One would have to know what you mean by “emergency situation.”
My friend has detailed his question for me…the emergency situation I’m referring to is #s 3 and 4 in the parts where he’s asking “If this isn’t acceptable”
"So Nigeria has minimal government, lots of oil, and very little business regulation. Oil companies have been extracting oil there for over 50 years, with large negative externalities. Roughly one Exxon Valdez-load of oil leaks into the Niger Delta every year, which I think we can agree is a rough end result for the people and the environment there.
I see this as an obvious consequence of a minimal government, minimal regulatory system.
I see that as not applying some basic logic. One cannot say something like “there are 15 children in this McDonalds, which has more salt on its french fries, and 6 children in this Burger King, which has less salt on its french fries, therefore children prefer McDonalds to Burger King as a result of McDonalds having more salt on their french fries.”
Besides that, the US currently have a non-minimal government, lots of oil, and a lot of business regulation, so by that very same illogic, this must be an obvious consequence of non-minimal government, and an extensive regulatory system.
I don’t know the first thing about the Nigerian government, but furthermore to this point, the top two oil spills in history, which totally dwarf the one in the Gulf of Mexico–the Gulf War oil spill and the Ixtoc I oil spill–were both caused by governments, and state-owned oil companies. So again, by your friend’s very argument, clearly statism has failed and more freedom is required. But I’m guessing he won’t come to that conclusion because it doesn’t fit the narrative and he will believe what he wants to believe: there are these evil corporations out there doing nefarious things, and imagine if there was no regulation, legislation, and control of them by our wise public caretakers, then they would spill oil wherever they wanted to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill
I hope by now I don’t have to point out the bad reasoning employed here. We oppose all business regulations because man’s survival depends on him being able to freely employ his mind and he has a moral right to do so with the exception that we insist that no business is allowed to initiate force or fraud against anyone in the process of their operations. This absolutely includes causing physical damage to anyone else’s property, whether by accident or whether by intention, whether we are talking about fisherman and businesses on shore, or workers on the rig. Those who do damage the property of others are considered debtors and are under the forced obligation to pay restitution to its creditors.
You bring up the question of “but what if the debtors can’t pay the creditors?” That’s when the debtor can file for bankruptcy, which then either all of his assets will be liquidated, or the court will organize some sort of payment plan according to what the debtor can afford, plus interest and penalties. I am no expert in these things, but I believe under the Objectivist legal framework, there would be no “soft-debtor” laws which let a debtor of the hook. What if the debtor still, can’t pay, you ask? What if they just sit there and have no money whatsoever? Well then my guess would be they would be arrested and charged with theft.
1) Is this acceptable and just a consequence of industry?
No.
2) Is this not a free-market system
The United States is currently not a free-market system, it is a mixed economy, or hampered-market system.
and is the spill problem a result of the non-free-market system characteristics?
The spill was an accident, and a result of the actions of some specific individuals aboard the rig it was on. Also, there was a thread on here a while ago explaining how environmentalist pressure groups contributed to the dangers of drilling by lobbying for laws pushing oil drilling further out to sea. There are many such laws which restrict or just plain outlaw drilling for oil in places where politicians and pressure groups have just decided they get to own and control all the land and keep oil companies off of it. The problem is compounded by this highly restricted oil laws and general lack of property rights on the oceans and beaches.
3) Am I missing some way a market-based system could work to correct a problem like this?
In a market-based system, it would work the same way any other industry works. You buy or lease the property, do whatever on it, and if something emanates from your property uninvitedly onto mine and causes damage, then I hold you responsible in a court of law.
If this is a problem that is not acceptable:
1) Who in the private sector assesses the extent or dollar-value of the damage?
I don’t know, that would be up to the courts to figure out.
2) Who assesses the health consequences to the population?
Again, I don’t know, probably someone court-appointed.
3) Who provides emergency or interim aid to those affected until a party is deemed responsible and reimbursements are made to the affected parties?
Whoever provides it.
4) Who organizes the clean-up? If it is the offending party, who oversees them to ensure it is done sufficiently? Who sets the standards as to what is sufficient?"
Whoever organizes it. The only role for the government is providing the detectives, investigators, and courts. Everything else should be done at private initiative, including the clean up, with BP under the obligation to pay for it.
