5 ms·

Right, that's the fundamental problem with free-market idealism. There is not an effective limit to the damage that can be done, but there are limits to liabil

Right, that's the fundamental problem with free-market idealism. There is not an effective limit to the damage that can be done, but there are limits to liability. Many industries are capable of committing environmental destruction on large scales, but don't have any assets when the EPA comes around looking for restitution.

sp332 12y ago
I don't see what the free market has to do with this. In a free market, or really any system that has property rights at all, you can't take or destroy someone's property without their permission. Edit: by "can't" I mean it's not allowed - it's a crime. Not that you physically can't.
- rosser 12y ago
  Tell me again how property rights prevented this from happening.
  - sp332 12y ago
    The industry is already regulated, and companies are ignoring the regulations. This isn't even an approximation to a free market, let alone some ideal. Adding more regulations isn't going to help if they're not enforced.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      But how are the companies ignoring the regulations here? It appears that state permits were granted to drill and use these injection wells ~25-30 years ago and that the owner/operators have been fully compliant with regulations - if anything, the failure in this case was a regulatory one, for granting permits that should not have been issued in the first place.
      - sp332 12y ago
        So, who is responsible to pay up if a resident wants restitution for the pollution in their well? The company or the state?
        rosser 12y ago
        So far, pretty much all the cases involving pollution of people's wells by fracking have been settled (sealed, with gag orders and no admission of wrongdoing, of course!) — and those naturally only happen where the wronged party even has standing to sue.
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        On the limited information available here, if the company had not been breaking the terms of the permit then I would certainly consider my dispute to be with the state.
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        Looking at this later I see I worded it badly - I should have said 'as long as the company hasn't been breaking the terms of the permit.' I might have mistakenly given the impression that they had done so, whereas in reality I have no reason to think they did.
        jrobn 12y ago
        Here in PA it is well known that the state and the oil & gas companies are in bed together. As far as I'm concerned, the companies drilling and developing these gas wells have been extremely exploitative, manipulative, and down right dirty. They hire landmen thugs to bully and exploit landowners into leasing their land for bottom dollar. They drill gas wells with a cocktail of chemicals that they keep secret so as to obstruct water testing. They contaminate residents wells and then have the cases gag ordered. They lobby our state government to lease state land and bypass taxes. They put contaminated water in containment ponds (not cleared for toxic waste) knowing they have active leaks and do nothing about it [1]. In every way, the marcellus and utica shale play has been more about screwing over local residents for profits then about the shill they throw up on tv about american energy independence. It's a lie. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-usa-fracking-pennsylvania-idUSKBN0G62G220140806 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-usa-fracking-pe...]
- deciplex 12y ago
  Maybe successful players in a free market eventually acquire enough power that they can subvert whatever government is managing property rights in the first place, and what you end up with is a twisted corruption of the supposedly 'pure' free market you started with. It's often said that socialism works great 'on paper' but not in practice. When you ignore how unchecked capitalism plays off the rest of the society it's a part of, you commit the same offense.
ekianjo 12y ago
> There is not an effective limit to the damage that can be done, but there are limits to liability. What does it have to do with Free Market?? This has to do with regulation more than anything else.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  That's what it has to do with the free market. Free market and regulations exist in tension and conflict.

sp332 12y ago

I don't see what the free market has to do with this. In a free market, or really any system that has property rights at all, you can't take or destroy someone's property without their permission. Edit: by "can't" I mean it's not allowed - it's a crime. Not that you physically can't.

rosser 12y ago
Tell me again how property rights prevented this from happening.
- sp332 12y ago
  The industry is already regulated, and companies are ignoring the regulations. This isn't even an approximation to a free market, let alone some ideal. Adding more regulations isn't going to help if they're not enforced.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    But how are the companies ignoring the regulations here? It appears that state permits were granted to drill and use these injection wells ~25-30 years ago and that the owner/operators have been fully compliant with regulations - if anything, the failure in this case was a regulatory one, for granting permits that should not have been issued in the first place.
    - sp332 12y ago
      So, who is responsible to pay up if a resident wants restitution for the pollution in their well? The company or the state?
      - rosser 12y ago
        So far, pretty much all the cases involving pollution of people's wells by fracking have been settled (sealed, with gag orders and no admission of wrongdoing, of course!) — and those naturally only happen where the wronged party even has standing to sue.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        On the limited information available here, if the company had not been breaking the terms of the permit then I would certainly consider my dispute to be with the state.
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        Looking at this later I see I worded it badly - I should have said 'as long as the company hasn't been breaking the terms of the permit.' I might have mistakenly given the impression that they had done so, whereas in reality I have no reason to think they did.
      - jrobn 12y ago
        Here in PA it is well known that the state and the oil & gas companies are in bed together. As far as I'm concerned, the companies drilling and developing these gas wells have been extremely exploitative, manipulative, and down right dirty. They hire landmen thugs to bully and exploit landowners into leasing their land for bottom dollar. They drill gas wells with a cocktail of chemicals that they keep secret so as to obstruct water testing. They contaminate residents wells and then have the cases gag ordered. They lobby our state government to lease state land and bypass taxes. They put contaminated water in containment ponds (not cleared for toxic waste) knowing they have active leaks and do nothing about it [1]. In every way, the marcellus and utica shale play has been more about screwing over local residents for profits then about the shill they throw up on tv about american energy independence. It's a lie. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-usa-fracking-pennsylvania-idUSKBN0G62G220140806 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-usa-fracking-pe...]
deciplex 12y ago
Maybe successful players in a free market eventually acquire enough power that they can subvert whatever government is managing property rights in the first place, and what you end up with is a twisted corruption of the supposedly 'pure' free market you started with. It's often said that socialism works great 'on paper' but not in practice. When you ignore how unchecked capitalism plays off the rest of the society it's a part of, you commit the same offense.

ekianjo 12y ago

> There is not an effective limit to the damage that can be done, but there are limits to liability. What does it have to do with Free Market?? This has to do with regulation more than anything else.

thrownaway2424 12y ago
That's what it has to do with the free market. Free market and regulations exist in tension and conflict.