From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:23:46 GMT

In article <BZS.93Jan8173041@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>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.

You have not demonstrated how Exxon profited from the spill.  It remains 
irrelivant.

Exxon remains responible for the damage done.  Stockholders and company 
owners remain shielded by limited liability laws that would not exist under 
libertarian ideals.

>
>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.

And when shit happens, the defacator should be held responsible if shit 
happens on other people.  Do you disagree?

>
>>>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?

Not likely, although his participation would be a good idea.  Exxon, should 
be held responsible.

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.

>
>>>>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.

I don't claim to be an expert by any means.  My knowledge of current events 
is limited to the news mcnuggest available on CNN, some C-SPAN, and what 
passes for "facts" on the Net.  Regretfully, I haven't the time to be better 
informed.  Please enlighten me, if I am wrong.

>
>>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?

No, hold individuals responisble for their actions.

>
>>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?
>
>>>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...

No.  Libertarianism is against coercion period.  Where do you get this?

>>>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.

Thanks.  We're gonna need it.

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