If bp had been forced to drill relief wells and required to use devices that other countries enforce then this disaster could have been diverted.
if BP had/had not done countless other things then this would not have happened. the relief well's existence, or lack thereof, did not cause this. the relief well's existence, or lack thereof, does not make an oil spill less of a violation of rights.
as far as the "teabagger" issue... its about intent. you mean it to be derogatory. they use the most common and identifiable form of tea to attempt to create a symbol of freedom from over taxation. if they are informed or not is not the issue here. they are angry. other groups are angry too, on both sides. if they are being taken advantage of or misguided is not the point at all. they have a right to believe what ever they want to.
If bp had been forced to drill relief wells and required to use devices that other countries enforce then this disaster could have been diverted.
if BP had/had not done countless other things then this would not have happened. the relief well's existence, or lack thereof, did not cause this. the relief well's existence, or lack thereof, does not make an oil spill less of a violation of rights.
as far as the "teabagger" issue... its about intent. you mean it to be derogatory. they use the most common and identifiable form of tea to attempt to create a symbol of freedom from over taxation. if they are informed or not is not the issue here. they are angry. other groups are angry too, on both sides. if they are being taken advantage of or misguided is not the point at all. they have a right to believe what ever they want to.
actually yes, relief wells and shut off valves would have stopped this from happening, also if the mms did their job it wouldn't have happened. Do some digging, in fact if you read all the links I posted you might understand. And their group put it on themselves. Maybe some people should no what their getting themselves into.
Kuzi, by your definaition EVERY raegulation could be said to violate a company's rights. Can you give an example of a non violating regulation? The regulation to drill relief wells would be to protect the rights of the many (the people) over the right of the company to run their business in a reckless manner. If you agree that some regulations are acceptable then why would this regulation be any more or less violating then any other. There is one more point that I made way back in all this. Any regulations should be applied across the baord, no exceptions. That ensures that all companies run by the same regulations and removes any advantages to any company who is willing to risk other people's live, property, and livelihoods. That is an effective regulation, not a violation of BP rights. Regulations need to be ebforced for a good reason. NOT having a million gallons (and counting) of oil spill into the environment is an example of a good and useful regulation. Not a violation.
drilling the relief well is a great idea but drilling a relief well does not protect the rights of the people.
if there was no relief well, and no spill, but a regulation that relief wells are to be drilled, BP would be punished, yet there are no rights being violated.
how can you punish those who have not violated rights? that is not right.
actually yes, relief wells and shut off valves would have stopped this from happening,
im sorry... that is correct. if the wells were there it would have stopped it from getting this bad. however, before the spill started no rights had been violated. i think my point here was a bit muddied.
phobicsquirrel:
Maybe some people should no what their getting themselves into.
i agree with this line. Had BP known the benefit of relief wells, maybe they would have made a better decision.
Kuzi, by your definaition EVERY raegulation could be said to violate a company's rights. Can you give an example of a non violating regulation? The regulation to drill relief wells would be to protect the rights of the many (the people) over the right of the company to run their business in a reckless manner. If you agree that some regulations are acceptable then why would this regulation be any more or less violating then any other. There is one more point that I made way back in all this. Any regulations should be applied across the baord, no exceptions. That ensures that all companies run by the same regulations and removes any advantages to any company who is willing to risk other people's live, property, and livelihoods. That is an effective regulation, not a violation of BP rights. Regulations need to be ebforced for a good reason. NOT having a million gallons (and counting) of oil spill into the environment is an example of a good and useful regulation. Not a violation.
drilling the relief well is a great idea but drilling a relief well does not protect the rights of the people.
if there was no relief well, and no spill, but a regulation that relief wells are to be drilled, BP would be punished, yet there are no rights being violated.
how can you punish those who have not violated rights? that is not right.
Hyopothetical again. The relief wells would NOT have stopped this from happening agreed. What does that have to do with the fact thet they WOULD have be able to stop the flow with those relief wells? Laws, rules and regulations are there to protect people or property. In many, many cases they are proactive and are intended to avoid situations where an individuals rights may be violated.
I return to the stairway with the handrail. Should a company be forced to put handrails on stairways? That is a violation of that company's rights, as they are forced to put them there whether someone has tumbled down them or not. Do you not see the need for them? This is the same situation with the wells. Not a violation. A proactive method of avoiding disaster.
i speak "in hypothetical" because it is NOT hypothetical. there are TONS of wells out there without relief wells that did not spill and did not cause a disaster. those are not problems. those wells did not violate rights. its not hypothetical. its real.
not every regulation violates companies rights. since nobody has the right to violate rights, violating rights via oil spill should be illegal. the law should not be about if relief wells should be drilled. the law should be that oil spills, no matter what the cause, violate rights; and if you cause an oil spill, no matter how it could have been fixed, you are responsible and should be held accountable.
i speak "in hypothetical" because it is NOT hypothetical. there are TONS of wells out there without relief wells that did not spill and did not cause a disaster. those are not problems. those wells did not violate rights. its not hypothetical. its real.
not every regulation violates companies rights. since nobody has the right to violate rights, violating rights via oil spill should be illegal. the law should not be about if relief wells should be drilled. the law should be that oil spills, no matter what the cause, violate rights; and if you cause an oil spill, no matter how it could have been fixed, you are responsible and should be held accountable.
And if regulations can avoid the situation entirely do you not see this as postive? What will your arguement be if another rig has a disaster and there are no relief wells in place. Will you point to the other wells that have not had a problem? Your arguement seems to be more about winning a debate then making any sense.
Hyopothetical again. The relief wells would NOT have stopped this from happening agreed. What does that have to do with the fact thet they WOULD have be able to stop the flow with those relief wells? Laws, rules and regulations are there to protect people or property. In many, many cases they are proactive and are intended to avoid situations where an individuals rights may be violated.
I return to the stairway with the handrail. Should a company be forced to put handrails on stairways? That is a violation of that company's rights, as they are forced to put them there whether someone has tumbled down them or not. Do you not see the need for them? This is the same situation with the wells. Not a violation. A proactive method of avoiding disaster.
now you are speaking in the hypothetical.
and again i will return to my counter argument here. this argument depends on (for lack of better terms) "market demand" and personal responsibility. would you work in a company that refused to employ even the most basic safety precautions? i wouldnt. many, many people wouldnt. hard to run a company without employees.
i speak "in hypothetical" because it is NOT hypothetical. there are TONS of wells out there without relief wells that did not spill and did not cause a disaster. those are not problems. those wells did not violate rights. its not hypothetical. its real.
not every regulation violates companies rights. since nobody has the right to violate rights, violating rights via oil spill should be illegal. the law should not be about if relief wells should be drilled. the law should be that oil spills, no matter what the cause, violate rights; and if you cause an oil spill, no matter how it could have been fixed, you are responsible and should be held accountable.
And if regulations can avoid the situation entirely do you not see this as postive? What will your arguement be if another rig has a disaster and there are no relief wells in place. Will you point to the other wells that have not had a problem? Your arguement seems to be more about winning a debate then making any sense.
this is hypothetical. there are no other wells that are leaking without relief wells.
im still in favor of relief wells being used.
im sure you have heard the quote "my right to swing a fist ends where your nose begins" the rig is my fist. no relief wells is the swing itself. your nose is the spill.
edit: even the best regulation cannot prevent everything.
and i keep speaking in the hypothetical to make points. hypothetical situations have been a debate tool for as long as debate has existed. you keep saying i am hiding behind words. isnt that what you are doing when i post a hypothetical situation like i did above? you just blurt out that its hypothetical and refuse to respond to it.
again i post the hypothetical: if there was no relief well, and no spill, but a regulation that relief wells are to be drilled, BP would be punished, yet there are no rights being violated.
how can you punish those who have not violated rights? that is not right.
Kuzi, it seems like you are trying to explain to us what exactly is, is. By saying that no one should violate any individuals right---including companies which are made of individuals---then anarchy seems the only way to proceed. Restricting any freedom, is a violation of someones rights. By the govt. having a law against disposal of toxic chemicals on school grounds, they are in turn denying my right to dispose of my waste as I want...so this shouldnt be??? Or the right to kill someone, the govt. restricts this correct? But isnt that also a violation of my right to be free??? I think this debate has turned more philosophical and we are debating rights as they pertain to people who live under a social contract of the place they reside....vs.. the rights of man is we exist in nature or are made. The idea rights cannot be given, but only taken away is a valid statment---however, it holds little relevance in a society where people have to coexist and the law of the land is such to allow the greater good of all its people.
Kuzi, it seems like you are trying to explain to us what exactly is, is. By saying that no one should violate any individuals right---including companies which are made of individuals---then anarchy seems the only way to proceed. Restricting any freedom, is a violation of someones rights. By the govt. having a law against disposal of toxic chemicals on school grounds, they are in turn denying my right to dispose of my waste as I want...so this shouldnt be??? Or the right to kill someone, the govt. restricts this correct? But isnt that also a violation of my right to be free??? I think this debate has turned more philosophical and we are debating rights as they pertain to people who live under a social contract of the place they reside....vs.. the rights of man is we exist in nature or are made. The idea rights cannot be given, but only taken away is a valid statment---however, it holds little relevance in a society where people have to coexist and the law of the land is such to allow the greater good of all its people.
again, i have said it many times but everyone seems to gloss over it: NOBODY had the right to violate the rights of others. dumping toxic chemicals on school grounds violates right of those who attend that school. murder violates the rights of those who are killed.
we have natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. nobody has the "right" to violate those rights. i am not proposing, nor have i ever proposed anarchy. i am proposing that the only regulations that we have protect the rights of the individual and never violate them.
Kuzi, it seems like you are trying to explain to us what exactly is, is. By saying that no one should violate any individuals right---including companies which are made of individuals---then anarchy seems the only way to proceed. Restricting any freedom, is a violation of someones rights. By the govt. having a law against disposal of toxic chemicals on school grounds, they are in turn denying my right to dispose of my waste as I want...so this shouldnt be??? Or the right to kill someone, the govt. restricts this correct? But isnt that also a violation of my right to be free??? I think this debate has turned more philosophical and we are debating rights as they pertain to people who live under a social contract of the place they reside....vs.. the rights of man is we exist in nature or are made. The idea rights cannot be given, but only taken away is a valid statment---however, it holds little relevance in a society where people have to coexist and the law of the land is such to allow the greater good of all its people.
again, i have said it many times but everyone seems to gloss over it: NOBODY had the right to violate the rights of others. dumping toxic chemicals on school grounds violates right of those who attend that school. murder violates the rights of those who are killed.
we have natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. nobody has the "right" to violate those rights. i am not proposing, nor have i ever proposed anarchy. i am proposing that the only regulations that we have protect the rights of the individual and never violate them.
You don't think that relief wells regulated to be drilled would not ensure that BP didn't violate the rights of thousands of people in this case? You seem to have come full circle and have argued every possible avenue of this discussion. I guess you can't be wrong that way, LMAO.
I just can't figure out your position. Regulations that protect people are good, but BP should NOT have to use them because that violates BP's rights? That is argueing both side and there is NO solution to that position. But it sure as HE LL doesn't make you right. I go back to my point earlier. I don't think you are seriously discussing this issue, you are more concerned with winning a debate. As Vulchor showed clearly in his post even your position on the rights front is full of holes.
That toxic waste he was referring to would not be a violation of anybody's rights that attend that school unless they get sick or die from it, and that would be using YOUR logic.
no. it is just clear that i am not making my argument clearly to you. you are doing a very good job of making your point clear. i understand your point and intentions. i dont think you intentions are ill. i feel that i am having a hard time putting my argument into words, this is one of the reasons why my posts are so long. i apologize for that.
back on topic the toxic waste is toxic and WILL get people sick. if it wasnt toxic, then it wouldnt get people sick. and further more, that is dumping on property that is not yours without permission. there are property rights that exist. toxic waste destroys property, much like oil spills. we have all agreed that BP has destroyed property (along with other things including lives, livelyhoods, etc) and therefore violated rights
i am not arguing both sides of the issue. i am arguing that everyone has rights.
you said: "I just can't figure out your position. Regulations that protect people are good, but BP should NOT have to use them because that violates BP's rights?" my position is that the relief wells, though a good idea that i am in favor of, are not the direct cause of the problem. as stated before, there are many many rigs out there that do not have relief wells that have not caused a single issue. therefore, if there is a relief well there or not is a moot point. that regulation does not necessarily protect rights. it does however promote a situation where a company can be punished while not violating rights. the problem is the oil spill. yes a relief well would have stopped it and that is why it is a good idea.
however, this brings us back to the question: if there was no relief well, and no spill, but a regulation that relief wells are to be drilled, BP would be punished, yet there are no rights being violated. it is a victimless crime.
how can you punish those who have not violated rights? please justify that for me. i dont understand your position on punishing people or groups of people when they have not violated rights.
I have never seen an arguement or siers of post so lacking in sense and taking every possible point to ensure you can be right in your mind. I think I can go back to the simple point that ANY law could be a violation of someones rights by your logic, and ANY regulation could be the same. This is like the old "heads I win, tails you lose".
I have never seen an arguement or siers of post so lacking in sense and taking every possible point to ensure you can be right in your mind. I think I can go back to the simple point that ANY law could be a violation of someones rights by your logic, and ANY regulation could be the same. This is like the old "heads I win, tails you lose".
no it is nothing like that.
nobody has the right to violate the rights of others. how hard is that to understand.
a government regulation that forces an action that does not necessarily protect the rights of the individual is a violation of the rights of BP.
to prove your statement wrong (the statement: I think I can go back to the simple point that ANY law could be a violation of someones rights by your logic) all you have to do is look at murder in relation to my original statements. my original statements are nobody has the rights to violate the rights of others and everyone can do whatever they please so long as they do not violate the rights of others when you apply the situation of murder to this you see that murder is always a violation of rights. therefore the law against murder is just.
how do you not understand this? im not sure how to be any more clear. violating rights is illegal. my logic is VERY clear on this.
how does this relate to BP? not having a relief well in and of itself will not necessarily violate rights.
spilling oil as we have well established does violate rights.
so YET AGAIN we are back to the question that nobody seems to want to answer:
if there was no relief well, and no spill, but a regulation that relief wells are to be drilled, BP would be punished, yet there are no rights being violated. it is a victimless crime.
how can you punish those who have not violated rights?
please justify that for me. i dont understand your position on punishing people or groups of people when they have not violated rights.
The legal codes for things like building safety, water safety etc. should not be in place then? Some of these are strictly in place to stop something before it happens, ie OSHA, and other regulators....Perhaps these regulations are in place because business has shown time and again profit trumps all---if this wasnt the case we wouldnt have horror stories in this country like mine disasters, textile mill fires, etc. Its because "those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" and the past has shown us that big corporations do not care about individuals other than those who they make money for. This is not unfair or socialism...its accountability.
I have never seen an arguement or siers of post so lacking in sense and taking every possible point to ensure you can be right in your mind. I think I can go back to the simple point that ANY law could be a violation of someones rights by your logic, and ANY regulation could be the same. This is like the old "heads I win, tails you lose".
no it is nothing like that.
nobody has the right to violate the rights of others. how hard is that to understand.
a government regulation that forces an action that does not necessarily protect the rights of the individual is a violation of the rights of BP.
to prove your statement wrong (the statement: I think I can go back to the simple point that ANY law could be a violation of someones rights by your logic) all you have to do is look at murder in relation to my original statements. my original statements are nobody has the rights to violate the rights of others and everyone can do whatever they please so long as they do not violate the rights of others when you apply the situation of murder to this you see that murder is always a violation of rights. therefore the law against murder is just.
how do you not understand this? im not sure how to be any more clear. violating rights is illegal. my logic is VERY clear on this.
how does this relate to BP? not having a relief well in and of itself will not necessarily violate rights.
spilling oil as we have well established does violate rights.
so YET AGAIN we are back to the question that nobody seems to want to answer:
if there was no relief well, and no spill, but a regulation that relief wells are to be drilled, BP would be punished, yet there are no rights being violated. it is a victimless crime.
how can you punish those who have not violated rights?
please justify that for me. i dont understand your position on punishing people or groups of people when they have not violated rights.
Kuzi, you work in the food serving industry correct? Do you have ANY certificates or any training which was required of you to work where you do?
Is that not a violation of your right to serve customers food without a regulation requirement, as long as you don't poison or otherwise harm your customers?
There are regulations in all industry. You asked me in a different post about whether I would buy a car without seatbelts, or work at a company without gaurds etc.. I assume by that question that you acknowledge that some regulations are useful. But by your arguement they are also punitive on the company unless that company does indeed cause a problem. Why do you accept these regulations? why is requiring a company like BP to follow certain regulations to avoid harming the environment or people and their personal property, any more punitive then regulations in other industries? Some regulations are required. If they prevent harm, and are enforced across the board of any certain industry they are not violating rights, they are protecting them. Will it cause a company to spend more money to meet these requirements? YES. Is that a violation of their rights? NO? It is a cost of doing business, period.
i know what you are saying. im just not there with you on this particular regulation. i have said in the past that there are laws that are good. but like i said, this particular regulation i have a difficult time with. i understand your intentions. i think that at worst they are noble.
i feel very frustrated that i am unable to express the thought process that gets me to my conclusion. even if you didnt agree with what my final point is you would at least understand it. i feel that i understand where you are coming from, but i feel that the feeling isnt mutual. this is probably due to my lack of being able to explain it. rather than frustrate you more and frustrate myself im gunna have to give up my failing attempts to iterate the reasoning behind it.
i know what you are saying. im just not there with you on this particular regulation. i have said in the past that there are laws that are good. but like i said, this particular regulation i have a difficult time with. i understand your intentions. i think that at worst they are noble.
i feel very frustrated that i am unable to express the thought process that gets me to my conclusion. even if you didnt agree with what my final point is you would at least understand it. i feel that i understand where you are coming from, but i feel that the feeling isnt mutual. this is probably due to my lack of being able to explain it. rather than frustrate you more and frustrate myself im gunna have to give up my failing attempts to iterate the reasoning behind it.
Kuzi, I understand your arguement absolutely. It is the reasoning behind your beliefs that I can't get behind. You have stated your case quite clearly, it is just that I don't agree with the conclusions you draw.
Please don't feel like there is something lacking in your arguement, because that implies, 1) that you have been unable to make your case understood clearly. 2) That I am somehow missing the point(s) you have been trying to make.
Neither of these is the case. We just seem to be oceans (of oil) apart from each other in our views. That's OK. It's not like BP, or the government were taking any advice from either of us.
It's amazing that independent scientists that have no reason to lie, get dismissed and only after weeks and after the govt says so it must be true. Oh BP denied it, even NOAA did to a point but not anymore. Once again scientists are put on the side lines, so familiar.
And while this could happen, not to mention what has already happened, our lovely GOP seems to once again take the side against this nation's best interests (like they did with the health insurance companies, the big banks...) http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/55286 - GOP apologizes for Obamas deal for a 20billion escrow account and more....
I for one am not happy enough with how BP has gone about this spill, mainly due to the chemicals used to push the oil under the surface so that tankers can't suck it up not to mention how it will affect people and animals not to mention how they are treating the people working to clean up the oil but there's only so much that can be done. That well seems to be unfixable on the surface so a relief well may be the last hope and hopefully the pressure doesn't cause massive damage..
However the way that the GOP is hammering the white house over trying to get compensation is horrible, least of their worries is the environment or lives in the gulf.
dont forget about the dem BS of not suspending the jones act fast enough and the turning away of aid in the gulf early in the game when it could have helped more. oh... and the fact that the EPA wont let enzyme based chemicals be used at all. these chemicals are safe.
iduno... i think its a clusterfuck all around. the GOP is trying to turn it into something it is not (partisan) the Dems are trying to make the clean up too bureaucratic and thus slower than it should be BP... well lets not even get started on the crazy amount of ways BP is violating rights... i read somewhere that there were something like 700 times in the last year or so where BP has knowingly broken laws. (wish i could link ya but i forgot where it came from)
there are ships from other countries that have offered to help and that could be helping the clean up that are not. why? there are other things to deal with in the immediate other than compensation. compensation will come in time. this is another time where the house is on fire and the mortgage is over due. put out the fire THEN pay the bill.
dont forget about the dem BS of not suspending the jones act fast enough and the turning away of aid in the gulf early in the game when it could have helped more. oh... and the fact that the EPA wont let enzyme based chemicals be used at all. these chemicals are safe.
iduno... i think its a clusterfuck all around. the GOP is trying to turn it into something it is not (partisan) the Dems are trying to make the clean up too bureaucratic and thus slower than it should be BP... well lets not even get started on the crazy amount of ways BP is violating rights... i read somewhere that there were something like 700 times in the last year or so where BP has knowingly broken laws. (wish i could link ya but i forgot where it came from)
there are ships from other countries that have offered to help and that could be helping the clean up that are not. why? there are other things to deal with in the immediate other than compensation. compensation will come in time. this is another time where the house is on fire and the mortgage is over due. put out the fire THEN pay the bill.
Yup.. Well BP is really the only one set up to close this well. There isn't much the FED can do, but I agree that it's been sort of a cluster. Though there isn't any agency that is experienced with this problem. I think the admin has been taking BP's word for the most part though they really don't seem to know what to do. It really isn't like a natural disaster where it's over in a matter of hours. This is and will go on until a relief well can be finished and hopefully it closes it but the pressure is a huge concern. I agree that more could have been done especially when it came to isolating the oil from getting to shore though it's hundreds of miles long. I think if the government knew more about this sort of thing things might have been smoother but oil drilling is more or less a private business. BP has F'd up massively and have been taking their sweet time. Admiral Allen is a joke, I wish Obama would fire his A-s-s as he's been a shill out there. He is the one who ok'd the chemicals, and is enforcing black outs of areas on BP's behalf which is BS and should be investigated. I do think that the families and business's need compensation fast as this is the season that most of them make their income and it is important. Fact is 20 B is really a drop in the bucket, but I'm glad BP is having to put some money down on this as it would be a first for this sort of thing. I still think they are going to come out a head, like split their company up, or get bought out or who knows... Either way this could get seriously worse. I can't blame obama though, I mean what can he really do? Some suggest taking over BP but hell, what does the FED know about this sort of thing. I think he could have pressed BP harder at the start though BP is the supposed expert and the govt listened. Tankers should have been forced to come asap and pick up oil instead of chemicals being used to hide it. I just can't understand that even with this there is so much division!!!!! I mean the GOP and some dem's are screaming about lifting these sanctions and to keep drilling, scolding the president for making bp put money in a slush fund... I mean WTF? I just wish for once, for f'ng sakes there could be a uniting of the parties.
I think the admin has been taking BP's word for the most part though they really don't seem to know what to do.
it is difficult to understand why anyone would take the word of a company that has such a long history of misinformation, corruption, and other random issues. i guess there is little choice at this time. there is no easy way out of this.
I think the admin has been taking BP's word for the most part though they really don't seem to know what to do.
it is difficult to understand why anyone would take the word of a company that has such a long history of misinformation, corruption, and other random issues. i guess there is little choice at this time. there is no easy way out of this.
Comments
as far as the "teabagger" issue...
its about intent. you mean it to be derogatory. they use the most common and identifiable form of tea to attempt to create a symbol of freedom from over taxation.
if they are informed or not is not the issue here. they are angry. other groups are angry too, on both sides. if they are being taken advantage of or misguided is not the point at all. they have a right to believe what ever they want to.
And their group put it on themselves. Maybe some people should no what their getting themselves into.
drilling the relief well is a great idea but drilling a relief well does not protect the rights of the people.
if there was no relief well, and no spill, but a regulation that relief wells are to be drilled, BP would be punished, yet there are no rights being violated.
how can you punish those who have not violated rights? that is not right.
Hyopothetical again. The relief wells would NOT have stopped this from happening agreed. What does that have to do with the fact thet they WOULD have be able to stop the flow with those relief wells? Laws, rules and regulations are there to protect people or property. In many, many cases they are proactive and are intended to avoid situations where an individuals rights may be violated.
I return to the stairway with the handrail. Should a company be forced to put handrails on stairways? That is a violation of that company's rights, as they are forced to put them there whether someone has tumbled down them or not. Do you not see the need for them? This is the same situation with the wells. Not a violation. A proactive method of avoiding disaster.
not every regulation violates companies rights. since nobody has the right to violate rights, violating rights via oil spill should be illegal. the law should not be about if relief wells should be drilled. the law should be that oil spills, no matter what the cause, violate rights; and if you cause an oil spill, no matter how it could have been fixed, you are responsible and should be held accountable.
and again i will return to my counter argument here. this argument depends on (for lack of better terms) "market demand" and personal responsibility.
would you work in a company that refused to employ even the most basic safety precautions? i wouldnt. many, many people wouldnt. hard to run a company without employees.
im still in favor of relief wells being used.
im sure you have heard the quote "my right to swing a fist ends where your nose begins"
the rig is my fist. no relief wells is the swing itself. your nose is the spill.
edit: even the best regulation cannot prevent everything.
you keep saying i am hiding behind words. isnt that what you are doing when i post a hypothetical situation like i did above? you just blurt out that its hypothetical and refuse to respond to it.
again i post the hypothetical:
if there was no relief well, and no spill, but a regulation that relief wells are to be drilled, BP would be punished, yet there are no rights being violated.
how can you punish those who have not violated rights? that is not right.
dumping toxic chemicals on school grounds violates right of those who attend that school.
murder violates the rights of those who are killed.
we have natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. nobody has the "right" to violate those rights.
i am not proposing, nor have i ever proposed anarchy. i am proposing that the only regulations that we have protect the rights of the individual and never violate them.
I just can't figure out your position. Regulations that protect people are good, but BP should NOT have to use them because that violates BP's rights? That is argueing both side and there is NO solution to that position. But it sure as HE LL doesn't make you right. I go back to my point earlier. I don't think you are seriously discussing this issue, you are more concerned with winning a debate. As Vulchor showed clearly in his post even your position on the rights front is full of holes.
That toxic waste he was referring to would not be a violation of anybody's rights that attend that school unless they get sick or die from it, and that would be using YOUR logic.
back on topic
the toxic waste is toxic and WILL get people sick. if it wasnt toxic, then it wouldnt get people sick. and further more, that is dumping on property that is not yours without permission. there are property rights that exist. toxic waste destroys property, much like oil spills.
we have all agreed that BP has destroyed property (along with other things including lives, livelyhoods, etc) and therefore violated rights
i am not arguing both sides of the issue. i am arguing that everyone has rights.
you said: "I just can't figure out your position. Regulations that protect people are good, but BP should NOT have to use them because that violates BP's rights?"
my position is that the relief wells, though a good idea that i am in favor of, are not the direct cause of the problem. as stated before, there are many many rigs out there that do not have relief wells that have not caused a single issue. therefore, if there is a relief well there or not is a moot point. that regulation does not necessarily protect rights. it does however promote a situation where a company can be punished while not violating rights.
the problem is the oil spill. yes a relief well would have stopped it and that is why it is a good idea.
however, this brings us back to the question:
if there was no relief well, and no spill, but a regulation that relief wells are to be drilled, BP would be punished, yet there are no rights being violated. it is a victimless crime.
how can you punish those who have not violated rights?
please justify that for me. i dont understand your position on punishing people or groups of people when they have not violated rights.
no it is nothing like that. nobody has the right to violate the rights of others. how hard is that to understand.
a government regulation that forces an action that does not necessarily protect the rights of the individual is a violation of the rights of BP.
to prove your statement wrong (the statement: I think I can go back to the simple point that ANY law could be a violation of someones rights by your logic) all you have to do is look at murder in relation to my original statements. my original statements are nobody has the rights to violate the rights of others
and
everyone can do whatever they please so long as they do not violate the rights of others
when you apply the situation of murder to this you see that murder is always a violation of rights. therefore the law against murder is just.
how do you not understand this? im not sure how to be any more clear. violating rights is illegal. my logic is VERY clear on this.
how does this relate to BP?
not having a relief well in and of itself will not necessarily violate rights.
spilling oil as we have well established does violate rights.
so YET AGAIN we are back to the question that nobody seems to want to answer:
if there was no relief well, and no spill, but a regulation that relief wells are to be drilled, BP would be punished, yet there are no rights being violated. it is a victimless crime. how can you punish those who have not violated rights? please justify that for me. i dont understand your position on punishing people or groups of people when they have not violated rights.
Is that not a violation of your right to serve customers food without a regulation requirement, as long as you don't poison or otherwise harm your customers?
There are regulations in all industry. You asked me in a different post about whether I would buy a car without seatbelts, or work at a company without gaurds etc.. I assume by that question that you acknowledge that some regulations are useful. But by your arguement they are also punitive on the company unless that company does indeed cause a problem. Why do you accept these regulations? why is requiring a company like BP to follow certain regulations to avoid harming the environment or people and their personal property, any more punitive then regulations in other industries? Some regulations are required. If they prevent harm, and are enforced across the board of any certain industry they are not violating rights, they are protecting them. Will it cause a company to spend more money to meet these requirements? YES. Is that a violation of their rights? NO? It is a cost of doing business, period.
i feel very frustrated that i am unable to express the thought process that gets me to my conclusion. even if you didnt agree with what my final point is you would at least understand it. i feel that i understand where you are coming from, but i feel that the feeling isnt mutual. this is probably due to my lack of being able to explain it.
rather than frustrate you more and frustrate myself im gunna have to give up my failing attempts to iterate the reasoning behind it.
Please don't feel like there is something lacking in your arguement, because that implies, 1) that you have been unable to make your case understood clearly.
2) That I am somehow missing the point(s) you have been trying to make.
Neither of these is the case. We just seem to be oceans (of oil) apart from each other in our views. That's OK. It's not like BP, or the government were taking any advice from either of us.
http://services.newsweek.com/id/238620
It's amazing that independent scientists that have no reason to lie, get dismissed and only after weeks and after the govt says so it must be true. Oh BP denied it, even NOAA did to a point but not anymore. Once again scientists are put on the side lines, so familiar.
http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2010/06/worst_case_scenario_on_gulf_sp.php
This is hopefully not going to happen but if it does we're in for a heap of trouble....
And while this could happen, not to mention what has already happened, our lovely GOP seems to once again take the side against this nation's best interests (like they did with the health insurance companies, the big banks...)
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/55286 - GOP apologizes for Obamas deal for a 20billion escrow account and more....
I for one am not happy enough with how BP has gone about this spill, mainly due to the chemicals used to push the oil under the surface so that tankers can't suck it up not to mention how it will affect people and animals not to mention how they are treating the people working to clean up the oil but there's only so much that can be done. That well seems to be unfixable on the surface so a relief well may be the last hope and hopefully the pressure doesn't cause massive damage..
However the way that the GOP is hammering the white house over trying to get compensation is horrible, least of their worries is the environment or lives in the gulf.
oh... and the fact that the EPA wont let enzyme based chemicals be used at all. these chemicals are safe.
iduno... i think its a clusterfuck all around.
the GOP is trying to turn it into something it is not (partisan)
the Dems are trying to make the clean up too bureaucratic and thus slower than it should be
BP... well lets not even get started on the crazy amount of ways BP is violating rights... i read somewhere that there were something like 700 times in the last year or so where BP has knowingly broken laws. (wish i could link ya but i forgot where it came from)
there are ships from other countries that have offered to help and that could be helping the clean up that are not. why?
there are other things to deal with in the immediate other than compensation. compensation will come in time.
this is another time where the house is on fire and the mortgage is over due. put out the fire THEN pay the bill.
Either way this could get seriously worse. I can't blame obama though, I mean what can he really do? Some suggest taking over BP but hell, what does the FED know about this sort of thing. I think he could have pressed BP harder at the start though BP is the supposed expert and the govt listened. Tankers should have been forced to come asap and pick up oil instead of chemicals being used to hide it. I just can't understand that even with this there is so much division!!!!! I mean the GOP and some dem's are screaming about lifting these sanctions and to keep drilling, scolding the president for making bp put money in a slush fund... I mean WTF? I just wish for once, for f'ng sakes there could be a uniting of the parties.