From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The World
	<BZS.93Jan8034450@world.std.com> <ARCHER.668.726507825@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:30:41 GMT


From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
>Exxon makes a lot of money, most of it through legal loopholes created by 
>congress at the behest of lobbyists.  But they didn't make any money when 
>the Valdez ran aground, the lost money.  There was no profit in the accident 
>that dumped all of that oil into the Sound.  This is irrelivant to your case.

Bull, not off the specific event, but the severity was the result of
cutting corners: They proceeded towards the harbor under questionable
conditions to keep the $300,000/hour cash flow flowing, the company
that was supposed to respond to the spill, jointly owned and paid for
by Exxon and several other oil companies operating in the area, turned
out not to have the equipment they had promised two years before to
buy, etc. Cutting corners is saving money and a gigabuck saved is a
gigabuck earned.

The Valdez spill cost Exxon around $1B. Exxon is a $100B/year company.
It would be interesting to know if the cost cutting that exacerbated
the spill was "net profitable". That is, they lost $1B on the spill,
one percent of one year's gross (and no doubt they're amortizing that
$1B over several years), did they save more than that on cost cutting
so the spill was ultimately profitable? Doesn't seem unlikely. Even if
not, that was surely their goal, shit happens.

>>But one can quibble that I suppose, so how about the
>>organized crime types who were picking up toxic waste and dumping it
>>off on road sides when no one was looking? I hear they made millions
>>posing as legitimate toxic waste removal services.
>
>There is no bar in libertarianism for the activity to remain illegal.

No, libertarianism only prohibits preventative regulation to avoid it
in the first place. What's the plan? To get Captain whatisname to mop
all the oil up himself?

>>>Or how someone can
>>>make a few million raiding people's savings, when a crucial point of
>>>libertarianism is that one's property cannot be taken without one's
>>>consent, whatever the circumstance.
>
>As I recall, no one "raided people's savings."  Investments were poorly made 
>and now the FDIC has to cough up at taxpayers expense.

You recall wrong by any rational measure, but it's becoming more clear
you're spouting this stuff off the top of your head because it's what
you want to believe and not because you actually have the slightest
knowledge about any of this.

>There are always going to be people who push the envelope of acceptable 
>behavior.  No one denys this.

Ah, so push the envelope all the way back and damn the consequences?

>Why?  Are people not capable of look out for themselves?  Do they need a 
>paternal government to look out for them for their own good?

Yes people are capable of looking out for themselves, THAT'S WHY THEY
FORM GOVERNMENTS. Boy do you have it ass-backwards. Or do you propose
that you personally will be standing in Valdez Harbor making sure that
only double-hulled ships come through and sending back any that don't
meet your own reasonable expectations?

>>Yes, so stupid as to hand their money over to banks for deposit who
>>then go belly-up after loaning all the deposit money to their
>>brothers-in-law. You must have an amazingly naive notion about
>>punishment and accountability. 
>
>There is no bar in libertarianism to penalizing this sort of behavior.  

What the hell good is PENALIZING??? Penalizing doesn't get your money
back in most cases, particularly something like a bank failure. The
officers who loaned the money out don't have your money, they were
just morons and lost all your money by bending the rules and investing
in high risk ventures on the vague hope that maybe it would pay back
big. But it didn't work out. And the folks who were loaned the money
don't have it, they're bankrupt, kaput.

That's the whole problem. So you lose your life savings and you say
you'll be happy because the guy who lost it is going to jail? Hah! If
you're a retired person that just means he's the only one of the two
of you who will be eating regularly!

>>You will never escape the will of the mob, about the best anyone has
>>ever figured out to do is herd them into voting booths. That's hardly
>>an opinion.
>
>Sure you can, if you limit the power of the government to act against the 
>individual on behalf of the mob.

It is limited, you just want it more limited, you're not inventing
anything new here, you're just trying to stretch the boundaries to
suit your own agenda. Welcome to the club. Exxon doesn't think they
should have been socked with $1B in costs for the spill, I mean,
they're just trying to get America the oil they so desparately need,
the taxpayers should foot the bill for occasional accidents. Hey, you
don't agree? Welcome to politics, everyone has their argument.

>>In the end that's the pathos, it's impossible to understand who
>>libertarians are appealing (complaining) to? Is your point that people
>>should democratically vote what you assert they will not? Or are you
>>going to force them into libertarianism at gunpoint, or what? 
>
>Of course not.  That violates the basic tenet of libertainism against 
>coercion.

Ah there ya go, crap, libertarianism only is against coercion inasmuch
as that serves its dogma. They're perfectly happy to demand coercion
otherwise. How unusual...

>(And
>>don't repeat the catechism about coercion to me, what are your plans?)
>
>Plans?  To try to persuade people that limited government and self-reliance 
>will produce a better society.  

Good luck.


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian