This liability cap poses a problem because $1B isn’t nearly enough to cover all of the things that BP is clearly responsible for. At this point the usual suspects come out, congressional actions in the form of bills of attainer and ex post facto laws, much the same as the financial system bailout situation. While we could probably structure a law to sidestep around these issues there are no guarantees that the courts wouldn’t (rightly) strike it down.

In this case though there are some additional tools that are probably much better than unconstitutional laws.

Since 2000 BP has received $9B in defense contracts and operates around 22,000 oil and gas wells in United States controlled areas. This represents $16B in revenue. This financial relationship makes a much different situation from financial firm executive compensation. These significant economic ties make it very easy for the US government to make life hell for BP. A wide range of actions are possible from moving defense contracts to other suppliers to shutting down BP operations for safety violations (of which there is no shortage of legitimate concerns). BP is much smaller than the two other major players in the oil industry, ExxonMobil and Shell, so it’s not like it’s even a two way street. BP needs us more than we need them.

In other words, we have a wide and wonderful variety of methods to make avoiding paying cleanup liabilities more expensive than actually paying out. Whether the Feds have the balls to do it is another story, it would likely take some serious housecleaning in the EPA and MMS to get rid of the people loyal to BP, which seems to be part of the regulatory problems that got us into this mess.

I will propose the premise that to be a legitimate political school of thought requires both a guiding ideology and a basis for implementing that ideology through policy.  For example, as a first order approximation, I would say that modern progressivism is based on an ideology that places the greatest value on social liberty and equality.  Policy is sought that increases governmental capacity to enforce social liberty at the expense of economic liberty (e.g. general welfare programs and death panels funded by progressive taxation).  Modern conservativism, on the other hand, might be described as based on the idea that personal freedom is the paramount value of a society, and is implemented by reducing the role of federal government in peoples lives (e.g. cutting welfare programs and reducing taxes).

Okay, now libertarianism.  I suppose the ideology is that the promotion of all freedoms and liberties (rather than the prioritization of social/personal/economic) should be sought.  I think it’s safe to say, at least in reference to current political climates, this is a fairly extreme stance.  How, then, does one propose to implement this in policy?  What you seem to hear fairly frequently from people claiming to be libertarians is that all policy is bad, in that there is always increased restriction of freedoms as a result.  How, then, is this distinct from anarchism?  Without some guiding principal towards policy, libertarianism should be strictly relegated to crackpots like Rand Paul.

Not all is necessarily lost.  Though I’m not aware of such a policy directive of libertarians, that’s not to say one does not or cannot exist.  If I were a libertarian (which I’m not.. usually), I would say that not all freedoms and liberties are equal — there are different values that the individual or society places on its various freedoms.  For example (here’s where Paul comes in again), consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Yes, that limits my freedom to racially discriminate.  Yes, technically, I will grant that that does in fact represent a restriction of liberties.  However, at that expense, all persons now have the freedom to, say, sit anywhere on a bus, or drink from whatever water fountain they please, or become the God-Damned President of the United Fucking States.  If I were a libertarian, I would say that was a net gain.  I would say, fuck yeah, let’s get us some more of that.  (As it turns out, that’s what I say anyway, because I’m, you know, sane.)

So back to the original question.  When someone says they’re a libertarian, what exactly do they mean?  What are the stated goals and policy directives of American libertarians?

(…and I don’t mean upper-case ‘L’ Libertarians.. them bitches be crazy.)

I think these people are making a very important statement. And that statement is, “Hey, everyone, I don’t understand what fungible means!”

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unfortunately, Republicans are apparently unaware of this one, since recent legislation in both Arizona and Oklahoma rather clearly violate what is stated here.  Granted, it is all the way down the page at number 14… maybe they didn’t get that far.