The BS arguments for offshore drilling

[Christopher]

Actually, my view is property rights would be the best way to handle this -- not using the state or federal government or a tally of the voters in a given area. In this case, it'd likely be the owners of coastline or of water resources that should have the say. This should in principle be no different than decided whether I can trek through your backyard. We don't decide this by asking all the voters in California or America or the planet. We decide it by you and I coming to an arrangement (or not). And should I decide to trek across your yard, trampling your flowerbed, it should be me and not the taxpayers paying for the damages.

That is the straight-forward answer. In addition is the idea of living environment stretching beyond the boundaries of personal property. In nature throughout the entire history of man, including man's genetic evolution, we are predisposed to live in an environment far larger than that simply designated for private "ownership." For example, man once lived in tundras, forests, etc. where certain spaces are individually occupied with living quarters, but the wider area is open to movement. As such, a social-political philosophy that assumes all land can and should be privately owned would be inconsistent with man's nature.

I think as a society we attempt to account for this by having state and national parks, including state beaches (which is what the beaches in California are designated). In other words, man's environment is common space + personal space. This is where I believe voting has a role. I don't know if Objectivist theory accounts for the concept "common space" in any meaningful way.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christopher,

Common space is not a very popular concept in Objectivism, but I adhere to it.

Including public roads. Many Objectivists think all roads should be private.

Michael

[Christopher]

Christopher,

Common space is not a very popular concept in Objectivism, but I adhere to it.

Including public roads. Many Objectivists think all roads should be private.

Michael

This is nice to read that you share the view.

Sometimes voicing unpopular concepts (to Objectivists) receive flak and insults that are rather unpleasant.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sometimes voicing unpopular concepts (to Objectivists) receive flak and insults that are rather unpleasant.

Christopher,

I can't resist.

Notice that this happens with Beck, and the flak and insults come from people who proudly proclaim they do not watch him (or listen to him, or read him).

That sounds like a plug for Beck, but that's not my real beef. I am really exasperated with the number of people who use this method of thinking and acting--even as they have complained that this is what others have done to Ayn Rand throughout the years. I don't mind Beck-bashing. I do mind the stuff I have seen--on epistemological grounds. I am of the "identify correctly first, then judge" school of thinking.

As to your position on common space, I remember a comment by Michael Prescott, who is a person who left Objectivism (but I like him a lot).

Even though I supported Rand's philosophy, I was beginning to have doubts, and the idea that all roads must be privately owned was one of them. The Objectivist with whom I raised this issue insisted that the idea would work, and came up with all sorts of complicated technological solutions in lieu of tollbooths - like automated equipment that scans your license plate and then generates a bill which you pay later. My point was that this was absurdly complicated, especially when we already have a system that works pretty well - namely, public roads!

That system actually does work well.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Sometimes voicing unpopular concepts (to Objectivists) receive flak and insults that are rather unpleasant.

Christopher,

I can't resist.

Notice that this happens with Beck, and the flak and insults come from people who proudly proclaim they do not watch him (or listen to him, or read him).

That sounds like a plug for Beck, but that's not my real beef. I am really exasperated with the number of people who use this method of thinking and acting--even as they have complained that this is what others have done to Ayn Rand throughout the years. I don't mind Beck-bashing. I do mind the stuff I have seen--on epistemological grounds. I am of the "identify correctly first, then judge" school of thinking.

As to your position on common space, I remember a comment by Michael Prescott, who is a person who left Objectivism (but I like him a lot).

Even though I supported Rand's philosophy, I was beginning to have doubts, and the idea that all roads must be privately owned was one of them. The Objectivist with whom I raised this issue insisted that the idea would work, and came up with all sorts of complicated technological solutions in lieu of tollbooths - like automated equipment that scans your license plate and then generates a bill which you pay later. My point was that this was absurdly complicated, especially when we already have a system that works pretty well - namely, public roads!

That system actually does work well.

Michael

Work well? For what? About 400,000 people have died on public roads in the last decade.

At least they have gotten safer over time. At least six or seven times safer per mile driven than 50 years ago. I think people are generally better and safer drivers over succeeding generations. My grandfather could be a terrifying driver. He once passed on a curve then told my Dad, "I shouldn't have done that." Somehow he never had a serious accident I ever knew about. He also voted for Grover Cleveland.

If you want to know what works pretty well, try freedom. Lack of acturate imagination as to economic and social outcomes means you may not make a fortune in your investments, not that a mixed economy is better or that we should celebrate fascism because Messaloonie made the trains run on time.

--Brant

Edited June 20, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Donovan A.]

My thinking is, one needs to work out a rational understanding of property rights on land before moving to more complex issues like water and air ownership. Clearly some people are against all laws, but at the same time argue for the recognition of property rights which I think is a contradiction.

This post on wiki seems to offer some interesting background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._territorial_waters

The idea of government/public roads seems somewhat odd. Based on the Objectivist theory of government, there should not be any taxation. If as a community, people wish to organize and cooperatively produce local roads through developments, homeowner associations etc, I don't have a problem with that. Most likely even in an Objectivist society there would be some form of easement laws, which would allow a person to simply walk to wherever, but not necessarily drive. City to city highways clearly could be privatized.

I saw some arguments in this thread about objective safety, which seem like arguments for zoning to an extent. In a free society, would a private company not be free to produce nuclear power plants? I find these kinds of issues are very hard to deal with because one has to keep degree and measurement in mind and everyone has different comfort levels. I have seen some very rationalistic positions over the years which would allow for islamic fundamentalists (who have not done anything bad yet), to build and own nukes in their garages. I tend to view that mindset as intrinsicism. From my observation, these kinds of thinkers end up divorcing morality from practicality, rationalistically applying morality in cases for which no moral position could logically be defensible.

In the case of this recent oil spill, it sounds like there was a lot of government oversight and regulation in place already (something the government doesn't seem to want people to talk about). However, I must admit that I don't know much about the actual laws and regulations, nor how they are enforced and implemented.

My last thought is, if zoning is not appropriate on land, why would it be appropriate in the ocean?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Work well? For what? About 400,000 people have died on public roads in the last decade.

Brant,

Do you mean that an inanimate object like a road goes out and kills people if it is a public road, but it will not go about slaughtering folks if it is a private road?

Sounds really weird to me.

I thought people killed people, not roads...

Michael

[Christopher]

I saw some arguments in this thread about objective safety, which seem like arguments for zoning to an extent. In a free society, would a private company not be free to produce nuclear power plants? I find these kinds of issues are very hard to deal with because one has to keep degree and measurement in mind and everyone has different comfort levels. I have seen some very rationalistic positions over the years which would allow for islamic fundamentalists (who have not done anything bad yet), to build and own nukes in their garages. I tend to view that mindset as intrinsicism. From my observation, these kinds of thinkers end up divorcing morality from practicality, rationalistically applying morality in cases for which no moral position could logically be defensible.

Unfortunately this reductionism happens quite frequently in Objectivism from what I've observed. Private property and production become the ends rather than the means to some greater end. In following the reduction, people begin to support behaviors and systems that undermine human life and liberty on a more universal scale. These Objectivists do so simply to allow producers to produce more efficiently (as an end rather than a means), private property owners to act without restriction (as an end rather than a means), or the development of oil rigs of the coast of California (just had to add that last one)

[Donovan A.]

I saw some arguments in this thread about objective safety, which seem like arguments for zoning to an extent. In a free society, would a private company not be free to produce nuclear power plants? I find these kinds of issues are very hard to deal with because one has to keep degree and measurement in mind and everyone has different comfort levels. I have seen some very rationalistic positions over the years which would allow for islamic fundamentalists (who have not done anything bad yet), to build and own nukes in their garages. I tend to view that mindset as intrinsicism. From my observation, these kinds of thinkers end up divorcing morality from practicality, rationalistically applying morality in cases for which no moral position could logically be defensible.

Unfortunately this reductionism happens quite frequently in Objectivism from what I've observed. Private property and production become the ends rather than the means to some greater end. In following the reduction, people begin to support behaviors and systems that undermine human life and liberty on a more universal scale. These Objectivists do so simply to allow producers to produce more efficiently (as an end rather than a means), private property owners to act without restriction (as an end rather than a means), or the development of oil rigs of the coast of California (just had to add that last one)

If we accept the idea that the government can claim territorial rights off the shore, and I do, then do the grounds for restrictions stem simply from majority vote? How much ocean territory (how far out from shore) can the government claim ownership? What principle applies here?

So the question fundamentally is: by what moral/practical right can someone or some group prevent another person or company from drilling for oil off shore? I don't think the risks in the case of off shore drilling are significant enough to constitute a total (federal) ban off U.S. costs. If some particular shores are very attractive and highly occupied by residences and businesses (which were there first), I can understand oil companies needing local government permission, i.e., permission only from the local majority or perhaps a unanimous local vote one way or the other. I do not see how the federal government should have any say in such policies. I'd argue that the federal government can extend its territorial ownership out farther than local individual/state governments could have jurisdiction, based on national costal defense requirements. Local state community governments should probably have the right to prevent oil companies from drilling at least a mile or two away from shore as to prevent oil rigs from interfering with the established business/residential environments. However, once an oil rig is almost or completely out of visible range, I can't see how local communities can claim any property rights or say. One should not forget that there might be some local communities that would not restrict off shore drilling within even those one or two mile parameters. It's also possible that some oil rigs might be built before any costal/shore communities develop. In that case, I'd say the oil companies would have priority based on a first come, first serve policy. If someone builds their home near a visible off shore oil rig, then they should have no right to push the oil drillers away.

That's the best I can do at 4:30 in the morning. Please bear with me, because I'm simply trying to think this through. I do think the broad principles should be defined first.

[Donovan A.]

Work well? For what? About 400,000 people have died on public roads in the last decade.

Brant,

Do you mean that an inanimate object like a road goes out and kills people if it is a public road, but it will not go about slaughtering folks if it is a private road?

Sounds really weird to me.

I thought people killed people, not roads...

Michael

Michael,

It seems what Brant was trying to say is that public roads are not as safe as they could and would be if privatized. Like anything else, I think the key issue concerning roads is that they must be created, built and maintained by voluntary means as opposed to taxes. In a truly capitalistic society, I imagine there would be all kinds of self-interested motivators that would aid in the production and maintenance of roads. Automobile manufacturers and local dealerships would have a stake in road construction because people would want roads to drive their cars on. Road builders would want car sales because without cars, road construction would take a very different form. Business owners would want roads and parking, so that customers can easily frequent their stores. Home and car owners would probably like to be able to get their cars to their homes. It is hard to say or project exactly how privatization would look in practice, because there are in fact so many voluntary contractual options, all motivated by profit. Some very basic utility companies might even pool together such as electric, water and roads. If you buy electricity or want water in your home or business, then a percentage or fee might go toward road construction and maintenance to your home or business. I don't know anyone who does not want or have water and or electricity in their home or business today.

Just some thoughts,

Randall

[Brant Gaede]

Let's try to imagine roads (and other transportation systems) from the get-go as private rather than public property: we really have no idea how that would have turned out compared to the transportation system(s) we have today. Maybe there would be less roads and more airports. More railroads carrying passengers and freight than our Interstate HW system. Giant airships. Toll roads. More safety features in cars. More driving by computers and less by people. Lots of private helicopters. Vacations on the moon courtesy of atomic rocketry. Even Mars. The public--the government--systems prevail by excluding and guiding the private to the detriment of the general welfare.

--Brant

more freedom, that's what we simple men need

[Christopher]

If we accept the idea that the government can claim territorial rights off the shore, and I do, then do the grounds for restrictions stem simply from majority vote? How much ocean territory (how far out from shore) can the government claim ownership? What principle applies here? ...

In California, the disaster in Santa Barbara was 2 miles off the coast, so definitely two miles is too few.

I agree that the federal government should not have the authority (although it seems they do) to determine whether offshore drilling can occur off states. The vote should go with those who assume the risk. Within the state, I think it's difficult to allow such powers to individual communities since the effects of community decisions extend to areas far larger than the community, whether it be oil in the sea, nuclear plants in the city, or pollution into the air. But at the same time, I can see how a state might actually abuse communities, so the solution isn't perfect either way.

[Donovan A.]

If we accept the idea that the government can claim territorial rights off the shore, and I do, then do the grounds for restrictions stem simply from majority vote? How much ocean territory (how far out from shore) can the government claim ownership? What principle applies here? ...

In California, the disaster in Santa Barbara was 2 miles off the coast, so definitely two miles is too few.

I agree that the federal government should not have the authority (although it seems they do) to determine whether offshore drilling can occur off states. The vote should go with those who assume the risk. Within the state, I think it's difficult to allow such powers to individual communities since the effects of community decisions extend to areas far larger than the community, whether it be oil in the sea, nuclear plants in the city, or pollution into the air. But at the same time, I can see how a state might actually abuse communities, so the solution isn't perfect either way.

On what grounds could one push the oil drillers out farther than a mile or two away from shore? One must have some substantial claim to property in order to prevent others from drilling in open waters. If we are talking about risks, there is risk every time an airplane flies through the air. Certainly, a plane could crash by accident. What if people banned flying over cities or houses after 9/11? Just to put this into perspective, I did a quick online search for the economic costs of 9/11: $639.3 billion, about 91 times the cost of The Exxon Valdez oil spill which roughly exceeded $7 billion. I could not find any quick facts on the Santa Barbara spill, but I did find this link interesting: http://www.rense.com/general90/barb.htm

At most, I can understand requiring a company to have insurance if they are going to drill off shore. If someone owns a resort or a home or business near an oil rig, perhaps it would be wise for them to also purchase insurance (though not obligatory), in case the oil company and their insurance fails to clean up everything. I think it is much safer to allow drilling in more shallow waters near the shore, than 50 miles off the cost in mile deep waters. As you can see in this PB disaster, the oil still reaches home. Not to mention how the scope, magnitude, environmental and economic impact of the spill is far worse, and harder to plug.

Edited June 21, 2010 by Randall

[Christopher]

At most, I can understand requiring a company to have insurance if they are going to drill off shore. If someone owns a resort or a home or business near an oil rig, perhaps it would be wise for them to also purchase insurance (though not obligatory), in case the oil company and their insurance fails to clean up everything. I think it is much safer to allow drilling in more shallow waters near the shore, than 50 miles off the cost in mile deep waters. As you can see in this PB disaster, the oil still reaches home. Not to mention how the scope, magnitude, environmental and economic impact of the spill is far worse, and harder to plug.

It's tough to know the relative risks of deep water vs. shallow water to local beaches. And when we discuss the habitat, the fishermen, and the relative preservation of the ecosystem, the issue becomes even more sticky.

But as you point out, even 50 miles away damages coastline. Doesn't that suggest there is risk to the public beaches and therefore the issue should be decided by voters? It's not that private companies have a right to utilizing certain property; they don't. The liberty accorded to private companies is the right to purchase land that is available and to utilize land they own as they so choose. The issue of what land should be made privately available is an issue for the community, for the voters.

[Donovan A.]

At most, I can understand requiring a company to have insurance if they are going to drill off shore. If someone owns a resort or a home or business near an oil rig, perhaps it would be wise for them to also purchase insurance (though not obligatory), in case the oil company and their insurance fails to clean up everything. I think it is much safer to allow drilling in more shallow waters near the shore, than 50 miles off the cost in mile deep waters. As you can see in this PB disaster, the oil still reaches home. Not to mention how the scope, magnitude, environmental and economic impact of the spill is far worse, and harder to plug.

It's tough to know the relative risks of deep water vs. shallow water to local beaches. And when we discuss the habitat, the fishermen, and the relative preservation of the ecosystem, the issue becomes even more sticky.

But as you point out, even 50 miles away damages coastline. Doesn't that suggest there is risk to the public beaches and therefore the issue should be decided by voters? It's not that private companies have a right to utilizing certain property; they don't. The liberty accorded to private companies is the right to purchase land that is available and to utilize land they own as they so choose. The issue of what land should be made privately available is an issue for the community, for the voters.

Christopher,

If land is unowned, who would I purchase it from? Why would I be purchasing unowned land from the government? Doesn't government derive its right to act from individual rights and not the inversion? I don't think beaches ought to be "public property" in the first place, but regardless, how far can the rights of beach owners logically extend? Should local beach voters have unlimited power over the entire ocean? Let's say drilling started off the cost of Cuba, but this made citizens in the U.S. uncomfortable, what then? If damage is done to a beach, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the oil company to clean it up to the best of its ability? Oil spill damages are rationally calculable, and the limits of culpability should not extend infinitely based on feelings or sentimental values. What this means is, if I were in a car accident and someone lost an arm or a leg, there is no technological way to regrow a person's arm or leg (setting things exactly as they were before the accident), but there is a preset dollar value I would legally be held accountable for.

Now, even if we were living in the early 1800's and much of the west was unsettled, I could not claim 50 or 100 square miles for myself, simply because I want it, or other industries may pose a risk to me, or make me feel uncomfortable. Simply wanting does not constitute an actual right. Property rights have their basis in production and utilization, not desire or permission from the state.

My suggestion is, read or review The Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand (printed in Return of the Primitive - The Anti-Industrial Revolution)

[Christopher]

Randall,

It's an interesting topic worth discussing. We both know Rand's philosophy, so let's flush out the issue to a greater depth rather than limit our vision to the philosophy of a single person.

It is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong, that the national boundary of a country extends 20 miles off the coast. This number is likely already a "community" number decided among the different nations of the world. There are a lot of agreements among men that must exist by mutual consent, even with a functioning ideology in the background. For example, how much air pollution is too much air pollution? Science can tell us various risk levels, but individuals decide subjectively what is too much risk.

In the case of national boundaries (leaving aside whether a government should instruct U.S.-based companies how to operate in international waters), the land within those boundaries are in a way the living environment of all the citizens by virtue of being neighbor to one-another. Within this space, private property exists. Private property is extremely important, but it is cast in foreground to the background of national boundaries. We cannot make a reduction either way. National boundaries are the paper on which private property is written and protected by law, and those national boundaries are in turn supported by the existence of private property (i.e. a shared ideology among men).

So again I will stress that man has the right to private property, but it is the community among men that mutually upholds privatization and decides, much as we decide what is too much air pollution, what property is available for privatization. Private property boundaries, currently geographic in nature, influences neighboring property tremendously and therefore the idea of fully-private property cannot be defined. If a tree on my property produces oxygen, isn't that my oxygen? Such arguments lead quickly into absurdity. So there is property that influences the community of private property holders by virtue of simply being local. We take this into account, and I believe as a nation we should have the opportunity to protect this property as an expression of protecting our own private property and interests. At the same time, we are not infringing on anybody's rights.

As for calculability - it is neither justification for nor against taking action. Anyway, I've already written too much for a single post. But the topic is not so simple as you can see.

Edited June 21, 2010 by Christopher

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Randall,

Here's a thought for you, just for the sake of contemplation.

If you agree that the government is necessary in the manner Rand does, and you also agree that the entire earth in all its forms must be--or can be--owned by somebody, which is the unnamed (and often un-thought-through) premise of many free-market advocates, who would own government buildings?

Let us make a very interesting speculation. Suppose all the earth were owned and nobody wanted to sell the government any land to build its buildings on, or rent it any buildings. What should happen?

Anyway, for the record, I am a free-market advocate. but I do not hold that the entire earth in all its forms must be--or can be--owned by somebody. I put term limits and other conditions on property.

For instance, here is just one condition--a realistic, not theoretical one. One term limit is the life of a government. Without government, there is no property, especially inheritable property. Can you imagine trying to sort out--say--the real estate issues of claims going back to the time of Aristotle?

Look at the mess over in Israel where this kind of thinking is postulated in general, not specific, terms. Not specific, since it is impossible to trace bloodlines going back that far, much less who owned what.

Or how about land ownership from something more recent, say, from the Ottoman Empire?

I have lived in a country--Brazil--that was originally divided up at the whim of Portuguese royalty into enormous sections called capitancies. There are still families who have inherited real estate holdings the size of a small state--and some of them refuse to let other people produce anything on the land. These folks just want to own it and not let anyone else have any use of it. What would you do in this case?

In Brazil, land reform is a hot-button issue. And, of course, in addition to this unfairness rooted in ancient royal whim, the communists and other statists down there are having a field day with this.

It gets even worse when oil drilling and mining are considered on these tracts.

Michael

[Christopher]

Good post Michael. I can't even imagine a way to have private property without some sort of mutual consent among people. How many different ways are there to make "liberty"-based ideological claims to private land???? Who knows!

And therein lies the justification of common property, as we are both pointing out. There exists a system in which private property exists, and that system has space (should and must have space) for non-privatized property.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Christopher

[Donovan A.]

The issue of property rights (like all forms of rights) does not come up other than in a social context. It's important to note that the root of property rights is production. Part of this discussion deals with calculating risks. I gave the example of flying airplanes over a city (especially after 9/11). One reaction after 9/11 was to ban nail clippers on board airplanes. After the shoe bomber incident, people were required to send their shoes through scanners, though it would have been more fun had they just banned shoes. After this recent off shore drilling incident, we see a moratorium on all gulf coast drilling even though these kinds of accidents are relatively rare (I think PB has drilled something like 5,000 times safely). One should also recognize that oil spills can be reasonably corrected. Certainly, some rational and objective laws can be established that do not require a total ban of off shore drilling. Certainly, banning nail clippers is not a rational reaction to 9/11.

In conclusion, I think we should look to our basic principles. What rational principle can we use to determine social risks?

[Christopher]

The issue of property rights (like all forms of rights) does not come up other than in a social context. It's important to note that the root of property rights is production. Part of this discussion deals with calculating risks. I gave the example of flying airplanes over a city (especially after 9/11). One reaction after 9/11 was to ban nail clippers on board airplanes. After the shoe bomber incident, people were required to send their shoes through scanners, though it would have been more fun had they just banned shoes. After this recent off shore drilling incident, we see a moratorium on all gulf coast drilling even though these kinds of accidents are relatively rare (I think PB has drilled something like 5,000 times safely). One should also recognize that oil spills can be reasonably corrected. Certainly, some rational and objective laws can be established that do not require a total ban of off shore drilling. Certainly, banning nail clippers is not a rational reaction to 9/11.

In conclusion, I think we should look to our basic principles. What rational principle can we use to determine social risks?

"Production" per se is a reductionism. The root of production is human freedom and living life (survival) qua man. The only defense for having all land privatized is to provide opportunity for individuals to actively support themselves. But this defense is terribly weak sociologically (it assumes community/culture having zero effect on performance), weak in terms of actual lives saved/supported (where are homeless going to exist?), and rather irrelevant given the volume of available land still open to privatization. Likewise, public land may add value to the community in ways that allows for man to live qua man (given our evolution as mobile animals). So while I can't condone stealing private land to make it public, I don't buy that there is a definitive rational argument for making all land available to privatization.

Also, what is "reasonable?" Any definition of reasonable itself is defined in social context.

But I like the way you're thinking.

[Dragonfly]

Perhaps this article may be interesting in this context.

Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.

[Brant Gaede]

Perhaps this article may be interesting in this context.

Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.

Just one more reason I've come to hold my government in total contempt. The President himself should not be allowed to handle sharp knives as he might stab or cut himself.

--Brant