From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:26:52 GMT

In article <BZS.93Jan11203501@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
>>You have not demonstrated how Exxon profited from the spill.  It remains 
>>irrelivant.
>
>In fact I have, a few times, but it's getting wearisome, go look thru
>the thread. The executive summary is: Cost cutting.

This demonstrates how Exxon made a profit minimizing safety features, not 
how the profitted under the spill.  They should be held accountable for all 
damage done by cost-cutting on safety.  If not protected by minimum-liabilty 
laws and corporate shielding, they would be much less likely to find such 
cost-cutting an acceptable risk.


>
>>Exxon remains responible for the damage done.  Stockholders and company 
>>owners remain shielded by limited liability laws that would not exist under 
>>libertarian ideals.
>
>In this case they don't need the shield, Exxon didn't go broke or even
>nearly so over this.

And the mess isn't cleaned up yet.  The company, and the stockholders should 
be held responsible until it is cleaned up.  They damaged or destroyed 
common property, the local fishing industry, and should be held liable to 
restore it or provide compensation.  None of this in unreasonable under 
libertarian philosophy.

>
>>And when shit happens, the defacator should be held responsible if shit 
>>happens on other people.  Do you disagree?
>
>Sure, but who is going to hold them responsible? And isn't it at best
>semantics to say that this isn't the govt?

The government is an acceptable agent of the individuals harmed by the 
activity of the company.

>
>>I can't find anything in the Libertarian Party platform that would permit 
>>roadside dumping of toxic waste.  Dumping on someone else's property, or on 
>>one's own property in such a manner as to present a public hazard would not 
>>be protected under a libertarian administation.
>
>No, neither can I.
>
>What is missing however is the part where the libertarians dismantle
>all the prevention and enforcement structure and somehow hope that it
>will still work anyhow.

We don't.  We look at each portion of the structure and determine how to 
modify it to suit individual liberty and the responibilities that it leads 
to.  In the much discussed Valdiz case, it is unreasonable to assume that 
deregulating the constuction of tankers will, in and of itself, do anything 
but make more money for Exxon, the stockholders, and possible stimulate the 
international economy.  Spills like the Valdiz accident can devistate a 
local economy.  But do you think that the stockholders would support the use 
of single hull tankers or other unsafe equipment if they were not shielded 
by corporate shield laws and liability limits?  

The S&L fiasco is another example:  the regulation was removed, and this 
stimulated economic activity, but the unconditional FDIC insurance 
remained.  In effect, high risk was no risk, and there was no incentive to 
invest wisely, but to go for the big profit.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian