risky. Accidents are impossible to eliminate. So what is your point? We should be safer? Okay.
"Ecosystems are not abstract. The environment isn’t abstract. Life on this planet is a symbiotic relationship. We are doomed if the oceans, forests, and other species are wiped out."
We are doomed if we don't have energy.
"Humans like energy."
LIKE? It is absolutely essential. It is not a luxury.
"This is true. We especially like cheap energy. Energy is kept cheap through corporate welfare schemes."
Cheap? Are you joking?? Energy is artificially expensive because of the state. Nuclear power would be drastically cheaper without the state's hampers. Virtually everything, including energy, would be far cheaper without the state's regulations, interventionism, and taxation.
@Stephan – No K in Lempa.
Lew has written and done a lot for the libertarian movement. Fair enough. That doesn't mean that he should get a free pass on everything he writes or says. Nobody should. I'm also not one for heroification.
"What is the point? We have to have energy to survive. We have to have oil to have energy (especially because the so-called “environmentalists” have hobbled and hampered the safest and best form of energy, nuclear power). To get oil you have to drill. E&P is risky. Accidents are impossible to eliminate. So what is your point? We should be safer? Okay."
The point is that energy is useless to humans if we don't exist. BP and their affiliates were, I think, less cautious than they should have been. I read that when other countries require offshore drilling operations to have more rigorous safety plans. Energy companies, BP included, have put these measures in place. I hope that the BP didn't bypass relatively simple safety measures to save a few bucks. . .
"We are doomed if we don’t have energy."
Humans were around before oil. We can be around after it.
"LIKE? It is absolutely essential. It is not a luxury."
The AMOUNT of energy we use is a luxury. As is the amount of water we use.
"Cheap? Are you joking?? Energy is artificially expensive because of the state. Nuclear power would be drastically cheaper without the state’s hampers. Virtually everything, including energy, would be far cheaper without the state’s regulations, interventionism, and taxation."
I'm not joking. BP and other companies receive subsidies. Here's a graphic: http://ecopolitology.org/2010/03/08/think-renewab…. Dropping subsidies and limited liability protection would either raise energy costs OR force innovation in different, more efficient technology.
Nuclear strikes me as being short sighted. Where is the waste going to go?
@Chris — I share your skepticism about conventional nuclear power, however the market forced innovation you refer to might be along the lines of the next generation of mini reactors taking shape:
http://www.physorg.com/news145561984.html
@Stephan — re: "What is the right position to take on 'energy monopolists'?"
Glad you asked…
"What should the libertarian view be toward white-market pyramid building? Or, if you think pyramids would not exist in a free society but aqueducts might, what should our view be toward aqueduct building on the white market vs. black market water smuggling? New Libertarians urge the slaves to screw the aqueduct and go for their private buckets until such time as aqueducts can be built under voluntary arrangements."
– Samuel Edward Konkin III, Strategy of the New Libertarian Alliance, No. 1, May Day 1981
http://wconger.blogspot.com/2006/04/agorist-imper…
Show me an illegal oil well and I'll likely defend it, Stephan.
"I’m not joking. BP and other companies receive subsidies. Here’s a graphic: http://ecopolitology.org/2010/03/08/think-renewab…. Dropping subsidies and limited liability protection would either raise energy costs OR force innovation in different, more efficient technology."
I didn't see a link to the data source that backs up that graphic- so I'm curious to know what criteria was used to tally the subsidies. This is very much relevant due to differing views on what constitutes a subsidy, and if in fact, this subsidy is on net positive to the beneficiary.
While tax breaks are indirect subsidies, I find it hard to oppose them on principle, even though I readily agree that they distort the entire structure of energy production towards tax-favored production. To me, opposing tax breaks in principle would lend credence to the notion that taxation can be in some sense made fair.
In some of these studies, Ive seen the cost of the national defense industry thrown into the figure, with the assumption that without a costly military structure, petroleum would be much more difficult to obtain from unfriendly regimes with higher security costs and greater political risk. To this, my consideration would be to determine if in fact having such a military is lowering the cost of petroleum than it would be in the counterfactual scenario in which the US has no empire-ambitions, and middle-eastern countries are ecstatic to trade with US-based companies.
Stephan: No, in this case I have a specific outrage against a corporation that's caused untold billions of dollars worth of damage and will probably devastate an entire region for a generation, and wrecked everyone's livelihood that depends on the Gulf of Mexico as a source of food. I have a specific outrage against them for having their economic damages over and above cleanup costs capped at $75 million, and for a slipshod safety record of cutting corners to save on costs much like that of Massey Energy.
You're assuming that BP *does* pay damages to all the victims, which they are precluded by law from being forced to do against their will.
As for Lew Rockwell's personal qualities, you know him and I don't. All I know is what I see in print. And what I see in print is a piece apparently written for the same in-your-face shock value as defending Ebenezer Scrooge. And of the paleos at LRC in general, screams about the "culture of victimhood" and "senses of entitlement" (not to mention snide remarks about non-middle class culture and its "steep time preferences") are exactly what I'd expect to hear if someone expressed sympathy for (say) a welfare mom who'd injured other people through her own negligence and in the process ruined her own life.
Re the need for energy, its cheapness, etc.:
Stephan, like George Reisman, you seem to be making the leap from the fact that energy is needed for an advanced society to the assumption that present levels of energy consumption per unit of output are necessary, as such, for our standard of living. I think the fact of the matter is that oil production has peaked (and we're arguably very near peak total fossil fuel production), and there will be no choice in the matter of finding more energy-efficient ways of organizing production.
As for the price of it, to take just one particular: I would guess the elimination of statutory caps on tort damages and the elimination of statutory limits on individual liability for third-party damages would cause the cost of liability insurance to skyrocket–especially after all BP's assets were liquidated to pay the cost of harm caused by this latest accident, and the personal assets of managers and/or shareholders were gone after. That's not taking into account things like tort damage for the contributory factor of land subsidence to hurricane damage, charging the tankers for the cost of protecting the sea lanes, etc.
@Brad I'll have to look at that. My thought is that in a freed market there would be much greater advances in different forms of energy.
@iceberg I realize that wasn't a scholarly or detailed diagram. I was on a quick break and it's the first thing that came up. My point was that subsidies generally lower the price of energy, not raise it.
@Kevin I agree with your points 100%, especially re: Mises.org/LRC and peak oil.
Stephan Kinsella wrote "I am just stunned at the suggestion that Rockwell is anti-poor, has no compassion or sympathy for the downtrodden. This is base calumny. How dare you? He’s one of the greatest advocates of human liberty alive? What is wrong with you?" and '…what do we see here? Vague accusations “I don’t recall seeing much in defense of the poor on his site.” that kind of nonsense. Things like this must be said by someone unfamiliar with decades of output from LRC and the Mises Institute. This is incredible.'
As Winston Churchill is reputed to have remarked of an indignant Labour MP, "the right honourable gentleman should not generate more indignation than he can comfortably contain".
Well, let's get specific, then. First the good news and then the bad:-
- On the one hand it is certainly true that Lew Rockwell's site frequently does look into such things with articles that do indeed show a concern for the poor, e.g. most recently an article by Cathy Cuthbert.
- However, on the other hand, Lew Rockwell himself is very one eyed about just who the poor are and what does and does not help them. A few months ago I had an email exchange with him about how the early stages of the Industrial Revolution actually harmed the poor (indirectly, and often not causally), in which I cited chapter and verse. He attempted to do the same by way of rebuttal, only with (perfectly accurate) evidence about how the low paid wage earners became better off. Even after I tried to spell it out he simply did not register the fact that those were not the poorest of the poor but were one rung up from those, who were those who had been squeezed out. I have seen similar tuning out on his part elsewhere, which suggests a general pattern of unintended but systematic unawareness rather than of conscious exclusion.
So he does have a form of concern, only he is actually unconcerned with those who escape his tunnel vision. He might well care about them if he ever noticed them, but he doesn't. Even the Cuthbert article linked above isn't about people who have been squeezed out but about the working poor. In that unawareness rather than conscious values sense, he has a "lack of compassion".
1. Lempa: “Humans were around before oil. We can be around after it.”
Kinsella: "Statements like these are what repulse some people about the environemntalist and primitivist movement. This is an evil thing to say."
It's a true thing to say. We're on the downard slope of Peak Oil. Cheap and abundant fossil fuels was an interlude of a couple of centuries. In a few decades, we're going to be getting by on a fraction of current levels of consumption of oil. And I think people are pretty creative when it comes to finding ways to use energy more efficiently when they have to. If that's an evil thing to say, I guess I'd better clap louder.
2. Carson: “Stephan, like George Reisman, you seem to be making the leap from the fact that energy is needed for an advanced society to the assumption that present levels of energy consumption per unit of output are necessary, as such, for our standard of living.”
Kinsella: "No, I am not making that assumption, and did not state or imply it."
I refer you to your own words immediately above in the same comment:
Lempa: “The AMOUNT of energy we use is a luxury. As is the amount of water we use.”
Kinsella: "It’s essential for prosperity, production, progress."
3. Along the same lines:
Carson: “I think the fact of the matter is that oil production has peaked (and we’re arguably very near peak total fossil fuel production), and there will be no choice in the matter of finding more energy-efficient ways of organizing production.”
Kinsella: "Maybe so, maybe no. I don’t know. If it’s true we will resort more to natural gas/shale gas… or it could be nuclear if the anti-industrialist enviros would stop opposing it."
Or if, as I suspect, it's impossible to completely replace fossil fuel with something else as cheap and easy to extract, it could be that we simply consume less energy and figure out ways to maintain a high standard of living with less energy expenditure.
4. Also along the same lines, your seeming equation of the fate of offshore drilling to whether we live like savages without any energy or industry reinforces my impression that you regard energy consumption itself as a metric of quality of life without regard to the possibilities of increased energy efficiency, and as a consumption good in its own right. If the marginal loss of the amount of energy that comes from offshore oil drilling will result in our descent into a long night of barbarism, surely I am justified in inferring that you don't see our economy and industry as capable of functioning with lower amounts of energy.
5. It's odd that, in a comment so full of outraged about generalization and collective groupings, you make so many… generalizations about collective groupings:
"…not any more than the statist left does; they are in fact worse, as Sowell points out in The Vision of the Anointed."
"The anti-nuke enviros are either ignorant, or hate humankind, and view it as a problem that should be expunged."
The disingenuous strawman portrayal of the entire environmentalist movement as made up of primitivist wackos is the sort of thing I usually see from Reisman. You really don't think there might just be people who'd like to see less pollution and more energy efficiency, without wanting to go back to a human population of ten million hunter-gatherers?
Your argument sounds to me like "Stop making broad generalizations about large and diverse movements of people, especially when they're in fact wonderful–unlike those large movements of people I don't like, who all do horrible things."
Lempa:
“Lew has written and done a lot for the libertarian movement. Fair enough.”
“a lot” is an understatement. Name anyone who has done more. Or even half what he has.
“That doesn’t mean that he should get a free pass on everything he writes or says. Nobody should. I’m also not one for heroification.”
He is a hero, but I agree, he doesn’t get a free pass. But being charitable and not assuming he’s a misanthrope who doesn’t care about the poor or the environment is not “giving him a pass,” dude.
“The point is that energy is useless to humans if we don’t exist. BP and their affiliates were, I think, less cautious than they should have been.”
How is this relevant to Kevin’s comments or my response? So they were negligent. So they made a mistake. Annnnd?
““We are doomed if we don’t have energy.”
“Humans were around before oil. We can be around after it.”
Statements like these are what repulse some people about the environemntalist and primitivist movement. This is an evil thing to say.
““LIKE? It is absolutely essential. It is not a luxury.”
“The AMOUNT of energy we use is a luxury. As is the amount of water we use.”
It’s essential for prosperity, production, progress. Read a few back issues of Petr Beckmann’s classic newsletter Access to Energy, dude, or his Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear. See: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/11/18/beckmanns-economics-as-if-some-people-mattered/
““Cheap? Are you joking?? Energy is artificially expensive because of the state. Nuclear power would be drastically cheaper without the state’s hampers. Virtually everything, including energy, would be far cheaper without the state’s regulations, interventionism, and taxation.”
“I’m not joking. BP and other companies receive subsidies. Here’s a graphic: http://ecopolitology.org/2010/03/08/think-renewables-need-huge-subsidies-federal-energy-subsidies-visualized/. Dropping subsidies and limited liability protection would either raise energy costs OR force innovation in different, more efficient technology.”
They are also burdened, penalized, and regulated. Why do you ignore this? Why do you assume the burdens are less than the “subsidies”?
“Nuclear strikes me as being short sighted. Where is the waste going to go?”
Marianas trench. Bury it. No big deal. http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/texts/beckmann_nuclear-waste.pdf
This ignorant ploy is a common one of the anti-industrialist agenda: it’s just a way to buy time, to impede nuclear. If we figure that out, you’ll find another excuse. The anti-nuke enviros are either ignorant, or hate humankind, and view it as a problem that should be expunged. As environut Paul Ehrlich infamously said, “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/09/07/environmentalists-are-a-cancer-on-the-earth/
Brad:
“Show me an illegal oil well and I’ll likely defend it, Stephan.”
I can’t see the relevance. Are yo saying BP is criminal? part of the state? has no properrty rights? What exactly are you saying?
Kevin:
“Stephan: No, in this case I have a specific outrage against a corporation that’s caused untold billions of dollars worth of damage and will probably devastate an entire region for a generation, and wrecked everyone’s livelihood that depends on the Gulf of Mexico as a source of food. I have a specific outrage against them for having their economic damages over and above cleanup costs capped at $75 million, and for a slipshod safety record of cutting corners to save on costs much like that of Massey Energy.”
If their damages are capped that is the state’s fault. And if they stay capped or they evade paying damages–I would agree w/ you. I am assuming they will one way or the other have to pay the damages.
As for causing damage: are you outraged b/c they are not infallible? Because negligence is possible? Do you think there is no need for oil? That we should not be drilling for it at all?
“You’re assuming that BP *does* pay damages to all the victims, which they are precluded by law from being forced to do against their will.”
Yes, I am. If not, then I am more on your side. It appears they will have to: they have said they would honor claims; and Congress is poised to raise the cap. IF they do, woudl you change your tune? If BP DOES pay $10B damages (assuming that’s all of it) then would you say we should have sympathy for them?
“As for Lew Rockwell’s personal qualities, you know him and I don’t. All I know is what I see in print.”
You know he founded the Mises Institute and tirelessly champions individual rights and fights the state and war.
“And what I see in print is a piece apparently written for the same in-your-face shock value as defending Ebenezer Scrooge.”
I disagree. I find the venomous attacks on BP by lefties to be disgusting and misanthropic–not to mention utterly confused. Do they want us to live like savages with no industry and energy? Do they wnat BP to be infallible? What?
“And of the paleos at LRC in general, screams about the “culture of victimhood” and “senses of entitlement” (not to mention snide remarks about non-middle class culture and its “steep time preferences”) are exactly what I’d expect to hear if someone expressed sympathy for (say) a welfare mom who’d injured other people through her own negligence and in the process ruined her own life.”
this seems weak. Just “it seems” and generalization and collective groupings. Nothing specific. The Misesian type libertarians are just as compassionate about the underclasses as you guys are, Kevin. You don’t get to claim moral superiority on that score, not one iota–not any more than the statist left does; they are in fact worse, as Sowell points out in The Vision of the Anointed.
“Stephan, like George Reisman, you seem to be making the leap from the fact that energy is needed for an advanced society to the assumption that present levels of energy consumption per unit of output are necessary, as such, for our standard of living.”
No, I am not making that assumption, and did not state or imply it.
“I think the fact of the matter is that oil production has peaked (and we’re arguably very near peak total fossil fuel production), and there will be no choice in the matter of finding more energy-efficient ways of organizing production.”
Maybe so, maybe no. I don’t know. If it’s true we will resort more to natural gas/shale gas (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187880596301668.html#mod=djemWMP_t) — or it could be nuclear if the anti-industrialist enviros would stop opposing it.
“As for the price of it, to take just one particular: I would guess the elimination of statutory caps on tort damages and the elimination of statutory limits on individual liability for third-party damages would cause the cost of liability insurance to skyrocket–”
You are lumping together things that are not alike. The first one should be eliminated, because liability for torts should not be limited [BUT: we anarchists don't really want the state courts imposing liability on tortfeasors, do we? if you are selected for jury duty will you vote to convict the defendant and consign him to state tax-supported jails--even if you think him guilty of a real crime? I wouldn't. so why do we want the state to enforce tort liability?? In a way a cap is a way of the state partially getting out of this business.] But by the latter I take it you mean shareholder liability. As Hessen and Pilon have explained, there is no reason to impute vicarious liability to a passive shareholder in the first place for torts of employees of a company the shareholder has a share in–no more than employees, vendors, creditors, suppliers, customers, stakeholders, etc. So eliminating the artificail state incorporation personhood theory and its grant of shareholder limited liability would not result in shareholders being liable in the first place. We are individuals: you are liable for your actions, not ofr those of others–unless you can show why vicarious responsibility should be imposed in a given case.
“especially after all BP’s assets were liquidated to pay the cost of harm caused by this latest accident, and the personal assets of managers and/or shareholders were gone after.”
Did (all) of the managers, or the shareholders, cause the accident? If so, why, exactly? Don’t tell me it’s b/c the shareholders “are” “owners”–you can’t use a state legal classification to justify this. Ownerhsip is the legal right to control a resource. That control is divided among certain people but usually not shareholders. They don’t necessarily have any more control than a creditor or important customer or vendor or employee or even stakeholder. Do you want all of them liable too? If so, what exactly is your theory of causation and responsibility?
” That’s not taking into account things like tort damage for the contributory factor of land subsidence to hurricane damage, charging the tankers for the cost of protecting the sea lanes, etc.”
The state monopolizes these activities, pays for it by taxing people and companies–and you think we owe the state for this? Do you owe the state for the roads you drive on? For the military’s defense of our airspace for private flights you might take? Laced between a lot of your comments seems to be the idea that the state actually benefits companies on average. Of course it does not; it’s destructive. It harms companies. It decreases wealth. It causes net damage. Yes, I get a “benefit” of Coast Guard protection from pirates, police “protection” from private crime around my home, and “free” roads–but at the expense of outrageous invasions of my personal liberty and dignity, horrendous taxation and regulation and threats of jail or death for committing victimless crimes. I dont have a net benefit. I don’t owe the state a dime. Neither does BP, or any other private company, unless you can show in a particular case that they are such a net beneficiary as to be basically part of the state (like Grumman or Northrop maybe).
Lempa:
“I realize that wasn’t a scholarly or detailed diagram. I was on a quick break and it’s the first thing that came up. My point was that subsidies generally lower the price of energy, not raise it.”
A tax break is not a subsidy. And subsidies don’t lower prices unless there are not greater costs also being imposed. Why do you ignore these costs as if they do not exist?
"We should not have hatred for organizations that are composed of individuals working to produce and satisfy market demands–even if you think there are imperfections and collusions."
Doesn't the State qualify as well? It's an organization. Composed of individuals. It works to produce and satisfy market demands. It's imperfect. It colludes. Yep. That's all of 'em.
I don't hate the people who work for the government or the people who work for BP who may all, depending on who, deserve sympathy, but the organizations themselves are inefficient monopolies and deserve none.
Kevin:
“1. Lempa: “Humans were around before oil. We can be around after it.”
“Kinsella: “Statements like these are what repulse some people about the environemntalist and primitivist movement. This is an evil thing to say.”
It’s a true thing to say. We’re on the downard slope of Peak Oil. Cheap and abundant fossil fuels was an interlude of a couple of centuries. In a few decades, we’re going to be getting by on a fraction of current levels of consumption of oil. And I think people are pretty creative when it comes to finding ways to use energy more efficiently when they have to. If that’s an evil thing to say, I guess I’d better clap louder.”
I took his statement to be a response to my comment: “We are doomed if we don’t have energy.” As if to say, no big deal. We don’t need all that energy. Humans can survive in a world without mass energy–yes, and live primitive lives. If oil disappears, sure, we will find other, more expensive (at first) sources of energy. Humans are adaptable.
You assert the Peak Oil theory. It may be true, maybe not. If it is true, then yes, we will and should figure out ways to conserve. But energy is good. The cheaper the better. To be callous about the costs of dearer oil or energy is misanthropic. Yes, I honestly believe a lot of “environmentalists” do not want us to have cheap, plentiful energy. Ehrlich did say, you konw, “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” This is what they believe.
“2. Carson: “Stephan, like George Reisman, you seem to be making the leap from the fact that energy is needed for an advanced society to the assumption that present levels of energy consumption per unit of output are necessary, as such, for our standard of living.”
Kinsella: “No, I am not making that assumption, and did not state or imply it.”
I refer you to your own words immediately above in the same comment:
Lempa: “The AMOUNT of energy we use is a luxury. As is the amount of water we use.”
Kinsella: “It’s essential for prosperity, production, progress.””
Kevin, that is not saying we have to have the same levels. WE need a great deal of energy. sure, we can conserve and adjust and adapt if it starts falling. We can even live like eskimos or primitive tribes again if we have to, if we completely run out of significant energy sources. I seriously hope this doesn’t happen. I have no reason to believe it will. Energy is essential for prosperity etc.
“Kinsella: “Maybe so, maybe no. I don’t know. If it’s true we will resort more to natural gas/shale gas… or it could be nuclear if the anti-industrialist enviros would stop opposing it.”
“Or if, as I suspect, it’s impossible to completely replace fossil fuel with something else as cheap and easy to extract, it could be that we simply consume less energy and figure out ways to maintain a high standard of living with less energy expenditure.”
Sure, why not? We can and will find ways to conserve and increase efficiency, in response to changing scarcities and supplies and realities. But better would be to radically ramp up nuclear and give us ever more and ever cheaper energy, to use for productivity, for life.
“4. Also along the same lines, your seeming equation of the fate of offshore drilling to whether we live like savages without any energy or industry reinforces my impression that you regard energy consumption itself as a metric of quality of life without regard to the possibilities of increased energy efficiency,”
This is not true at all. We can and will have to adjust to changing reality. But right now there is a huge demand for fossil-fuel based energy. It’s more expensive to lower consumption and increase efficiency–evidently. Why do something suboptimal when you don’t have to?
” and as a consumption good in its own right. If the marginal loss of the amount of energy that comes from offshore oil drilling will result in our descent into a long night of barbarism, surely I am justified in inferring that you don’t see our economy and industry as capable of functioning with lower amounts of energy.”
Of course it’s “capable of functioning”–but everyting comes at a cost. Why impose, or want, or be in favor of, or callous to, a cost, just because it can be paid, with enough adjustment and hardship?
“The disingenuous strawman portrayal of the entire environmentalist movement as made up of primitivist wackos is the sort of thing I usually see from Reisman. You really don’t think there might just be people who’d like to see less pollution and more energy efficiency, without wanting to go back to a human population of ten million hunter-gatherers?”
Sure, Kevin, some of them are like this. These are the merely ignorant people instead of the misanthropes. The misanthropes are like Ehrlich who hate to see us prosper and dominate as a species. They want us small and starved of energy and straggling. The ignoramuses say they want less pollution yet they don’t favor nuclear–instead they mouth things like the guy above “but what do we do about the waste”.
My criticism of your original post stands. It was an unfair attack on a good man, a great libertarian. The attack on BP is also bizarre. Yes, we all agree there should be no caps and state favoritism should be ended. I think you see them as some wicked monstrous beast, unlibertarian and unjust and almost criminal–not just b/c they might have lobbied for some liability caps, but because they are incorporated, gasp! because they have employees. Or whatever. I do not. I know people in these industries, including BP itself and similar oil giants, and they are real people, working in a cooperative manner in a complex hierarchical system to provide goods and services to consumers. The demonization that you engage in so that you can actually say they desrve no sympathy because they were negligent is … unfortunate. We should not have hatred for organizations that are composed of individuals working to produce and satisfy market demands–even if you think there are imperfections and collusions. We are all corrupted to some degree, tainted and tarnished by having to use the existing state tools, rules, and infrastructure to live our daily lives. The solution is to identify the statism and oppose it.
Chris: are you seriously arguing BP is an agency of the state, merely b/c it's part of the corporatism of our time? Are you part of the state too?
BTW, Sheldon has a good, thoughtful piece on the BP issue here: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/bp-s… — note that most of his comments were sober and arguable and coherent, and I actually agree with most of it. Of course, Lew's comments were not a defense of BP of the type Sheldon rightly criticizes; none of us are under any illusions that there is no corporatism going on here. And even if BP was too careless and negligent, that doesn't mean we ought not feel sympathy for them (presupposing they will in the end take the brunt of the costs of the damages).
On today's LRC: "Capitalism Is Pro-Poor" — "It is also pro-rich, and there's nothing wrong with that. Article by Walter Williams." http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams3…
Self-Regulation in the Corporate State: The BP Spill
(Which system failed?)
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/bp-s…
No Stephan, I don't have any evidence to believe BP is an agent or net-subsidiary of the State (though after this fiasco they probably will be). The point was that your criteria for what organizations should not receive scorn includes every organization including the State.
Stephan said, “He is a hero, but I agree, he doesn’t get a free pass. But being charitable and not assuming he’s a misanthrope who doesn’t care about the poor or the environment is not “giving him a pass,” dude.”
Misanthrope? No. Writes some questionable things without clarification? Yes.
I said, “The point is that energy is useless to humans if we don’t exist. BP and their affiliates were, I think, less cautious than they should have been.”
Stephan said, “How is this relevant to Kevin’s comments or my response? So they were negligent. So they made a mistake. Annnnd?”
You said we need energy. I said energy is useless is humans don’t exist. If an actor’s actions threaten our survival, that’s bad.
I said, “Humans were around before oil. We can be around after it.”
Stephan said, “Statements like these are what repulse some people about the environemntalist and primitivist movement. This is an evil thing to say.”
So you deny that humans were around before the discovery of oil? You deny that humans can survive without oil?
or
I’m a wacko environmental primitivist because I think that humans can do better?
I said, “The AMOUNT of energy we use is a luxury. As is the amount of water we use.”
Stephan said, “It’s essential for prosperity, production, progress. Read a few back issues of Petr Beckmann’s classic newsletter Access to Energy, dude, or his Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear. See: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/11/18/beckmanns-economics-as-if-some-people-mattered/”
I’ve read that post and I think I read some of the newsletters. I’ll revisit when there is time. However, I don’t understand why people are so anti-solar, wind, etc. Why not go with renewable energy?
I said, “I’m not joking. BP and other companies receive subsidies. Here’s a graphic: http://ecopolitology.org/2010/03/08/think-renewables-need-huge-subsidies-federal-energy-subsidies-visualized/. Dropping subsidies and limited liability protection would either raise energy costs OR force innovation in different, more efficient technology.”
Stephan said, “They are also burdened, penalized, and regulated. Why do you ignore this? Why do you assume the burdens are less than the “subsidies”?”
I don’t ignore regulations. I simply wasn’t talking about them at the time. Many of these large businesses help write the regulations. I’m not sure if BP played a role in writing some of them, but a Google search MIGHT help answer that. Remember Cheney’s secret meetings?
I said, “Nuclear strikes me as being short sighted. Where is the waste going to go?”
Stephan said, “Marianas trench. Bury it. No big deal. http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/texts/beckmann_nuclear-waste.pdf
This ignorant ploy is a common one of the anti-industrialist agenda: it’s just a way to buy time, to impede nuclear. If we figure that out, you’ll find another excuse. The anti-nuke enviros are either ignorant, or hate humankind, and view it as a problem that should be expunged. As environut Paul Ehrlich infamously said, “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/09/07/environmentalists-are-a-cancer-on-the-earth/”
Actually, burying it is what scares me. I’m not convinced that the short term gain outweighs the long term consequences. I’ll need more evidence than one guys newsletter. I am open however.
Kevin said, “And what I see in print is a piece apparently written for the same in-your-face shock value as defending Ebenezer Scrooge.”
Stephan said, “I disagree. I find the venomous attacks on BP by lefties to be disgusting and misanthropic–not to mention utterly confused. Do they want us to live like savages with no industry and energy? Do they wnat BP to be infallible? What?”
It is very disingenuous of you to call all environmentalists primitivist misanthropes. Where is this inidividualism you folks preach about? Why is it thrown away when it comes to “environmentalists”?
Kevin said, “And of the paleos at LRC in general, screams about the “culture of victimhood” and “senses of entitlement” (not to mention snide remarks about non-middle class culture and its “steep time preferences”) are exactly what I’d expect to hear if someone expressed sympathy for (say) a welfare mom who’d injured other people through her own negligence and in the process ruined her own life.”
Stephan says, “this seems weak. Just “it seems” and generalization and collective groupings. Nothing specific. The Misesian type libertarians are just as compassionate about the underclasses as you guys are, Kevin. You don’t get to claim moral superiority on that score, not one iota–not any more than the statist left does; they are in fact worse, as Sowell points out in The Vision of the Anointed.”
Thanks for proving my point about collective groupings.
Kevin said, “Stephan, like George Reisman, you seem to be making the leap from the fact that energy is needed for an advanced society to the assumption that present levels of energy consumption per unit of output are necessary, as such, for our standard of living.”
Stephan said, “No, I am not making that assumption, and did not state or imply it.”
You did say it. You called me a misanthrope for saying the amount of energy we use is a luxury. I think we can do more with less. You seem to be find with the status quo. The same goes for water. Our delivery systems are inefficient. As are our many of our appliances. This leads to a lot of waste and excess energy use.
Kevin said, “I think the fact of the matter is that oil production has peaked (and we’re arguably very near peak total fossil fuel production), and there will be no choice in the matter of finding more energy-efficient ways of organizing production.”
Stephan said, “Maybe so, maybe no. I don’t know. If it’s true we will resort more to natural gas/shale gas (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187880596301668.html#mod=djemWMP_t) — or it could be nuclear if the anti-industrialist enviros would stop opposing it.”
Or maybe R and D will lead to something cleaner and more efficient.
Stephan said, “Did (all) of the managers, or the shareholders, cause the accident? If so, why, exactly? Don’t tell me it’s b/c the shareholders “are” “owners”–you can’t use a state legal classification to justify this. Ownerhsip is the legal right to control a resource. That control is divided among certain people but usually not shareholders. They don’t necessarily have any more control than a creditor or important customer or vendor or employee or even stakeholder. Do you want all of them liable too? If so, what exactly is your theory of causation and responsibility?”
This is part of the problem with the current set-up. Who is liable? Is it the people who installed the system? Those who designed the system? How about the engineers or monitors?
Stephan said, “A tax break is not a subsidy. And subsidies don’t lower prices unless there are not greater costs also being imposed. Why do you ignore these costs as if they do not exist?”
Do you deny that energy companies benefit from the government? And why do you keep saying that I ignore costs? I know full well that the government makes it very difficult for start-up energy companies. Try starting a wind cooperative. This is even more difficult when your group isn’t politically connected. Why do you ignore this Stephan?
Brad: yes, this is a good piece by Sheldon.
Chris: I doubt BP will be a net beneficiary, so long as it ends up paying for the damage, which I suspect it will.
My criteria most certainly do not include the state. Those committing aggression deserve scorn: this includes private criminals, as well as the state, the institutionalized agency of criminality and aggression.
Private individuals and firms deserve scorn insofar as they commit crime. Thus, we libertairans already do criticize (say) the liability caps the state grants to oil companies, plus other forms of protectionism. And we criticize individuals and firms who lobby the state in support of further statist laws and measures. Are you saying any individual or firm who is not 100% lily white should be treated like a criminal member of the state? Seems rather un-nuanced and disproportionate to me.
Lempa:
“Misanthrope? No. Writes some questionable things without clarification? Yes.”
It’s misanthropic to not care about the poor or the environment, or the “ecosystem”. And this is of course not true of Lew, indeed of any sincere libertarian.
“Stephan said, “It’s essential for prosperity, production, progress. Read a few back issues of Petr Beckmann’s classic newsletter Access to Energy, dude, or his Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear. See: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/11/18/beckmanns-economics-as-if-some-people-mattered/”
“I’ve read that post and I think I read some of the newsletters. I’ll revisit when there is time. However, I don’t understand why people are so anti-solar, wind, etc. Why not go with renewable energy?”
? Do you think it’s your decision or that of the collective? Why not let them go with what makes sense to them? And if you will read the Beckmann stuff, eg Why “Soft” Technology Will Not Be America’s Energy Salvation., you will see that solar and wind simply cannot provide sufficient amounts of energy. It has to be fossil or nuclear. Moreover, there is some argument that fossil fuels are renewing. Not sure I buy that theory, but who knows. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Why the hostility to nuclear? Because you don’t know about nuclear wastes? So what?
“I don’t ignore regulations. I simply wasn’t talking about them at the time. Many of these large businesses help write the regulations. I’m not sure if BP played a role in writing some of them, but a Google search MIGHT help answer that. Remember Cheney’s secret meetings?”
You think BP is in favor of corporate income tax? You can’t ignore it because it’s not a net subsidy if these costs are greater, and they obviously are.
“Actually, burying it is what scares me. I’m not convinced that the short term gain outweighs the long term consequences. I’ll need more evidence than one guys newsletter. I am open however.”
It’s not really up to you. What is this, a democratic moot or something? Let a private nuclear power plant owner arrange for it.
“It is very disingenuous of you to call all environmentalists primitivist misanthropes. Where is this inidividualism you folks preach about? Why is it thrown away when it comes to “environmentalists”?”
I didn’t call ALL of them misantrhopes; in fact I am an environmentalist, of course, properly understood, as are all defenders of property rights.
“You did say it. You called me a misanthrope for saying the amount of energy we use is a luxury. I think we can do more with less.”
So? We can do even mroe with more!
“Or maybe R and D will lead to something cleaner and more efficient.”
In the meantime, we should have fission. If someone comes up with fusion, fine. Until then–fission baby.
“Stephan said, “Did (all) of the managers, or the shareholders, cause the accident? If so, why, exactly? Don’t tell me it’s b/c the shareholders “are” “owners”–you can’t use a state legal classification to justify this. Ownerhsip is the legal right to control a resource. That control is divided among certain people but usually not shareholders. They don’t necessarily have any more control than a creditor or important customer or vendor or employee or even stakeholder. Do you want all of them liable too? If so, what exactly is your theory of causation and responsibility?”
“This is part of the problem with the current set-up. Who is liable? Is it the people who installed the system? Those who designed the system? How about the engineers or monitors?”
This is the job of a legal system–to figure this out. Are you saying you want to basically outlaw complicated systems of human interactions because you are not sure from your armchair how you figure out liabilit? Hey, society is very complex–7 billion people and trillions of interconnections and interrelationships. maybe life would be simpler and easier to sort out with only 3 people alive.
“Stephan said, “A tax break is not a subsidy. And subsidies don’t lower prices unless there are not greater costs also being imposed. Why do you ignore these costs as if they do not exist?”
“Do you deny that energy companies benefit from the government?”
I deny that that anyone has established that they get a net benefit from the state, yes. And until you do, the presumption is that they do not, since we know that the state does overall harm. You can’t show net benefit by pointing to one tax break or even to a real subsidy, while ignoring all the other costs.
“And why do you keep saying that I ignore costs? I know full well that the government makes it very difficult for start-up energy companies.”
It taxes and regulates the hell out of Big Oil too. Billions upon billions in taxes every year, in in other form of cost. Yet you keep acting like the state is their buddy.
“Try starting a wind cooperative. This is even more difficult when your group isn’t politically connected. Why do you ignore this Stephan?”
I’m not. I am a libertarian, and am completely opposed to the state and all forms of protectionism. I don’t “ignore” anything.
"It’s misanthropic to not care about the poor or the environment, or the “ecosystem”. And this is of course not true of Lew, indeed of any sincere libertarian."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/envirohate.ht…
Would corporations, on the scale they are now, even exist without the State?
BP has most certainly benefited from government.
If you have sympathy for BP you have sympathy for Statism, in my opinion.
I am about as ambivalent as anyone, regarding matters of personal values, but this is an instance where things are most certianly black and white. If you think corporations would be such global market players as they are wihtout the help of arnies funded through forced taxation, you are what I would call dselusional.
After all, it could be argued that our presence in Afghanistan is largely to secure the Southern Caucasus and the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline, of which BP is hald owner.
Just look into the human rights abuses by the Ilham Aliyev regime in Azerbaijan. They appropriated land to build that pipeline, among other State sanctioned infringements into induvidual liberty.
If someone was going to argue that private property and corporations such as BP would continue in a Stateless society, they would have to provide clear examples of workers strikes and riots that weren't quelched by police and armies payd for with tax dollars.
Hello Stephan.
Kinsella said, "It’s misanthropic to not care about the poor or the environment, or the “ecosystem”. And this is of course not true of Lew, indeed of any sincere libertarian."
wireda beat me to it, but Lew wrote an article called My Vice: Hating the Environment.
Kinsella said, "Do you think it’s your decision or that of the collective? Why not let them go with what makes sense to them? And if you will read the Beckmann stuff, eg Why “Soft” Technology Will Not Be America’s Energy Salvation., you will see that solar and wind simply cannot provide sufficient amounts of energy. It has to be fossil or nuclear. Moreover, there is some argument that fossil fuels are renewing. Not sure I buy that theory, but who knows. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_…
I have mentioned that R and D will probably lead to new forms of technology. It seems that the real misanthropes are the people who doubt that humans can develop new forms of technology. Rather I am called a misanthrope because I want to move away from offshore drilling and nuclear power. Both which have had some negative effects on humans.
Why should I be forced to live around buried nuclear waste? Are you sure that it can be contained? Rockwell claimed that the execs at BP did everything they could to make sure a spill didn't happen. Reports now seem to show that they didn't take all precautions. Worse is that everyone involved is blaming a different subcontractor. Is this the reaction I have to look forward to when nuclear waste is spewing into my groundwater?
Kinsella said, "You think BP is in favor of corporate income tax? You can’t ignore it because it’s not a net subsidy if these costs are greater, and they obviously are."
I think that BP is in favor of government subsidies and are net beneficiaries of government "benevolence."
Kinsella said, "It’s not really up to you. What is this, a democratic moot or something? Let a private nuclear power plant owner arrange for it."
Why don't you just come out and say that you don't care about my opinions/insights? The problem I have with your argument is that I don't think everything will automatically be better if it is privatized. A dumb decision is a dumb decision. A concern about long-term nuclear waste storage doesn't go away simply because Halliburton CEO Cheney is in charge as opposed to Vice President Cheney. This issue, to me, is greater than public v. private.
Kinsella said, "I didn’t call ALL of them misantrhopes; in fact I am an environmentalist, of course, properly understood, as are all defenders of property rights."
Where does Lew "My Vice: Hating the Environment" Rockwell fit in?
"This is the job of a legal system–to figure this out. Are you saying you want to basically outlaw complicated systems of human interactions because you are not sure from your armchair how you figure out liabilit? Hey, society is very complex–7 billion people and trillions of interconnections and interrelationships. maybe life would be simpler and easier to sort out with only 3 people alive."
I believe that is a verbatim quote.
Kinsella said, "I deny that that anyone has established that they get a net benefit from the state, yes. And until you do, the presumption is that they do not, since we know that the state does overall harm. You can’t show net benefit by pointing to one tax break or even to a real subsidy, while ignoring all the other costs."
So BP execs met privately with Cheney's super secret energy task force to ask the government to please stay out of their way? They didn't ask for any favors or benefits?
Kinsella said, "It taxes and regulates the hell out of Big Oil too. Billions upon billions in taxes every year, in in other form of cost. Yet you keep acting like the state is their buddy."
Taxes which are passed on to the consumer, right? And if we are to believe Forbes, they aren't paying much (at least in income taxes): http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart…
Kinsella said, "I’m not. I am a libertarian, and am completely opposed to the state and all forms of protectionism. I don’t “ignore” anything."
You ignore a lot and I suspect you do it on purpose.
This is a case where Lew just picked the wrong entity to use in making a broader point. BP is a post 1953' Iranian coup state creation (from Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) as without the coup, a US covert intervention, no such grounds in a historical context would exist for BP to come into existence. Does BP benefit from international treaties as it relates to off shore drilling? Does BP benefit from treaty and military controlled shipping and transit lanes to move product? We all likely benefit from these but if it came down to having a state (even a minimalist State) or having no state at all, where would BP stand? Can BP operate as it now does in a stateless or rather a true free market economy? Could it complete with a bunch of local hippee types who grow acres of weed and convert it to hemp oil and sell locally for use in combustion engines? Moonshiners cooking up their own al-kee-hal? Could it compete with some local community who had a waterfall capable of creating enough power to provide cheap energy for electric cars? Does BP and all the other major oil players in the global cartel benefit from domestic federal roadblocks that prevent such local players from emerging in a true freed market? Was BP a major advocate for military intervention with Iraq and now Iran over their efforts to create their own oil bourse? And how does the state benefit with a single source energy component under a central planning model as it pertains to a taxing merchanism?
Anton Levay in his own mocking and humorous way of defending individualism outside the controls of the church choose to use the archenemy of the church in one they call satan (another false flag operation BTW LOL!) to prove his point. Like Levay, Lew may have a point but he just choose the wrong entity to defend in making it!
I also don't subscribe to the belief that if BP or other oil majors weren't around that we'd return to the stone age. Like gov't, the entire energy industry has been centralized into one massive energy grid for monopoly purposes and central planning benefits. Alternative energy like solar, wind, etc. don't work on such large and massive scales (and big energy knows this) but they do work very well on the very small and individual levels. This individual level construct and approach would thus again grow towards de-volving the state (fragment central planning models) and evolving the individual and local communties because energy independent people and communities would limit if not end the need for foreign adventures for oil thus expose the state/oil/energy alliance for what it really is and how true costs are buried and hidden via state supports.
IMO, capitalism is a child of mercantilsm and the grandchild of fuedalism and over the centuries as the people became aware of their condition, the fuedalist had to evolve in name in order to protect their wealth and position. How else have the same old money names of 100's of years ago still been able to be players of power today? In the 70's the John Birch Society tried to teach me that these folks were secret communists and the authors of the great communist conspiracy. Now I know these men in fact were true capitalists and thus mercantilist and thus likes snakes, they do what snakes do by nature. Come to think of it, I know rattlesnakes very up close and I'd rather live with them. LOL!
Rothbard in 1963' wrote a piece for the Freeman on mercantilsim and I think his point made fits in well with much of what is said here or at least I thought it did so there you go.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/mercanti…
i'm a environMENTAList primitivist wacko. however, i'm not a misanthrope. i also like market anarchism.
p.s. fuck kinsella: every single instance of some corporation gaining physical resources comes from states and their armies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP#Activity_in_1909….
there seems to be a lot of state intervention going on here too.
"Let a private nuclear power plant owner arrange for it."
yeah, after he uses the gov't to kick natives off their land to mine for uranium. or mines "public" (state-owned) land. white boy kinsella wouldn't know shit about that.
"How else have the same old money names of 100’s of years ago still been able to be players of power today?" this is question of the hour.
In an anarchist society, the natives would be more empowered to protect the resources of their traditional homeland, and an open market would empower them to sell the uranium they mined themselves.
I can't believe Lew defended BP. I will never submit an article to him again for publishing. He has lost all relevance in my book. It makes me wonder what twisted logic he is utilizing.
agreed.
however, it's unlikely indigenous americans will sell their uranium. very often it's underneath sacred sites, and many don't believe in digging up the earth. in fact, many consider the earth as not a resource.
also, most land lost by native americans was taken by force, lies, and manipulation. (for instance the feds would often pick some uncle tom indian(s), nominate him(them) "leader(s)" and have 'em make decisions on behalf of the entire tribe, including handing over all the land)
in the anarchist society, the rest of us might want to work out some agreement to restore some/much of what was their "property"
I have not done a lot of research, not enough to speak authoritatively, but from what I have gleaned I think the fur trappers by and large did well with the natives. And some pioneers cooperated with the native populations pretty well too. Trade and commerce are what keep a society peaceful. It's only when the government goes in to create monopolies that they decide it is imperative to use force to 'protect' the people from something. Geronimo did got his name from the Mexican army, not the Mexican people. They killed his mother, wife, and three children. Preaching to the choir here I am sure.
I think the Natives would sell their uranium. Everyone has their price.
"every single instance of some corporation gaining physical resources comes from states and their armies."
here's an excellent quote from kevin carson to partially support my claim:
"every wave of concentration of capital has followed a publicly subsidized infrastructure system of some sort. the national railroad system, built largely on free or below-cost land donated by the gov't, was followed by concentration in heavy industry, petrochemicals, and finance. the next major projects were the national highway system… … the result was massive concentration in retail, agriculture, and food processing."
-the iron fist behind the invisible hand (under the 'patents' section)
Carson's output seems to be nearing the point of net negative usefulness for advancing anti-statist ideas given the amount of deliberately divisive and pointless stuff like this. Depressing.
And yet your comments are always so *helpful*, Cal! Thanks so much for elevating the tone of the thread.
I believe the only other comments I ever made on anything of yours were pointing out the communicative pointlessness of insulting people who use standard definitions of socialism (statism) for using those standard definitions. I also believe I introduced you to the concept in logic of etymological fallacy, and appealed to the inherent and unnecessary divisiveness of the nonconcept that is the left-right dichotomy. These things were at least clearly meant to be helpful.
There are many constructive criticisms regarding strategy to be made of the way libertarians and Austrians like LR present and frame their usually good ideas. Personal attacks against libertarians and businessmen comprised of mockery, insinuation, classism, and partisanship are counterproductive to that end imo. I'd say I've elevated the tone of the thread significantly.
So Cal, you agree with Rockwell’s argument that BP is the biggest victim?
As a sidenote, it’s interesting to listen to BP, Halliburton, and the Transocean reps lie to the congress critters. Corporate governmental collusion led to this mess, but I don’t understand how “libertarians” like Lew and Cal defend BP, Halliburton, et al.
No, I don’t. Who the “biggest victim is” is an entirely arbitrary and completely stupid question. BP is going to suffer in brand image, stock price, whatever cleaning costs they have to cover, etc. The gulf fisherman et al. are going to suffer. The taxpayers are going to suffer for having to fund any government interventionism in this. The animals are going to suffer. etc. It’s a lose-lose-lose and I couldn’t care less who LR or anyone else thinks is the “biggest loser.” I’d be happy if KC was raising constructive strategic criticism with regards to LR’s article.. but that’s hard to do when your entire philosophy is defined on multiple levels as partisan and divisive, from “free market anti-capitalist” to “left-libertarian” to “anti-propertarian” to all the rest of that stuff.
“Corporate-government” collusion didn’t lead to this. Shit happens. Libertarians should be talking about how we can significantly internalize the externalities of ocean spills without state interventionism.
Cal: I don’t understand what you are saying. It sounds to me like you are saying Carson’s words are empty. An author that has written three large books and countless essays has said. . .nothing?
And shit happens? Wow. Do you realize the ramifications that these disasters have? Fish, birds, the water. Not to mention the human effects. But hey, these things happen!
The fact is that BP’s executives are not victims. They are scum bags. They lie, cheat and steal. Lew Rockwell is a shill if he legitimately thinks that BP is a victim. BP is made up of individuals who chose to cut corners, endanger their employees, destroy the environment that profits them, and lie to their customers (and the world). This is not a philosophical game, Cal. This is the real world.
@Cal: “…but that’s hard to do when your entire philosophy is defined on multiple levels as partisan and divisive…”
This is an odd sentiment to have when the rest of the political landscape, from conservative to liberal to Marxist, considers libertarian philosophy, of any stripe, “as partisan and divisive” “on multiple levels.”
“I’d be happy if KC was raising constructive strategic criticism…”
Criticizing one individual for taking the side of a dangerous, corrupt, negligent corporation and pointing out that it is not the position of a diverse political movement could be, in this context, the definition of constructive and strategic.
The heroic libertarian movement.
Once again striking fear into the hearts of the oppressors with petty in-fighting.
Slap-fight on, brave intellectual warriors of freedom!
On a more serious note… it's perhaps wiser to stick to the issues and ideas involved rather than making it about the personalities.
I love a lot of Lew's ideas and writings.
Do I like him that much on a personal level? Do I like everything that he's done and written?
Nah.
Do I waste my fucking time – while the world is in massive upheaval – by pissing on my allies?
Way to go. In case you haven't noticed, but European governments are in a state of collapse. The USA isn't far behind.
Do y'think it might be a great time to start doing some outreach? To present some solid, rational analysis of world events without getting stuck in inside-baseball disputes?
In the same vein, I've really enjoyed Kevin's books. But his periodic lapses into hysteria are a bit too much.
It's disgusting how libertarianism has been periodically obliterated by petty personal disputes and politicking on so many occasions over the last century.
Save your verbal bullets for the enemy, already.
@JC — You sound a lot like myself when I was younger, so I'll share an insight with you that helped me move past a lot of the frustration that seems to be plaguing you now. Perhaps you won't embrace it, perhaps you will or perhaps you'll only come to appreciate it with time. That insight is this…
There's an open market for ideology and movement strategy.
Can competition deliver the best product, or does that require a central planning board or "strong leader" whose party line ought not be deviated from in the interests of Unity with a capital "U"?
When a product meets people's needs, they have a tendency to buy it. No one need fear competition from an inferior product. Even when we're not talking about forcible restraint of competition, one ought note carefully that (for example) the "Buy American" guilt trip campaigns in the auto market never specifically targeted Yugo dealerships.
If Carson's criticism of Rockwell didn't have influence — that is, if at least some libertarians weren't "buying" it — you wouldn't have bothered commenting.