Who is compensating the victims of the West Texas disaster?

With the Boston Marathon bombing just happening it was easy to attribute the West Texas fertilizer factory fire and explosion to terrorism,  but now with some facts coming out it is clear that sheer negligence was the cause.  Texas has a hands off bias when it comes to government regulation and this accident is sure to cause for a call for more and tighter regulation.   But regulation without skin in the game to compensate victims is more than useless because it gives the illusion of protection.
The video taken by an onlooker from what appeared to be about a half mile away from the flaming factory which then explodes and leaves the voice of a child in the truck pleading to get out with the camera blacked out lense down on floor, left no doubt that what ever that factory was mixing up required extreme vigilance and process control.  Something that required a $100 million bond at least to be posted and the company posting the bond protecting its liability by making sure the facility was run by the book.  This is so much better than depending on OSHA, a brow beaten agency in Texas I am sure, who last visited the facility in 1985.
The importance of having a deep pocketed holder with sufficient assets to compensate all the victims is very clear today on the third anniversary of BP's offshore oil rig disaster in the gulf.  What if the rig had been owned and operated by some $75 million dollar limited liability operation allowed by Congress instead of the multi billion dollar corporation with assets and shareholders in the United State that is BP?  The fact that there was a government entity, another brow beaten agency to be sure, reviewing the plans for the oil drilling on that rig compensated no one. So who is compensating the victims of the West Texas disaster?

Connecticut passes a gun control law

As an anti-federalist, I approve of Connecticut's new gun control act that the majority of its citizens are hopefully happy with.  On the other hand I have little regard for micro regulating with a federal sledge hammer. This goes for toilets as well as guns.
What strikes me as an underutilized concept is the liabilility of the gun owner. Adam Lanza's mother apparently bought and owned the arms legally and if she had known that an act committed by the guns she owned could make her liable in a civil action, then maybe she would have been more careful about  promoting the gun culture that she did with her son.

Freedom Loses One

Today's editorial by David Brooks in the New York Times describes people as much more at liberty to follow their desires unhampered by social and religious convention and yet with the gay marriage movement it appears that some now are willing to reverse course and constrain their freedom with fidelity and responsibility. I think David has hit on the prejudice that Libertarians are for a free for all chaos of individuals reaching as far they can go in expressing their freedom but from which not much could be depended upon for the long term.

I believe that the Amish, thank you PBS American Masters, are a very good representation of liberty despite the initial belief to the contrary. They are a religious sect practicing a freedom that is restrained and communal, but taken as a whole completely detached from government and expressing a freedom more complete than many who think they are free could hope for and on the other side more faithful, responsible and civil than any on the authoritarian side could hope to be.