CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Market Failure Illustration: BP Oil Spill
The White House Oil Spill Comission found recently that BP and its affiliates (Halliburton and Transocean) were negligent in their creation of the Macondo well. The companies took shortcuts and cost-cutting measures during the creation which culminated in structural failure, the deaths of eleven employees and the leaking of about five million barrels of raw oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
It is reported that the government oversight comittee for the well, The Minerals Management Service, lacked the authority and expertise for the duty, and is even suggested that the oversight comittee was overtaken by the very companies which they were intended to be monitoring.
My question therefore is: Does BP and its affiliates' roles in this disaster illustrate a glaring weakness in the market's ability to regulate negative and irresponsible behaviours?
This tragedy illustrates to us all the limitations of capitalism: it may work very well at motivating entrepreneurs and innovators to develop novel technologies and cheaper or higher-quality goods but it cannot be relied upon to motivate solutions for problems which do not rely upon profit-based incentives like keeping our environment clean and safe. Morality, ethics, safety and environment are all concerns which cost a company profit and capitalism will motivate companies to cut corners. We need to learn from our mistakes to stop these disasters from happening so frequently.
Are you making this claim to validate your beliefs
Not really. I think PrayerFails and his kind validate my beliefs well enough.
venerate an alternate system
Not so much, but it is one of many possible discussion points.
vex Prayerfails and ryuukyuzo? Methinks all
The first one only. PrayerFails constantly makes debates with the most ludicrous questions, then I read the news about a government panel finding BP et al culpable, so I thought it would make a great "take that!" debate.
PrayerFails constantly makes debates with the most ludicrous questions,
Simple solution for you, if you think that they are ludicrous, don't reply.
I read the news about a government panel finding BP et al culpable, so I thought it would make a great "take that!" debate.
I am not arguing that BP wasn't culpable, that is irrefutable. They should pay damages in court with lawsuits.
I am arguing that the government forced BP the hand that they were given through it endless number of regulations that failed anyway, yet just like the other central planners, you think when central planning fails, you think there needs to be more central planning, yet when that fails, more central planning.
Simple solution for you, if you think that they are ludicrous, don't reply.
If I remain silent then those absurd views are unopposed.
I am arguing that the government forced BP the hand that they were given through it endless number of regulations that failed anyway, yet just like the other central planners, you think when central planning fails, you think there needs to be more central planning, yet when that fails, more central planning.
So government forced Bp et al to use cheaper construction on the well? Yes or no? If yes, then the government is culpable, if not then BP et al is purely.
We've debated this exact point two or three times already. I assumed he made this specifically to flush me out so he can bring up some new and improved argument, but since he's arguing the same points already debunked in our other debates (feel free to look them up) It seems he's just looking to vex me and/or Prayer.
We've debated this exact point two or three times already. I assumed he made this specifically to flush me out so he can bring up some new and improved argument
You sure are self-important.
but since he's arguing the same points already debunked in our other debates (feel free to look them up) It seems he's just looking to vex me and/or Prayer.
Two corrections: I'm interested in vexing PrayerFails only, and you never debunked my arguments (or rather, you "debunked" them the same way a creationist debunks evolution by quoting answers in genesis or conservapedia).
Given how many times we've gone over this exact point, my suspicions are valid.
Two corrections: I'm interested in vexing PrayerFails only, and you never debunked my arguments (or rather, you "debunked" them the same way a creationist debunks evolution by quoting answers in genesis or conservapedia).
Oh that's right! I forgot, you like to compare fucking EVERYTHING to creationism. Creationism is like your Hitler card or something. No matter how inequivalent two things are, you will compare it to creationism because... I don't know I guess you still think your smart enough to get away with bad arguments. =/
1. Out of the two of us, YOU have been the only one to post a link in lieu of an argument. I posted a follow up argument to every single source I sent you.
2. Given you've already gone out of your way to vex me once, that is very, very unlikely.
Oh that's right! I forgot, you like to compare fucking EVERYTHING to creationism. Creationism is like your Hitler card or something. No matter how inequivalent two things are, you will compare it to creationism because... I don't know I guess you still think your smart enough to get away with bad arguments. =/
You're the only one who doesn't see the comparison because you're in the bubble of delusion. Just like creationists won't get the comparison either. You guys are two peas in a pod, faith in a system that cannot work.
My friends and colleagues get the comparison and even laugh with it. So I know it isn't "just me."
1. Out of the two of us, YOU have been the only one to post a link in lieu of an argument. I posted a follow up argument to every single source I sent you.
You never heard of Q.E.D.? Since you won't get the point and will accuse me of obfuscation, I will elaborate. Some rebuttals are simple, because the argument being presented is so definitively wrong. If someone says the moon is made of cheese, you need only show them a photograph of the moon to contradict them. If someone says that Somalia is better off being without a state... you need only show them post-state Somalia.
You should be thankful, really. Most of my friends (who like arguing and debating by the way) wouldn't even give someone like you the time of day. They'd just laugh at you, call you an idiot and move on. I try not to do this, however, maybe because I am a masochist, or just really patient.
I'd say that this incident would have occurred without government intervention. Government intervention in the industry just stalled it, it was inevitable. I believe that this is less a market failure, like the housing market being built on nothing, than it was a result of poor government oversight. I agree with enigmatic man in that sense, but I won't get too specific, i'll agree with market failure.
This much hatred toward BP's measures coincidently came after they actually did something bad.
Cause and effect... Or are you blaming everyone for not being fortune tellers?
If only Trey Parker and Matt Stone could make an episode to reflect the attitudes of the Socialists who are currently attacking BP...
Because holding greedy people accountable for the worst oil leak in history is... socialism?
Christ. This is more important than the sports game that politics has become across the nation. It's more important than advancing the party's interests. An oil company screwed up big, and this isn't a rare occurrence, it has happened many times the last hundred years. How much does our environment have to be ravaged in order for you guys to get past party politics?
Accountable by trial? By following the advice given to them?
When people screw up, they are culpable for trial.
How about holding the advisors accountable?
Oh wait!! How about holding the people who put the advisors in power accountable?
OH SHIT!!! HOLD THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE!
Hold the people who put government accountable.
Hold every citizen accountable.
When you're done acting hysterical, let's get back on topic.
Nice work, Captain Hindsight. You put yourself at trial. "I shouldn't have acted like I know more about drilling for oil than oil companies".
Apparently you are easily influenced by television. To recap: when an oil company screws up by cost-cutting, which leads to a major environmental disaster and the loss of eleven lives, we hold them accountable by trial. Committees like the one which found BP et al culpable are instrumental in building a case against BP.
I don't know about you avesk, if I didn't know any better I'd say you're a troll. Blaming capitalism for a problem that occured under such an incredibly government involved industry hardly shows the failure of the free market.
Oil wouldn't be so big in the first place if not for the petro dollar.
Anyone with any sense of nobility would know that the oil is heavily regulated, and it is far from a free market.
The BP Oil Spill was not the failure of the market, it was the failure of bad government policy, and since the government is has one talent left, this is the art of lying, and this lie is to blame the free markets.
Three Reasons:
1. The oil spill occurred on federal property, which was leased to BP.
2. Federal government regulates offshore drilling already. The MMS has been recognized as a failed agency because it is supposed to regulate and maximize royalties from property it controls.
3. The federal government capped economic liability of $75 million.
Anyone with any sense of nobility would know that the oil is heavily regulated, and it is far from a free market.
No one said that it is a free market. I said that it is a market that while regulated, apparently gave enough liberty to corporations that they could decide to undercut well quality... leading to the worst oil leak in history.
The BP Oil Spill was not the failure of the market, it was the failure of bad government policy, and since the government is has one talent left, this is the art of lying, and this lie is to blame the free markets.
I think you ruined your attempt at a joke. Next time don't be so verbose.
1. The oil spill occurred on federal property, which was leased to BP.
2. Federal government regulates offshore drilling already. The MMS has been recognized as a failed agency because it is supposed to regulate and maximize royalties from property it controls.
3. The federal government capped economic liability of $75 million.
Which are all irrelevant to the findings that BP et al employed profit-saving shortcuts in the construction of the well, which all greatly increased risk of failure. I don't know how much simpler one can make it: BP et al was allowed to construct the well within certain margins of quality. BP et al took the cheap approach. The well ruptured, people died, and the Gulf of Mexico became inundated with five million barrels of toxic oil.
How is this not an illustration of the market's selection of profit over health and environment?
No one said that it is a free market. I said that it is a market that while regulated, apparently gave enough liberty to corporations that they could decide to undercut well quality... leading to the worst oil leak in history.
It all starts with risk. The government prohibited BP from drilling closer to the shore, which is low risk because they have been doing it for years. So, the government forced to them to drill in unseen territory where no company has drilled before, which is high risk. Drilling for oil a mile deep is high risk. The result was oil spill.
I think you ruined your attempt at a joke. Next time don't be so verbose.
Why are you hung up on perfect grammar? No the joke is still good. It is one word. GIVE IT UP.
Which are all irrelevant to the findings that BP et al employed profit-saving shortcuts in the construction of the well, which all greatly increased risk of failure.
Government forced BP to drill farther from the coast, which is high risk and never attempted before, so Obama administration instead blamed the free market for government failures, and discussed his hopes of increasing government interference in the energy industry.
The well ruptured, people died, and the Gulf of Mexico became inundated with five million barrels of toxic oil.
People die every day. This was just more noticeable.
It all starts with risk. The government prohibited BP from drilling closer to the shore, which is low risk because they have been doing it for years. So, the government forced to them to drill in unseen territory where no company has drilled before, which is high risk. Drilling for oil a mile deep is high risk. The result was oil spill.
Two points: They were not FORCED to drill there. Laws gave a boundary but they could have taken their equipment elsewhere if US law made drilling too risky.
Second, and this overrides the previous point, the committee found that in spite of the high-risk nature of the drilling, the people in charge took shortcuts in their construction which are known to increase chance of failure. In other words, the guys who oversaw the construction of the wells (BP's heads or what have you) not only decided to drill in difficult conditions, they did so using short-cuts and cost-saving measures.
Why are you hung up on perfect grammar? No the joke is still good. It is one word. GIVE IT UP.
Because I have an eye for language and your usage of English is idiosyncratic.
Government forced BP to drill farther from the coast, which is high risk and never attempted before, so Obama administration instead blamed the free market for government failures, and discussed his hopes of increasing government interference in the energy industry.
Again, what force? BP wasn't FORCED to drill off the coast of the US. Even if they were put in chains and made to sign the paperwork leading up to the drilling, BP CHOSE to use risky cost-cutting measures while building the well.
People die every day. This was just more noticeable.
See, that's why it's hard to take libertarian suggestions for social reform seriously. People die every day, legalise drugs, vote libertarian.
Two points: They were not FORCED to drill there. Laws gave a boundary but they could have taken their equipment elsewhere if US law made drilling too risky.
Yes, they were forced to drill in deep sea by environmentalists and law. Government prohibits any drilling within so many miles of the shore.
the committee found that in spite of the high-risk nature of the drilling, the people in charge took shortcuts in their construction which are known to increase chance of failure.
Wow, a government committee found this and that. Shocking...Unbiased source.
the guys who oversaw the construction of the wells (BP's heads or what have you) not only decided to drill in difficult conditions, they did so using short-cuts and cost-saving measures.
If that is true, where was the excellent government regulators enforcing the law?
Because I have an eye for language
Congratulations
your usage of English is idiosyncratic.
Your is just as idiosyncratic.
BP wasn't FORCED to drill off the coast of the US.
If so, why are their drilling bans on the coast of Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, New Jersey and etc?
See, that's why it's hard to take libertarian suggestions for social reform seriously.
Ok, why don't you start a campaign to ban cars altogether or people can only drive during the day because 60,000 people die due to related car deaths. This would be serious social reform because those evil capitalist care makers are not making cars safe enough. Imagine how many people you would save.
People die every day, legalise drugs, vote libertarian.
10,000 people die every year related to drugs. Isn't that enough to jusfity it's legalization. More people die from the war on drugs than those who actually die from using drugs.
Yes, they were forced to drill in deep sea by environmentalists and law. Government prohibits any drilling within so many miles of the shore.
I'll rephrase the question: did government hire BP to drill there? Did government put a gun to the CEO's head and tell them to write the contract?
BP could have drilled elsewhere in the world with fewer regulations, they didn't have to drill off the US border.
Wow, a government committee found this and that. Shocking...Unbiased source.
Disregard the evidence, how predictable.
If that is true, where was the excellent government regulators enforcing the law?
They were captured by the oil industry according to the report, and were not given the expertise or authority to manage that.
Your is just as idiosyncratic.
I'll rephrase: your English has the idiosyncrasies of a romance language ESL writer.
If so, why are their drilling bans on the coast of Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, New Jersey and etc?
So they couldn't drill off of Brasil, Nippon, Zhongguo, Italia, Canada, Britain, Chile, Venezuela, etc?
Ok, why don't you start a campaign to ban cars altogether or people can only drive during the day because 60,000 people die due to related car deaths. This would be serious social reform because those evil capitalist care makers are not making cars safe enough. Imagine how many people you would save.
Because I think the cost is worth the liberty, but I don't pretend that I have the perfect solution that will increase liberty more while lowering deaths.
10,000 people die every year related to drugs. Isn't that enough to jusfity it's legalization. More people die from the war on drugs than those who actually die from using drugs.
You can't win people's support for social reform that is based on saving lives or uses the face of empathy, all the while acting callous towards death.
I don't like the war on drugs, but I won't go around advocating its disbandment with the face of someone who doesn't care about death. I would instead find out how we can reform it so that fewer lives are ruined over drugs that are only mild social ills while maintaining prohibition of those drugs which virtually guarantee a life of crime.
I don't know about you avesk, if I didn't know any better I'd say you're a troll.
No, just a sane man.
Blaming capitalism for a problem that occured under such an incredibly government involved industry hardly shows the failure of the free market.
If you read the news reports you'll find that the oversight over BP et al was considered to be insufficient, thus in a situation where the Oil Companies had an inch of slack to regulate themselves using good ethics they hung us all by causing a massive oil leak over profit and shortcuts.
Oil wouldn't be so big in the first place if not for the petro dollar.
It wouldn't be so big if it didn't buy out our governments, like all wealthy industries do. The Oil Industry uses the state to enforce itself.
Yes, then you will get for the most part the government's version of the oil spill.
If you have to resort to conspiracies like "the government's (spooky music) version" of the oil spill, then you've basically retreated beyond the bounds of reason.
This is just insanely stupid. Get a CLUE.
I think your earlier Reason.TV link alluded to this as well. Corporations buy out politicians. We need to stop this from happening if we want a free society.
If you have to resort to conspiracies like "the government's (spooky music) version" of the oil spill, then you've basically retreated beyond the bounds of reason.
Really, ABC, NBC, New York Times, USA TODAY, CBS, Washington Times, CNN, MSNBC PBS, and etc all didn't show the government's story.
It is hardly a conspiracy. The only person who is retreating from reason is yourself. This is one of the five pillars, denial of reality like the rest of liberal friends.
I think your earlier Reason.TV link alluded to this as well. Corporations buy out politicians. We need to stop this from happening if we want a free society.
Corporations don't buy politicians. Reason TV clearly explained that MMS regulates while getting royalties on all profits due to leasing. Sounds to me that is corrupt government.
Your idea of a free society:
We must control men in order to force them to be free.
Really, ABC, NBC, New York Times, USA TODAY, CBS, Washington Times, CNN, MSNBC PBS, and etc all didn't show the government's story.
You'll note that only fringe publications and reports call anything "the government's X" where X is "side/story/truth."
Face it, you sound like a nutjob when your argument amounts to that.
Corporations don't buy politicians. Reason TV clearly explained that MMS regulates while getting royalties on all profits due to leasing. Sounds to me that is corrupt government.
Corporations don't buy politicians? What do you think campaign financing is?
Your idea of a free society:
We must control men in order to force them to be free.
Sad but true. People left to their own devices will make others unfree. That's why libertarianism (the free market) doesn't work. Without rights and liberties guaranteed through law, someone will work using money and power to deprive people of them with no recourse.
Face it, you sound like a nutjob when your argument amounts to that.
The only nutjob is yourself. You wouldn't blame government for anything.
Name one thing that you think the government was at fault.
Corporations don't buy politicians? What do you think campaign financing is?
Campaign finance is a tool used by politicians to favor themselves in elections to keep themselves in and others out. Corporations pay because it is in their interests for tax breaks, bailouts and more legislation.
Sad but true.
You are sad. We must control men in order to force them to be free is DOUBLETHINK. Doublethink is your general consensus for everything. You mix up leaders with absolute power with free market power. Power is only obtained by government. Despite what you think, capitalists can't force me to buy their products unless government helps them by laws and regulations, this is called corporatism, and what you perceive as capitalism.
That's why libertarianism (the free market) doesn't work.
Actually, it does work. Singapore and Hong Kong are the closest to a free market, and they don't even have political freedom. You mix personal freedom with economic freedom frequently, and it is really annoying.
The only nutjob is yourself. You wouldn't blame government for anything.
Obviously. Look at the positions we occupy in debate.
Name one thing that you think the government was at fault.
Which government? The Deutch government was responsible for Nazi Deutchsland. The Brasilian government was responsible for its police brutality by giving them impunity. The United States government was responsible for the rise of medical quackery during the 19th century because it left that industry completely unregulated. The United States government is at fault for the housing bubble, because it deregulated the market in the 1980s.
Campaign finance is a tool used by politicians to favor themselves in elections to keep themselves in and others out. Corporations pay because it is in their interests for tax breaks, bailouts and more legislation.
It also is an indirect form of bribery because it ties the politician to business interest groups.
You are sad. We must control men in order to force them to be free is DOUBLETHINK. Doublethink is your general consensus for everything. You mix up leaders with absolute power with free market power. Power is only obtained by government. Despite what you think, capitalists can't force me to buy their products unless government helps them by laws and regulations, this is called corporatism, and what you perceive as capitalism.
We've already went over this before. You think that all the ways in which business manipulates the market to limit your choice isn't coercion.
Actually, it does work. Singapore and Hong Kong are the closest to a free market, and they don't even have political freedom. You mix personal freedom with economic freedom frequently, and it is really annoying.
I mix them in the sense that one may limit another. When the economy is unregulated business grow and work to eliminate personal freedom. This is why the free market fails, it undermines its ability to function because it allows business to grow until they can buy political favours and make the market no longer free. On the social end it lets businesses treat the working class as virtual slaves.
It wouldn't be so big if it didn't buy out our governments
It seems pointless to blame a private system, thereby exalting a public system, for bribing governments, as it is thus revealed that the former is ruthless and corrupt, and that the latter is hopelessly susceptible to corruption.
Most rational people understand that a hybrid system, such as the current one (and under which the disaster occurred), is preferable to an exclusively capitalist or socio-communist (I find it impossible to conceive one without the other) one. I can therefore only consider this entire debate to be a strike at our resident extremist capitalists.
It seems pointless to blame a private system, thereby exalting a public system, for bribing governments, as it is thus revealed that the former is ruthless and corrupt, and that the latter is hopelessly susceptible to corruption.
If you don't hold a system accountable for its flaws then they remain. The first step in fixing a system is identifying the problems with it. The next step is inventing a better system and enforcing it either through amendments or revolution. Generally speaking we should seek amendments to the system unless it is so hopelessly corrupt that a coup is necessary to overthrow it.
Most rational people understand that a hybrid system, such as the current one (and under which the disaster occurred), is preferable to an exclusively capitalist or socio-communist (I find it impossible to conceive one without the other) one.
Right, and so this debate is ultimately about the suggestions by the committee that more regulations are necessary, with watchdogs who have better expertise.
I can therefore only consider this entire debate to be a strike at our resident extremist capitalists.
Correct, if you mean the people who think unregulated capitalism works.
