Having The Same Argument, Again.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I knew somebody would take the cheap road there... Look, the govt has endless ways to compel payment from these companies. The coercive actions go on to infinity. I was merely citing one, and the common law (and equitable) bases upon which any such action would be justified. The notion one is entitled to payment for damage another does to his property is not a concept exclusive to trial law. They drilled off our shore and fucked up. Now they have to pay up. How that's done is immaterial.

Those are nice sentiments, but the statutory cap stands in the way.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There is a lot of government spending that a lot of liberals would be happy to cut. Farm subsidies, (some) defense spending, so on. The government spends a lot of money for non-ideological reasons.

I agree. And I think if Liberals wanted to give their moniker a level of respect, smart ones would start focusing on cutting those things. They could blunt a lot of the GOP's criticisms they only know to tax and spend.

But you'll rarely hear that from organized liberal groups. Other than defense spending, it's anathema to use the words "contract" or "cut" anywhere near govt.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Those are nice sentiments, but the statutory cap stands in the way.

Really? When Uncle Sam says, "Unless you pay for it all, you can expect ZERO new permits for offshore drilling," BP's going to take them to the Supreme Court? The statutory cap will rob a pack of trial lawyers from getting direct paydays for residents. The govt will pay to cleanup the spill for those people out of its own pockets and shake BP down for indemnification.

That redress isn't found in the courthouse doesn't mean its never found.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Sure. But it seems like your thoughts in this regard don't extend to so-called "conservatives." Cutting taxes is not cutting government, unless and until we reach the crisis point where no one is willing to lend money to the government -- a crisis point that no sane person ever wants to see.

They do. I see no conservatives in DC. They're all liberals. The only difference is in constituencies spoiled... er, "served."

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I knew somebody would take the cheap road there... Look, the govt has endless ways to compel payment from these companies. The coercive actions go on to infinity. I was merely citing one, and the common law (and equitable) bases upon which any such action would be justified. The notion one is entitled to payment for damage another does to his property is not a concept exclusive to trial law. They drilled off our shore and fucked up. Now they have to pay up. How that's done is immaterial.

From what I understand maritime law is what's governing here, and it has some pretty antiquated ideas on liability.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7003248.html

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

And both about as realistic as the notion that a monkey is about to fly out of my ass.

So the option is what? Five more Stimulus packages? That's more realistic than cutting govt to something even remotely approaching a libertarian ideal?

"We can't cut govt! We've become too accustomed to it. Without its endless 'intrusions,' which are actually necessary, our society would flail into entropy."

You know another path to entropy? Turning a country into a banana republic. We can't afford what we have, and we will have to choose. I go with cutting and managing the messes it creates as it comes. You say keep the status quo - leave things to run off the cliff and see if somehow, in the interim, we'll have grown wings.

(No, the comeback to this is not, "There's an option C! We can increase taxes!" Wrong. Tax the rich, the upper middle, the middle... Tax everybody. Install a VAT. The entitlement costs our baby boomers are laying on us eclipse every realistic revenue raising effort you can imagine. Cuts, and drastic ones, with perhaps some tax increases, are the only viable option.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

From what I understand maritime law is what's governing here, and it has some pretty antiquated ideas on liability.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7003248.html

"Hi. BP?"

"Yezzz."

"This is Barack."

"Hellewww."

"Yeah. Uh, you know the shelves off NC, CA, FL? Don't even think about it until you find a way to pay us back for the $5bil we had to spend to fix that shit in the gulf."

"But we have agreements regarding the rights--"

"See the phone number on your caller ID? What's it say?

...Hello?''

"I'm here, Mr. President."

"$5bil. I don't care how you do it. Build a refinery for LA. Whatever. Give us that value, somehow. Otherwise, no shelf drilling. And all that R&D you're doing in Alaska? Don't even think about it... I'll slap enough regs on the books that my successor's successor won't be able to get you in there."

"A refinery, you say?"

"Whatever works."

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You know another path to entropy? Turning a country into a banana republic.

Do you really think a strongman installed by the tropical produce companies would do a worse job?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

So the option is what? Five more Stimulus packages? That's more realistic than cutting govt to something even remotely approaching a libertarian ideal?

"We can't cut govt! We've become too accustomed to it. Without its endless 'intrusions,' which are actually necessary, our society would flail into entropy."

You know another path to entropy? Turning a country into a banana republic. We can't afford what we have, and we will have to choose. I go with cutting and managing the messes it creates as it comes. You say spend keep the status quo and leave things to run off the cliff and see if somehow, in the interim, we'll have grown wings.

(No. The comeback to this is not, "There's an option C! We can increase taxes!" Wrong. Tax the right, the upper middle, the middle... Tax everybody. Install a VAT. The entitlement costs our baby boomers are laying on us eclipse every realistic revenue raising effort you can imagine. Cuts, and drastic ones, with perhaps some tax increases, are the only viable option.)

Go back and read what I was responding to -- a post that described what anarchists think and what libertarians seem to think. If you think that either anarchism or libertarianism -- or, more accurately, the extremes of both described in the post I was responding to -- are the only alternatives, then God help you, or all of us.


I would like to see significant spending cuts and a reversal of the Bush tax cuts. Spending cuts would include the elimination of a huge swath of earmarks, significant reductions in defense spending (e.g., the next couple of generations of fighter jets -- F-22 and F-35/JSF, I think they are called), extending the retirement age to 70, and a few other things. I would also favor a carbon tax, but for somewhat different reasons.

I would favor a VAT but I have serious concerns about how it would be implemented -- i.e., with lobbyists lined out the door to exempt their industry's products, and overly powerful Senators from thinly-populated states demanding that the products their states produce must be exempt.

In other words, save the diatribe for when I actually deserve it (which is often, I know), not for when I am responding to a post about something entirely different.


eta: Farm subsidies. Thanks for the reminder, Ty. I would cut the fuck out of those.

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

A long time client has posted an invitation to a tea party rally on em's facebook. Surprised me. Any advice on what to say to the newly revealed as insane?

How about:

"Will you be serving Chamomile? It's my fave!!"

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

A lot of anarchists foresee that cooperative, communal arrangements would spontaneously arise after the dissolution of the government. They prefer not to dwell on the idea that coercion of some sort would be involved. This vision seems to me strikingly similar to the libertarian vision of a minimal state protecting private property and the national borders.

Put another way, everyone believes in the consent of the governed, but anarchists believe in unanimous consent of the governed.

The last time we had an efficient marketplace of government models was the Greek city-state, and coincidentally that was the last time we gave people a choice between expatriation and suicide. The fact that some really really smart ones chose suicide over expatriation is a serious blow to the anarchist cause.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

A long time client has posted an invitation to a tea party rally on em's facebook. Surprised me. Any advice on what to say to the newly revealed as insane?

Try talking about lunchboxes.

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"Hi. BP?"

"Yezzz."

"This is Barack."

"Hellewww."

"Yeah. Uh, you know the shelves off NC, CA, FL? Don't even think about it until you find a way to pay us back for the $5bil we had to spend to fix that shit in the gulf."

"But we have agreements regarding the rights--"

"See the phone number on your caller ID? What's it say?

...Hello?''

"I'm here, Mr. President."

"$5bil. I don't care how you do it. Build a refinery for LA. Whatever. Give us that value, somehow. Otherwise, no shelf drilling. And all that R&D you're doing in Alaska? Don't even think about it... I'll slap enough regs on the books that my successor's successor won't be able to get you in there."

"A refinery, you say?"

"Whatever works."

That's all well and good but the cynic in me says BP owns too many legislators for something like that to happen. And even if it did, all they'd have to do is stall long enough for a change in power and they're back in business.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree. And I think if Liberals wanted to give their moniker a level of respect, smart ones would start focusing on cutting those things. They could blunt a lot of the GOP's criticisms they only know to tax and spend.

But you'll rarely hear that from organized liberal groups. Other than defense spending, it's anathema to use the words "contract" or "cut" anywhere near govt.

I wish you were right, but that money gets spent because people want it spent. Each farm state gets two Senators, and they vote to protect farm subsidies. And so on. If there were really many voters who wanted government spending cut -- and I mean not cutting "waste" in the abstract, but real programs -- those programs would get axed. But not many people think like you.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I wish you were right, but that money gets spent because people want it spent. Each farm state gets two Senators, and they vote to protect farm subsidies. And so on. If there were really many voters who wanted government spending cut -- and I mean not cutting "waste" in the abstract, but real programs -- those programs would get axed. But not many people think like you.

The fucking liberals have taken over Nebraska and Iowa too?