Paul Krugman escreve Why Libertarianism Doesn’t Work, Part N
Se há coisa que eu estou longe de ser é um "libertarian" à americana (ao contrário de um libertário à europeia), mas este argumento de Krugman não faz sentido nenhum: basicamente, ele está a dizer que a solução "libertarian" não funciona porque... o Estado (através de uma lei) limita a responsabilidade das companhias petrolíferas???Thinking about BP and the Gulf: in this old interview, Milton Friedman says that there’s no need for product safety regulation, because corporations know that if they do harm they’ll be sued.
Interviewer: So tort law takes care of a lot of this ..Meanwhile, in the real world:
Friedman: Absolutely, absolutely.
In the wake of last month’s catastrophic Gulf Coast oil spill, Sen. Lisa Murkowski blocked a bill that would have raised the maximum liability for oil companies after a spill from a paltry $75 million to $10 billion. The Republican lawmaker said the bill, introduced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), would have unfairly hurt smaller oil companies by raising the costs of oil production. The legislation is “not where we need to be right now” she said.And don’t say that we just need better politicians. If libertarianism requires incorruptible politicians to work, it’s not serious.
Quanto há conversa que "don’t say that we just need better politicians. If libertarianism requires incorruptible politicians to work, it’s not serious", recordo o que Krugman escreveu na sua coluna bi-semanal no NYT:
Yet there is a common thread running through Katrina and the gulf spill — namely, the collapse in government competence and effectiveness that took place during the Bush years. (...)Não poderíamos então dizer ""don’t say that we just need better politicians. If Krugmanism requires incorruptible politicians to work, it’s not serious""? Afinal, se a solução liberal de a protecção ambiental ser feita não por regulamentos mas por processos em tribunal sobre danos causados não funciona porque os políticos ao serviços dos interesses empresariais vão fazer leis limitando a responsabilidade das empresas, então a solução estatista de combater a poluição com regulamentos também não vai funcionar, EXACTAMENTE pela mesma razão (são também esses políticos que vão fazer esses regulamentos e, directa ou indirectamente, zelar pela sua aplicação).
For the Bush administration was, to a large degree, run by and for the extractive industries — and I’m not just talking about Dick Cheney’s energy task force. Crucially, management of Interior was turned over to lobbyists, most notably J. Steven Griles, a coal-industry lobbyist who became deputy secretary and effectively ran the department. (In 2007 Mr. Griles pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about his ties to Jack Abramoff.)
Given this history, it’s not surprising that the Minerals Management Service became subservient to the oil industry — although what actually happened is almost too lurid to believe. According to reports by Interior’s inspector general, abuses at the agency went beyond undue influence: there was “a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity” — cocaine, sexual relationships with industry representatives, and more. Protecting the environment was presumably the last thing on these government employees’ minds. (...)
Yet antigovernment ideology remains all too prevalent, despite the havoc it has wrought. In fact, it has been making a comeback with the rise of the Tea Party movement. If there’s any silver lining to the disaster in the gulf, it is that it may serve as a wake-up call, a reminder that we need politicians who believe in good government, because there are some jobs only the government can do.
Para uma opinião mais interessante e logicamente coerente sobre esse assunto (embora referindo-se a um caso específico diferente - um acidente numa mina), Corporate Welfare Queen Kills 25, por Kevin Carson.