Monday, June 21, 2010

Obama’s Thuggery Is Useless in Fighting Spill - Michael Barone - National Review Online

Feinberg gets good reviews from everyone. But the Constitution does not command “no person . . . shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law — except by the decision of a person as wise and capable as Kenneth Feinberg.” The Framers stopped at “due process of law.”

Obama doesn’t. “If he sees any impropriety in politicians ordering executives about, upstaging the courts and threatening confiscation, he has not said so,” write the editors of The Economist, who then suggest that markets see Obama as “an American version of Vladimir Putin.” Except that Putin is an effective thug.
Obama’s Thuggery Is Useless in Fighting Spill - Michael Barone - National Review Online

11 comments:

bostonbravery said...

There was no order by the President to start the $20 billion it was a suggestion... To which BP agreed to. Where is your outrage at the 911 fund? Which blocked the from suing for further damages if they accepted any money from the fund. From your your quotes here would be more against the founding fathers than the current fund complete set up by BP under only a suggestion from the President

Tom Anderson said...

Your comments are not very clear to me. In a capitalist system, it is likely BP would never have been drilling in deep water for three reasons I can think of. It would make more sense and be far more profitable for an oil company to drill on land or in shallow water, a freedom that government has abridged.

The third reason is that government has socialized the insurance costs to oil companies for drilling in deep water. If BP had not been given tax incentives to drill in deep water, and if it had to pay the market value of insurance, the costs would probably have been so high as to make deep water drilling uncompetitive.

Under a capitalist system, BP's liability would have been far greater than the cost of the cleanup and an additional $75 million cap--which is why BP most probably would NOT have been drilling there in the first place.

The market works remarkably well to protect people, but only if government allows people to be free.

bostonbravery said...

In your post you highlight from the National Review article Fienberg and President Obama ordering executives. There is no Presidential order to BP. My comment is simple there was no Presidential order or new law requiring BP to set up the fund and have Fienberg manage it.

Did the President suggest and strongly suggest that BP set up the fund yes sure he did but there is no "Thuggery" involved. BP took the suggest and agreed with the President suggestion that most Americans agree with.

Let me know if this does not explain my previous comment.

bostonbravery said...

As to your addition comments that are complete new and more in line with your previous post, "Common Fallacies About Capitalism 1" then this post that we are commenting on...

Which party with what political ideology socialized the insurance costs and set up the tax incentives to drill in deep water? Republican and holding corporatist ideology.

Which party and which political ideology is responsible for $75 millon cap? Again Republican and holding corporatist ideology. Which by the way the Democrats and liberals are removing the $75 million cap and requiring BP to cover its full liability starting with the $20 billion fund.

Please provide fact on where a free unregulated market has ever protected people? The "market" has but one goal that is to make money it does not care who gets hurt as long as the goal is reached.

Tom Anderson said...

Republicans are big boys and can take their lumps when deserved.

My interest lay in reducing government intervention into the economic affairs of citizens. I an an advocate, not of one party over another, but of the defense of individual rights against the power of society.

If some one from a party made a convincing case that he would champion individual rights, I would support him regardless of his party affiliation.

Of course, one would have to study with care the man's prior history and votes.

It is unlikely such a man would be found among Democrats, since Democrats are liberals and liberals oppose individual rights and favor unlimited power to society in the form of government control of economic, political, and cultural activity.

But such a conclusion does not presuppose that I would support a Republican. I could also vote for a third party, an independent, or not vote.

Tom Anderson said...

One doesn't say "the market" does this or that.

"Laws" protect people and there exists a set procedure, a legal procedure in a free society, where people who have been injured can seek legal redress.

We have such cases in our courts all the time.

Whenever there is a violation of contract--and laws exist to protect individual rights--would be an example of how individuals are protected in a free society, i.e. under some form of laissez-faire capitalism.

bostonbravery said...

In your terminology there is no difference between regulations and laws. The fact the hose put in the MMS were breaking the law and allowing the oil industry break the law by not enforcing the laws is the problem with the oil industry. We again need less corporatist regardless of party and more people that are interested in enforcing the law to protect people.

Tom Anderson said...

Regulations have, of course, the force of law. As the term has come to be used, "regulations" frequently violate individual rights, and are, therefore, illegitimate. In my view, there are no "regulations" that can be justified on the Constitutional principle of protecting individual rights.

I understand the term "regulate," as in the "commerce clause," suggests "regulations"; however, this is an area of profound conflict and disagreement ideologically. Those who support a Leviathan State, where no rights are recognized, like the word "regulations" since the Constitution would then be seen as providing some sort of superficial justification.

However, if the commerce clause were intended as a grant to Congress of unlimited power over the economic lives of Americans, there would be no rationale for having a Constitution in the first place. If all economic power can be exercised by government, there would be no difference between a Constitutional republic and an absolute monarchy.

Tom Anderson said...

Let us put the matter in a different context. If one were a German citizen living in Germany during the thirties and a German police official insisted that you tell him whether you were hiding some Jews in your basement, would you be under any moral obligation to obey him?

My answer would be, clearly, No.

The point to be made, simply, is that some laws are consistent with rational morality and some violate rational morality. Not all laws are equal.

Just because society institutes a law is no reason why one should obey it.

bostonbravery said...

According to your statement wouldn't BP completely justified in ignoring all regulations imposed by the government in regards to drilling? And if the corporatist government is going to provide more money to deep water drill then go ahead and drill baby drill.

Your ideas lead to the completed destruction of society. At any point and individual can determine that a law or a regulation is immoral according them them and hindering their individuality and there for just in ignoring the law.

Tom Anderson said...

Under law, anyone who is harmed by an accident can sue the company in civil court for damages. The possibility of such suits is what will motivate the company to insure it has adequate liability insurance, the premium for which becomes a cost of doing business and will be reflected, as are all other such costs, in the prices charged to the refiners, and down through the production chain to the person who buys gas.

I don't see any role for government regulation if one has law based on the protection of individual rights.

It simply has no function to perform.