Lorenzo Gaztañaga is the Maryland Libertarian Party's District 2 Congressional candidate. In a series of 10 questions we have asked Mr. Gaztañaga he expresses some of hose views and where he stands on the issues. This is the first in that series.
Question: To be elected by the citizens of your district is a great honor. What is the reason that caused you to decide to run for Congress?
Answer: In close analysis, congressional office, if one follows the Constitution, is even more important than that of President. For one, Congress contains the direct representatives of the people of the United States. Congress is the body that can approve or disapprove the most serious act that any nation can carry out, and that is war. With the two current wars, that are illegal, and the Patriot Act a violation of the Bill of Rights, Congress has both abdicated its responsibilities and also circumvented its reason for being, in the process betraying the American people, specifically with the Patriot Act which potentially makes anyone a target as an enemy of the country and the state. After everything is said and done, whether taxes, commerce, free markets or the lack thereof, these three things—that is, the two wars and the Patriot Act—could potentially destroy the country and its very reason for being. We need an individual representing the Second District in Maryland who will address this cancer without mincing words or falling prey to the accusations that such an attitude will imperil our national security, someone who will reverse the path taken by the incumbent, Dutch Ruppersberger. Front and center, that’s why I’m running for Congress.
Monday, May 10, 2010
LP Monday Message: Liability limits make oil spills worse
posted by Staff on May 10, 2010
May 10, 2010
Dear Friend of Liberty,
You've probably seen a lot about the big BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Libertarians are sometimes attacked for not having good answers to environmental questions. In this case, I think there are problems that Republicans and Democrats in Congress have created, and Libertarians would have handled things differently.
(If you're not particularly interested in detailed policy studies or arguments, it's always good to remember that Libertarians try to base our positions on fundamental principles of freedom and personal responsibility.)
I think a big problem here is the fact that federal law limits the liability of BP (and Transocean, the company that actually owned the rig.)
The New York Times has reported that federal law limits BP's liability to $75 million, and Transocean's liability to $65 million.
These kinds of artificial liability limits distort the markets, and basically create "moral hazard" by encouraging companies to act in riskier ways than they would otherwise. If BP's well causes damage to property, then BP should be fully liable for all of the damage. It is BP's reponsibility to "make whole" whoever gets damaged.
If Congress hadn't limited BP's liability, it's likely that BP would have acted differently. Knowing that a spill could cost them billions, BP might have demanded additional safeguards for their well, or tested their safeguards more thoroughly. These choices would have been expensive, but they might have prevented the huge costs that the spill area is now facing.
BP has said that it will pay all "legitimate claims," even if they go past the liability limit. The problem is that when it comes to property damage, a court should decide what "legitimate claims" are, not the offending company!
Of course, now we're likely to see a flurry of reactive legislation, as members of Congress try to pile on BP for political reasons. And, Congress will probably use the spill as an excuse to increase its market interference and shovel more subsidies into uneconomical "alternative energy."
(It's possible that if energy companies did not have the benefits of artificial liability limits, the market might decide that some alternative energy would be cost effective. But that's for the free market to decide, not Congress using taxpayer subsidies.)
As the Libertarian Party platform says, "Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems."
Congress should take this opportunity to get out of the market, but instead they'll probably create new subsidies, special commissions and government agencies. It's just one more good reason to support Libertarian candidates in the elections this November.
Finally, be wary of politicians who make it sound like government can lead us to a utopia free of accidents. Even if a world with no man-made disasters were possible, natural disasters such as volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and epidemics would still happen.
Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee
May 10, 2010
Dear Friend of Liberty,
You've probably seen a lot about the big BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Libertarians are sometimes attacked for not having good answers to environmental questions. In this case, I think there are problems that Republicans and Democrats in Congress have created, and Libertarians would have handled things differently.
(If you're not particularly interested in detailed policy studies or arguments, it's always good to remember that Libertarians try to base our positions on fundamental principles of freedom and personal responsibility.)
I think a big problem here is the fact that federal law limits the liability of BP (and Transocean, the company that actually owned the rig.)
The New York Times has reported that federal law limits BP's liability to $75 million, and Transocean's liability to $65 million.
These kinds of artificial liability limits distort the markets, and basically create "moral hazard" by encouraging companies to act in riskier ways than they would otherwise. If BP's well causes damage to property, then BP should be fully liable for all of the damage. It is BP's reponsibility to "make whole" whoever gets damaged.
If Congress hadn't limited BP's liability, it's likely that BP would have acted differently. Knowing that a spill could cost them billions, BP might have demanded additional safeguards for their well, or tested their safeguards more thoroughly. These choices would have been expensive, but they might have prevented the huge costs that the spill area is now facing.
BP has said that it will pay all "legitimate claims," even if they go past the liability limit. The problem is that when it comes to property damage, a court should decide what "legitimate claims" are, not the offending company!
Of course, now we're likely to see a flurry of reactive legislation, as members of Congress try to pile on BP for political reasons. And, Congress will probably use the spill as an excuse to increase its market interference and shovel more subsidies into uneconomical "alternative energy."
(It's possible that if energy companies did not have the benefits of artificial liability limits, the market might decide that some alternative energy would be cost effective. But that's for the free market to decide, not Congress using taxpayer subsidies.)
As the Libertarian Party platform says, "Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems."
Congress should take this opportunity to get out of the market, but instead they'll probably create new subsidies, special commissions and government agencies. It's just one more good reason to support Libertarian candidates in the elections this November.
Finally, be wary of politicians who make it sound like government can lead us to a utopia free of accidents. Even if a world with no man-made disasters were possible, natural disasters such as volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and epidemics would still happen.
Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)