Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Oil reaching the Gulf Coast
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 736201" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>LOL! That was good. I wonder what those grannies would think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP#History" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">BP</span> </a>if they knew of it's shady past? I also read an article and sorry I can't put my fingers on it but all the other oil companies used a type of collar device on the ocean floor that if something like this happened, a remote signal at the surface would shutoff the wellhead but BP opted not to install this collar. Again, I can't put my hands of the source so take this with a grain of salt until you prove it for yourself. However if true, it just IMO shows again the inherit dangers of limited liability interventions in the marketplace where corporations are granted special priviledge not enjoyed by all in the marketplace and then this in turn sets up the potential for seeking unjustified risks that cause extreme harm when it goes bad. The state priviledge of corp. status and limited liability along with copyright and intellectual property protections by the state creates a special class that is granted special protection that is not extended to all on an equal basis. A common law principle of equal under the law is severely violated and thus does often setup events like the Deepwater Horizon of unintended consequences in the marketplace. </p><p> </p><p>What if all oil drilling in the gulf came with no protection of limited liability would they still drill? If you drill a water well in your yard and it blows out damaging your neighbors property, has gov't passed special law limiting your liability or are you on the hook for the damage? If we are all equal under the law, then why are we not afforded such protections as well? If we had such limited liability, where are the bounderies of risk at and how far might we go then as opposed to now? Capitalist want state intervention as do market collectivists and market socialist outside the individualist mindset. There are non-state market socialist but like true non state liassez faire types, I consider them true free marketeers in the spirit of freed markets. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carson" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">Kevin Carson's non-state mutualism</span></a> is one such socialist type approach.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The term free market means just what it sez in that anyone can transact and interact with anyone else in the market place. You have a right to seek the labor, goods or services of others and they to you as well. I can't bar you from the marketplace nor can you bar me and if a fraud, trespass or coersion is commited, there is a remedy at the common law to resolve such actions. Limiting or protecting some from these remedies are a trespass in themselves and create an unfair heirarchy who then manipulate the marketplace causing further harm. Some who claim to be free market types scream and rail against the so-called poor among us who are given welfare via income transfer and it is true this is a market violation but such wealth transfers are a more recent eg 20th century market intervention. However, little to nothing is ever said of the even greater and first wealth transfers in this country all by the hand of gov't and one might look at the railroads in the 19th century to see this. The military was used to acquire land (taxpayer wealth transfer) and then special priviledge and market protections (ICC) were given to affect a central planning outcome. But in giving wealth to certain market players who held special status with the State, you have to remove that wealth from elsewhere and as the state grew and the priviledged corp. class grew with it (creating corporations is a state function, look at the history) it demanded more wealth transfer in order to profit and thus feed the tax regime that kept the state itself alive which in turn controlled the market place more and more. Classic parasitic relationship. But in that wealth transfer over time, various segments of society not only lost wealth (forced State taxation) but then were denied market entry in order to create new wealth to replace the losted. At first it was the so-called poor or the margins of society and now it's doing the same to the backbone of free society, the middle class which makes up the foundation of individual business ventures. In order to keep the game going, the State is now stealing from the future to inject marginal help but not enough so that the slaves will still work the plantation fields.</p><p> </p><p>The stronger a free market, the larger and more dynamic is this middle class and the less restrictive and burdensome on the poor itself who can then market their own skills and ideas with much less barriers to market entry. This is another reason I'm against legal tender laws as each market player should be able to decide the means and manner of the monetary unit to be used and it denies some so-called benevolent player from monopolizing any market medium of exchange and then using that monopoly to deploy unfair market advantage by means of state protections.</p><p> </p><p>Segregation laws themselves were free market violations as it forbade both sides of a market exchange from interacting if they found such exchange was beneficial to both. Immigration laws, like segregation laws, are also free market violations in that they bar an employer and potential employee from a market transaction all because of a state created status and not a status found in natural law but in today's political/social climate to even suggest such truths is to find one's self labeled a heretic. Considering the one's doing the screaming, I find that term very comforting!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>As horrible and tragic as this BP event is, if one dares, it does offer many great philosophical lessons to be learned and questions about what we should do and how we move forward on so many different levels but then again, we can all just watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, get our marching orders and then go into the fields and always pick someone else's cotton and then pray they give us enough in return to get by or don't work against us when we get what our laboring has earned!</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>jmo</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 736201, member: 2189"] LOL! That was good. I wonder what those grannies would think of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP#History"][COLOR=red]BP[/COLOR] [/URL]if they knew of it's shady past? I also read an article and sorry I can't put my fingers on it but all the other oil companies used a type of collar device on the ocean floor that if something like this happened, a remote signal at the surface would shutoff the wellhead but BP opted not to install this collar. Again, I can't put my hands of the source so take this with a grain of salt until you prove it for yourself. However if true, it just IMO shows again the inherit dangers of limited liability interventions in the marketplace where corporations are granted special priviledge not enjoyed by all in the marketplace and then this in turn sets up the potential for seeking unjustified risks that cause extreme harm when it goes bad. The state priviledge of corp. status and limited liability along with copyright and intellectual property protections by the state creates a special class that is granted special protection that is not extended to all on an equal basis. A common law principle of equal under the law is severely violated and thus does often setup events like the Deepwater Horizon of unintended consequences in the marketplace. What if all oil drilling in the gulf came with no protection of limited liability would they still drill? If you drill a water well in your yard and it blows out damaging your neighbors property, has gov't passed special law limiting your liability or are you on the hook for the damage? If we are all equal under the law, then why are we not afforded such protections as well? If we had such limited liability, where are the bounderies of risk at and how far might we go then as opposed to now? Capitalist want state intervention as do market collectivists and market socialist outside the individualist mindset. There are non-state market socialist but like true non state liassez faire types, I consider them true free marketeers in the spirit of freed markets. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carson"][COLOR=red]Kevin Carson's non-state mutualism[/COLOR][/URL] is one such socialist type approach. The term free market means just what it sez in that anyone can transact and interact with anyone else in the market place. You have a right to seek the labor, goods or services of others and they to you as well. I can't bar you from the marketplace nor can you bar me and if a fraud, trespass or coersion is commited, there is a remedy at the common law to resolve such actions. Limiting or protecting some from these remedies are a trespass in themselves and create an unfair heirarchy who then manipulate the marketplace causing further harm. Some who claim to be free market types scream and rail against the so-called poor among us who are given welfare via income transfer and it is true this is a market violation but such wealth transfers are a more recent eg 20th century market intervention. However, little to nothing is ever said of the even greater and first wealth transfers in this country all by the hand of gov't and one might look at the railroads in the 19th century to see this. The military was used to acquire land (taxpayer wealth transfer) and then special priviledge and market protections (ICC) were given to affect a central planning outcome. But in giving wealth to certain market players who held special status with the State, you have to remove that wealth from elsewhere and as the state grew and the priviledged corp. class grew with it (creating corporations is a state function, look at the history) it demanded more wealth transfer in order to profit and thus feed the tax regime that kept the state itself alive which in turn controlled the market place more and more. Classic parasitic relationship. But in that wealth transfer over time, various segments of society not only lost wealth (forced State taxation) but then were denied market entry in order to create new wealth to replace the losted. At first it was the so-called poor or the margins of society and now it's doing the same to the backbone of free society, the middle class which makes up the foundation of individual business ventures. In order to keep the game going, the State is now stealing from the future to inject marginal help but not enough so that the slaves will still work the plantation fields. The stronger a free market, the larger and more dynamic is this middle class and the less restrictive and burdensome on the poor itself who can then market their own skills and ideas with much less barriers to market entry. This is another reason I'm against legal tender laws as each market player should be able to decide the means and manner of the monetary unit to be used and it denies some so-called benevolent player from monopolizing any market medium of exchange and then using that monopoly to deploy unfair market advantage by means of state protections. Segregation laws themselves were free market violations as it forbade both sides of a market exchange from interacting if they found such exchange was beneficial to both. Immigration laws, like segregation laws, are also free market violations in that they bar an employer and potential employee from a market transaction all because of a state created status and not a status found in natural law but in today's political/social climate to even suggest such truths is to find one's self labeled a heretic. Considering the one's doing the screaming, I find that term very comforting! :happy-very: As horrible and tragic as this BP event is, if one dares, it does offer many great philosophical lessons to be learned and questions about what we should do and how we move forward on so many different levels but then again, we can all just watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, get our marching orders and then go into the fields and always pick someone else's cotton and then pray they give us enough in return to get by or don't work against us when we get what our laboring has earned! jmo [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Oil reaching the Gulf Coast
Top