Question by Kaiba: How would a Libertarian explain how the BP oil spill could be avoided under their governance?
The media never covered BP cutting corners on their offshore oil rig, so how would people know BP was cutting corners? If people didn’t know, then they wouldn’t care what BP was doing. People would still be buying from BP, so BP would have no incentive to make the oil rig safe as long as they saved some money. Eventually the oil spill would still have occurred under libertarian rule. Doesn’t seem like a libertarian could say their philosophy is superior in this case
Best answer:
Answer by Libertarian with a Commie symbol
Let me guess. You watched Rachel Madcow call us out didn’t you?
Give your answer to this question below!
3 Responses
Ron Paul gave a good but stupid idea on tv the other day. He said if people were allowed to own the land off shore instead of the government, the oil companies would have to negotiate with that person and that person would not lease the oil rights if they thought that oil companies would destroy their land.
Problem solved.
The Libertarian policy is to let people (and companies) live as the see fit as long as they do no harm.
Libertarian policy would not have prevented the spill. However, under Libertarian policy those who do harm would be responsible for the rectifying the damage and for bearing the punishment for harming others.
It does not appear that our present Washington politicians are very good at preventing any crisis either. However, they are getting pretty good at preventing prosperity.
Of course, its not a BP oil spill.
The rig is owned by Transocean and operated by Halliburton.
But of course these are US companies so Obama just has a go at BP
also the rig was operated by US people.
also BP is owned 39% by US people.
but all this Obama et al fail to mention, funny that with his mid term elections coming up, eh?