3 ms·

Once again the problem is not government regulation -- if the corporation was exposed to the full liability of their actions they would make damn sure that they

Once again the problem is not government regulation -- if the corporation was exposed to the full liability of their actions they would make damn sure that they were insured to cover the damages. The insurance agency would make damn sure that they followed the rules and that appropriate risk mitigation was taking place, and the corporation would follow this since if they tried to sidestep or sneak by then the insurance agency would not cover the risk. These problems have long been worked out, and yes disasters would still happen, but at least in those cases the victims would be compensated. Remember the EPA and all sorts regulations on pollution are the government saying it's ok to pollute your land and water by X amount without compensating you. Your property rights are violated by government regulation not protected.

loewenskind 16y ago
Well, if BP were exposed to the full liability here they would simply go out of business. I don't know about you, but personally I would rather people are prevented from killing me. Punishing them after the fact doesn't do me any good. Your solution actually still seems to still call for regulation, just by a private company instead of the government. I would submit that there isn't a problem having government do the regulation, the problem would simply be having the US government doing them.
- dantheman 16y ago
  Any government doing the regulation has perverse incentives. The main effect of government regulation is to keep entrenched business successful and keep out new competition -- regulatory capture. The government has to do a balancing act because it doesn't compensate the victim and it doesn't want to drive businesses out of town -- how much regulation is too much, how much is too little. Look at how the FDA works -- they have nothing to lose when the deny a drug, and a lot hassle when the approve a drug that turns out to be harmful. This is why so many potentially effective drugs sit on the shelf waiting for further tests.

loewenskind 16y ago

Well, if BP were exposed to the full liability here they would simply go out of business. I don't know about you, but personally I would rather people are prevented from killing me. Punishing them after the fact doesn't do me any good. Your solution actually still seems to still call for regulation, just by a private company instead of the government. I would submit that there isn't a problem having government do the regulation, the problem would simply be having the US government doing them.

dantheman 16y ago
Any government doing the regulation has perverse incentives. The main effect of government regulation is to keep entrenched business successful and keep out new competition -- regulatory capture. The government has to do a balancing act because it doesn't compensate the victim and it doesn't want to drive businesses out of town -- how much regulation is too much, how much is too little. Look at how the FDA works -- they have nothing to lose when the deny a drug, and a lot hassle when the approve a drug that turns out to be harmful. This is why so many potentially effective drugs sit on the shelf waiting for further tests.