Take a look at those dates on the MMS report.
A movement that doesn’t believe in government’s ability to do anything, when given the reins of power, will prove themselves correct.

Add Ronald Reagan (memory of), George W. Bush, Dick Cheney to the boat.

“Take these pseudo-regulators out to the site of the disaster, throw them into rubber dinghys, and let ‘em go.”
And waste an otherwise useful dinghy???

This is what I don’t get about people who have unquestioned faith in the radically free markets: have they not heard about original sin? True, people require liberty to thrive — but liberty absent constraint, oversight or some form of accountability becomes license, which, given the corruption inherent in human nature, cannot help but lead to destruction.
Unfortunately, original sin (and I didn’t think Eastern Orthodox believed in original sin) applies to regulators as well as to those they would regulate, as this case proves all to well, it as much, or even more a regulatory failure as it is a market failure.
Those who believe in radically free markets also believe in radical responsibility, as well, it is not at all clear that BP would have been so careless in an environment where they, their employees and their owners, would be held responsible for _all_ the damage that they have done.

Larry: I didn’t think Eastern Orthodox believed in original sin….
They most certainly do, although their understanding is very much different from that of the West (Catholic and Protestant). I’m going to cross my fingers and hope CAPTCHA doesn’t rebel, and suggest this article and this one as good brief descriptions of the Eastern viewpoint.
Those who believe in radically free markets also believe in radical responsibility, as well, it is not at all clear that BP would have been so careless in an environment where they, their employees and their owners, would be held responsible for _all_ the damage that they have done.
Held responsible by whom and enforced by whom, in such an environment?

Hey, wow…I couldn’t see a CAPTCHA

Sorry about that last–it was accidental. I couldn’t see a CAPTCHA text, so I thought my computer (clunky old such-and-such that it is) just wasn’t displaying it. Thus, I hit “post” just for kicks, and it posted!! Is CAPTCHA no more? Or is it merely a subtle manifestation of a deeper plot?

No Captcha here either.
On topic, I will agree with Rod’s general sentiments here. A former Goldman trader and corporate officer was recently interviewed (at Knoczal’s site?). In it he noted that it was their job to make money by any means possible. Period. If we also want moral behavior, we need to set limits on what they can do. There is no internalized set of moral guidelines for many of these guys.
Steve

Larry says:
Those who believe in radically free markets also believe in radical responsibility, as well, it is not at all clear that BP would have been so careless in an environment where they, their employees and their owners, would be held responsible for _all_ the damage that they have done.
That assumes that all of the damage caused by the oil spill is done to things with property rights, which, last I check, pelicans lack. The libertarian model usually turns a blind eye to externalities like pollution and the effects of segregation on the consumer (not just the owner’s rights).
Those who believe in radical free markets emphatically do not believe in radical responsibility – the radical free market means radical responsibility for those on the bottom of the food chain who are one paycheck from destitution, but the exact opposite for those who can cause the most damage to everyone else from their actions.

Take these pseudo-regulators out to the site of the disaster, throw them into rubber dinghys, and let ‘em go. And the people who appointed them. Epic, epic fail. This is what I don’t get about people who have unquestioned faith in the radically free markets
Bit of a cognitive disconnect to go from describing a failure of the regulators, to blaming “the free market”, in one sentence, no? How about unquestioned faith in the ability of the assembly of third-raters, diversity hires and clock-punchers collectively known as “federal bureaucrats” to be able to provide adequate oversight of anything, let alone complex financial markets or deepwater drills?
Watch. In the rush of politicians who need to be seen as Doing Something, we’ll end up with another loophole-ridden, multi-volume release of “rules” in the CFR to be administered by hundreds of dipshits that the private sector rejected. Great.

You’re doin’ a great job, Barry!

Obama lied, and pelicans died!

“Those who believe in radically free markets also believe in radical responsibility, as well, it is not at all clear that BP would have been so careless in an environment where they, their employees and their owners, would be held responsible for _all_ the damage that they have done.”
Please define the phrase “all the damage”.

I can’t believe this stuff is going to start rolling up on those white beaches of Pensacola I knew decades ago when I was in the Navy, plus all the other damage to nature and people of the Gulf Coast. Even to me out here in California it’s personal. It seems that the federal government isn’t going to do a damn thing. What the f. can any of us do? Punish BP by boycotting ARCO?
Seriously, who the hell is going to start f ing doing something?
(Rod, are you going to have to update the “Bush: WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER.”?

@rj: Amen.
@BloodintheStreets: Would it be too much to ask you to review the 2005-08 timeline (i.e., Bush administration, not Obama administration) of this non-oversight? Silly question.
The only conceivable upside of this ongoing horror is that more people will ask themselves about radical libertarianism, the most toxic social pollutant of our time.

Held responsible by whom and enforced by whom, in such an environment?
The government and the courts, obviously, “free marketeer” is not synonymous with “anarchist”.

How about unquestioned faith in the ability of the assembly of third-raters, diversity hires and clock-punchers collectively known as “federal bureaucrats” to be able to provide adequate oversight of anything, let alone complex financial markets or deepwater drills?
ManfromKStreet much prefers fellow K Street cronies and hucksters to regulate themselves. Ask the dead miners in W. Virginia how much they trust companies to regulate themselves. As the people who see the Gulf of Mexico being ruined how much they trust companies to regulate themselves. Ask the people routinely denied health insurance because it would hurt profits how much they trust companies to regulate themselves.

“free marketeer” is not synonymous with “anarchist”.
Of course, the free marketeers who want to regulate themselves also advocate against lowering limits on damages in court, tort reform, and other measures designed to bring some regulation when government is unable to and companies refuse to.

Those who believe in radical free markets emphatically do not believe in radical responsibility
Nonsense, you are addressing a caricature of those beliefs. Here’s a clue: Dick Cheney does not believe in free markets, nor do most other Republicans, they believe in private profits, but public risk, but this is not the free market.

Of course, the free marketeers who want to regulate themselves also advocate against lowering limits on damages in court, tort reform, and other measures designed to bring some regulation when government is unable to and companies refuse to.
Your problem is that you confuse those who _say_ they believe in free markets, like Dick Cheney and his crew, with those who actually do.

“This is what I don’t get about people who have unquestioned faith in the radically free markets: have they not heard about original sin? True, people require liberty to thrive — but liberty absent constraint, oversight or some form of accountability becomes license, which, given the corruption inherent in human nature, cannot help but lead to destruction.”
A couple of observations:
The whole story is about regulators not enforcing regulations. The regulations were in place. I think its those who have “unquestioned faith in government” that need to answer some questions.
Those of us who do believe in “radically free markets” know that an integral component of free markets is private property. Environmental disasters often occur on resources that are not privately owned… public land, rivers, and other bodies of water. That’s because there is less incentive to care for resources where there is a lack of ownership.
We “free market radicals” understand that if you are going to have publicly owned resources, you have to have regulation, otherwise you have the “problem of the commons”. But we also know that those protections, which are enforced by politicians and bureacrats, will eventually breakdown. That is why we prefer private ownership of resources.
So, again, I don’t think it’s those of us who believe in free markets and private ownership of resources who have to apologize. I think it’s those who believe in public ownership and have unquestioned faith in government bureaucrats and politicians to protect our resources who have to explain themselves.

Just as surely as “A equals A”
then
Free markets = abuses of power
The trick is to have enough quality referees (real time regulators and post hoc legal liabilities) to keep sociopathy from gaining the upper hand in the *Game* (i.e. any competitive situation where the stakes matter).
OTOH, and it’s a big OTOH, Christians can live in the Holy Hope for a time when “Freedom in Christ” (as St. Paul writes it in Galatians) will be the norm – and some glimpse of such a Kingdom can occasionally seen over the years and in these times.

That is why we prefer private ownership of resources.
But don’t mind private profiting from public resources. Oil companies continue to insist that we turn over more public land for them to profit from, yet they demonstrate they aren’t good stewards.
Yes, the regulators failed. But the “free market radicals” failed because they failed to implement safeguards to protect the public interest when they decided to profit from public goods.
It’s also important to point out that the regulators who failed here were under 8 years of marching orders from the “free market radicals”-friendly Bush administration to allow the “regulated community” to monitor itself. We can see how that worked out in the Gulf of Mexico and West Virginia.

tms-
BP’s private property is spewing all over the place.
Where is the “public ownership” issue in the disaster – or maybe you are suggesting that the solution is for BP (and others) to own the Gulf – everything in the waters and under the sea floor and the waters … period.

“Free market radicals” failed because they failed to implement safeguards to protect the public interest when they decided to profit from public goods.”
I don’t think you understand. “Free market radicals” don’t believe that anyone should profit from public resources. Actually, we don’t believe in public resources. We believe in private ownership of all resources.
If you are going to have public ownership, that’s fine, but don’t come blaming those of us who believe in free markets when government fails to safeguard those resources and all of us have to pay.

“or maybe you are suggesting that the solution is for BP (and others) to own the Gulf – everything in the waters and under the sea floor and the waters … period.”
Well, yes.

Yes, the regulators failed. But the “free market radicals” failed because they failed to implement safeguards to protect the public interest when they decided to profit from public goods.
It’s also important to point out that the regulators who failed here were under 8 years of marching orders from the “free market radicals”-friendly Bush administration to allow the “regulated community” to monitor itself.
Don’t worry then. All we have to do is interview another couple thousand potential GS-9s and GS-10s from job fairs in East St. Louis and Scranton, hire the ones that didn’t get competing offers from Dunder Mifflin, hand them each a paperback set of 1200 pages of new regulations, and this will never, ever happen again. We just need more government oversight.

I’d have to call Rod on his choice of words. Corruption is not inherent in human nature. True human nature is in perfect communion with God, as taught by scripture and the Church Fathers.
The inclination to corruption and sin has always been a matter of free will, and abuse thereof. From a simple and singular rebellious act of consumption, Adam’s tasting of the forbidden fruit, our inclination to deathly misuse of will, to sin, has left us in an inexorable state of corruption. We suffer under the exponentially accumulated weight of sin from countless generations before us. Our current state is a tangled mass of causality wherein this Gulf tragedy occurred.
Increased or more effective regulation will only serve, however unintentionally, to consolidate the power of the energy companies by making it harder for local energy production less competitive. The big guys are the only ones who can survive under more complex regulatory framework. Does that mean we’re screwed? Only if you don’t know how the story ends.
On the “kingdom come” scale, this tragedy won’t register as a blip. Don’t despair. Perhaps by just saying no to consumption in our little corners of the universe, we can attain to some redemption of the whole.
captcha: there is none.

tms -
I forgot to include the air above the waters.
IOW, freedom means that NO THING should be regulated by any means other than price.
Frankly, that simply sounds and smells like … some ring of Hell.

For those of you who keep on referring to the Bush administration as “radical free marketers”, radical free marketers do not write out government checks to bail out their buddies on Wall Street. The Bush administration was many things, but it was not comprised of people who believe in a free, or even semi-free, market. For the most part they seemed to believe, or at least acted liked they believed, that profits should be private and losses public. That this is not in line with free market principles goes without saying.

For those making libertarian arguments here, I’ll save time and typing fingers by linking to the excellent “Critiques of Libertarianism” site. I doubt it’ll change any minds, but it argues much better and at much greater length than I could, and I recommend it to libertarians (to see why others disagree with them) and non-libertarians (to better understand the arguments against the other side). As to the stuff about “real” free market supporters, I smell the “No True Scotsman” argument lurking about.
The Other Peter: True human nature is in perfect communion with God, as taught by scripture and the Church Fathers.
If you mean that human nature (like everything else created by God) is fundamentally good, or if you’re taking issue with the Protestant teachings on the total depravity of man, then I guess I take your meaning, but as phrased this and the succeeding paragraph seem to me to be extremely muddled. I’m certainly not aware of any Church teaching or teaching of the Fathers that says that humans in general will behave as if “in perfect communion with God”!
On the “kingdom come” scale, this tragedy won’t register as a blip.
But on the “kingdom come” scale, nothing short of the end of the world would register, either. Doesn’t solve the problems for us now.

All we have to do is interview another couple thousand potential GS-9s and GS-10s from job fairs in East St. Louis and Scranton, hire the ones that didn’t get competing offers from Dunder Mifflin, hand them each a paperback set of 1200 pages of new regulations, and this will never, ever happen again.
Or maybe we can just trust K Street lobbyists and interest groups who spend millions of dollars influencing legislation so that regulations are impotent. You wanna see Corporate America at its best? Go swim off the coast of Lousiana.

“freedom means that NO THING should be regulated by any means other than price. Frankly, that simply sounds and smells like … some ring of Hell.”
Freedom…a ring of Hell. Never heard that one. I guess we will disagree. Fortunately, with my philosophy, I can just leave you alone and we can go our separate ways. Unfortunately, under your philosophy, you will be asking the government to use force to control my actions and the actions of people I would like to trade with, not to mention looking for ways to confiscate our property.

How someone could work at National Review and have such a poor understanding of free markets and the faux-conservatism of the Bush administration is beyond me.

@Bradley – Frankly, that simply sounds and smells like … some ring of Hell.
Maybe this is why a favorite priest of mine read von Mises Human Action as an act of penitence.

As to the stuff about “real” free market supporters, I smell the “No True Scotsman” argument lurking about.
So, then, are you willing to defend what anybody who claims the name Christian says as being representative of Christianity? Surely you must, “No True Scotsman” and all.
Damn! Captcha is back. It was missing for a while. That was nice.

Take a look at those dates on the MMS report.
A movement that doesn’t believe in government’s ability to do anything, when given the reins of power, will prove themselves correct.
So how do you explain the Obamatons wanting to give BP a safety award? Are they radical free-marketeers, too?
The GAO report really isn’t THAT shocking when you think about it. Did they have a drug abuser? A lot of organizations do. Employees surfing porn? Oh, yeah, that never happens anywhere else. Please.
The big ethical problems come with the free meals, gifts and other ties to industry, including taking jobs, and this sort of thing is endemic to all government programs. It’s been a big problem with DOD, for example. Then you have the contributions Obama himself received from BP. We’ll continue to find this sort of stuff until doomsday arrives. When corporations have to deal with regulators, they’ll want to keep them happy. The people who trouble grasping that are not “radical free-marketeers” but self-righteous regulators.
As for ties and cross-employment, well, if you want someone who knows how to regulate the oil industry, you’re probably going to find those people in the oil industry. This work is highly specialized, and the only place to get the experience needed is in th industry itself. It’s not perfect, it’s vulnerable to abuse–as the report shows–but we don’t have much in the way of an alternative.

These are the same guys who got caught doing coke, hiring “fancy girls” and otherwise partying on the dime of the oil companies during the Bush administration – what could possible make anyone think this crowd would regulate their coke/party/prostitute suppliers?
It is nuts to say “all regulations are doomed to failure” – it means there is Nothing we can do to protect ourselves and our environment. How about we recognize that we can create regs that do work – but that we must be on the lookout for those who choose corruption? I’d point to the safety record of North Sea oil – no spills, no deaths to workers and in a very very tough environment.
It can be done.
That said – the more you read about this – the worse it gets. Like an invasion – let’s declare war against BP!

Captcha sucks

Since my comment can’t get through, I’ll make this short. Cecilia, google “Piper Alpha.”

“It is nuts to say “all regulations are doomed to failure”"
Yeah, it would be nuts to say something like that, but I didn’t say it. What I said is that there’s no perfect regimen. We have tough laws against murder, but murders still happen. That doesn’t mean the law failed. We’re going to have spills and incidents. It’ll happen in every industry, not just petroleum, too.

Captcha really, really sux.

“A movement that doesn’t believe in government’s ability to do anything, when given the reins of power, will prove themselves correct”
I used to say that, but lately I find myself thinking that it’s more “a movement whose bankrollers don’t want the public to trust government will provide the kind of government the public can’t trust.”

Polichinello =- my remark was not specifically directed towards you but rather the notion that since we are flawed we will always be corrupt- eek – how could I have forgotten about Piper Alpha – 100+ men lost however – since then (’88)- no spills or loss of life -
part of what gets me re: the hoopla over this spill is that we happily ignore even worse spills in the third world – guess when it is closer to home it matters more?

Investigators said they believe the inspector may have been under the influence of the drug during an inspection.
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/#ixzz0p1XD1Uvw
Uh, you want your inspectors on meth — it makes you obsessed with detail and, strangely, to want to clean things

“part of what gets me re: the hoopla over this spill is that we happily ignore even worse spills in the third world – guess when it is closer to home it matters more?”
That’s human nature. You pay more attention to problems you can see.
Third World safety is the reason we should still drill here. Keeping the price lower here (with improved safety guidelines!) will discourage drilling in less safe and politically stable environments. Also, tanker accidents are still worse on average than platform accidents. So going to overseas sources instead of drilling will only increase the risk of spills.
This also applies to alternative energy sources. Windmill and solar panels require exotic materials, which are often mined in places like Africa and China. I doubt they have top notch QHSE programs.