Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

BP's obligation to fishermen

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 3 Replies | 1 Follower

Top 500 Contributor
157 Posts
Points 3,880
C posted on Tue, Jun 22 2010 8:53 PM

What obligation does BP have to fishermen? I say none.  If we had private companies owning the fisheries then BP would be obligated to pay the fishery for damages (lost income), but the fishermen are nothing more than customers who buy a service from the fishery (in this case the government). 

This is like saying if a Walmart burns down due to someone's negligence, that I have the right to sue that person because now I'm not able to shop at that Walmart. 

I don't get why everyone is so adamant that BP pay lost wages to fishermen.  It might make some sense from a PR perspective, but not from a legal one. 

Am I correct?

  At least he wasn't a Keynesian!

  • | Post Points: 35

All Replies

Top 500 Contributor
186 Posts
Points 6,000
ravochol replied on Tue, Jun 22 2010 10:21 PM

Forget the fishermen, BP is going to be liable for a plague of cancer and poisoning all across the Gulf coast; once the toxic fumes start raining down on the adjacent land, BP is going to be liable for the medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering of the entire populations of entire states.  I know the Mises institute is based in Auburn, I'd be preparing to take a long vacation elsewhere if the air starts smelling funny if I was there...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
186 Posts
Points 6,000
ravochol replied on Tue, Jun 22 2010 10:27 PM

extent of the spill up to now:

BP's "relief drills" are just a bluff; they won't be ready by August.  This thing is going to be going for a WHILE.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
16 Posts
Points 215
Suggested by marko331

under the current arrangment the government is the "custodian" of fisharies for the "people" which is fished either under gerneral license or fished to wat ever extent depending on laws of that particular area.  WHen there is a spill the fish die and the fishers cant fish there thus their fishing rights (usually there is a rights system) are worthless thus BP has damaged their property rights which they have invested money to obtain. 


Also one could say that negligence on the part of BP lead to negative externalities which infringe on someones rights (i dont know how im just speaking generally).


Other than i could really think of an economic reason for it but the social democrat arguments are corporations are bad, BP is bad, by extension people who have been indirectly hurt by BP are agreieved party's and must be compensated for some reason.

the answer ur looking for is proberly the invalidaiton of licenses by the oil spill which as is an attack on property rights as this spill was due to BP, BP must give payouts relative to the economic worth of the property right damge.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (4 items) | RSS