I'm not real impressed by "support" for Obama basically coming in the form of ideological self-congratulation. People shouldn't be so hard on Obama because people never should have expected anything from government in the first place, is pretty weak tea.

Not to mention, if we sold off rights to the ocean the way we do with land, the oil companies would own it all, not the fisheries. The fisheries would lease the right to fish in the oil company's waters, and they'd probably have some pre-negotiated cap on liability for damages caused by oil spills that'd be tiny, since they're in a much weaker negotiating stance.

But really, the key element of this is the ending. The real story here is that Ron Paul admits to having conflicts of interest, but justifies it by saying the government is too big for him to not have conflicts of interest...but it's certainly possible to divest your investment in bank stock when you're on the House Banking Committee!

^Yep. I agree about the key element.

"But, everybody else is doing it, too! I have to!"

It's my fault. I didn't choose strong enough candidates to stand up to big money. I haven't contacted my elected officials to hold them responsible for their actions. I didn't make campaign finance reform a big enough issue. I accept responsibility for all of this, because passing the buck doesn't seem to be working.

I don't like the Katrina/Oil spill equivalence.

How do you stop a deep water leak? How do you keep the oil on the ocean from getting to shore? These are difficult technical questions. I don't know the answer. You don't know the answer. Oil companies don't know the answer. Why do we expect our government to know the answer?

On the other hand, the problem with Katrina was looting and lawlessness. We all know how to fix that: send in the national guard with rations and rifles. Keeping order and feeding disaster victims is government's job. They blew it.

God, I hate to digress, but the problem in Katrina wasn't looting and lawlessness. The problem in Katrina was american citizens stranded, starving, abandoned and ultimately dying. I would still send in the National Guard, though -- for rescue, not assault.>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
I don't like the Katrina/Oil spill equivalence.
How do you stop a deep water leak? How do you keep the oil on the ocean from getting to shore? These are difficult technical questions. I don't know the answer. You don't know the answer. Oil companies don't know the answer. Why do we expect our government to know the answer?
On the other hand, the problem with Katrina was looting and lawlessness. We all know how to fix that: send in the national guard with rations and rifles. Keeping order and feeding disaster victims is government's job. They blew it.

Yeah, I don't see how letting the oil companies buy the ocean would protect it. They would have no incentive, it's their own property! With the government regulating the wells (in theory), they can be held accountable for disasters that ruin other industries and destroy beaches, as well as the ecology in general.

Property rights make sense on land, because a disaster on your own property has a smaller chance of spreading to the entire region. Yeah, there is still some risk, but it's much lower. In the ocean, anything that goes wrong will have very far reaching repercussions.

I don't think land property rights extend to businesses caring for the land they possess. Look at Union Carbide or the chemical spill offs of the early 90s.

At the end it was social action of the populace that started holding businesses accountable.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Property rights make sense on land, because a disaster on your own property has a smaller chance of spreading to the entire region. Yeah, there is still some risk, but it's much lower. In the ocean, anything that goes wrong will have very far reaching repercussions.