Political Theory

Re: My theory for safety regulations

Minarchist — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 03:48:53 GMT

And I am not saying nuclear plants should be stopped, but merely minimally regulated.

The owners of a nuclear power plant are "self-regulated" in a free market, in the sense that they have strong incentives to operate the plant safely, because they don't want to be liable for torts caused by accidents.

If the threat of liability ensures that the owners of the plant want to operate the plant safely, there's still the question of whether they are capable of operating the plant safely. Who is more likely to know how to run the plant safely: (a) a professional nuclear power plant manager who the shareholders have hired at their own expense for the express purpose of running the plant safely, or (b) some Dept. of Energy regulator?

Re: My theory for safety regulations

Eugene — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 08:28:48 GMT

And I am not saying nuclear plants should be stopped, but merely minimally regulated.

Re: My theory for safety regulations

Eugene — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 08:26:11 GMT

I don't understand how you suggest that either the people in the community or the insurance company stops the nuclear plant? By using force? By the way a nuclear plan doesn't have to be right next to your home, even a distance of 500 kms is deadly if there is a meltdown.

Re: My theory for safety regulations

Bert — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 07:37:47 GMT

Can you cite where a nuclear power plant was built next to a community (besides The Simpsons)? Even at that you don't think people who live in the community or city would protest such construction? 3 or so years ago there was going to be a power plant built on the outskirts of Portsmouth (I do not remember what kind specifically, but was not nuclear - though it was something I was actually interested in), and the people gathered and city decided against it. Thus, I suppose this wraps up your argument that if someone wants to build a power plant near a community, the community can simply not allow it, and there you have it, empirical evidence to counter your hypothetical situations. There are things known as zoning codes, etc., cities generally have these in regards to building structures and utilities, and they keep things in accordance with safety codes, etc. This does not consent to your original post, which was that people should be entitled to some form of safety from risk, I'm merely hitting the mark that people can (on their own will) accept or deny certain measures in regards to their local environment, or in other terms protest and boycott certain things. If people feel this new type of power plant might help the community and economy, then they'll allow it's construction, and may feel the risk is not as great as one thinks, and yourself believes the risk is too great, but the risk is only a subjective value for yourself, you see the risk greater than the outcome.

If you actually read what I linked you you'll understand how insurance companies will come into this equation, and that insurance companies themselves can set their own codes and regulations to make sure it's subscribers are safe and will reduce the amount of potential risk, crime and otherwise. If insurance companies see the power plant as being risky, they may see that it is highly regulated as far as safety goes, but no one is entitled to insurance, and it's a service people voluntary pay for.

Re: My theory for safety regulations

Eugene — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 07:22:01 GMT

Obviously I am talking about an airport that was built AFTER you moved in. I am not talking about noise either. Noise is a physical harm to property and it violates NAP directly. I am talking about risk.

In real life, do you really see a community peacefully accepting the new presence of a nuclear reactor without demanding the owner at least to see what's inside? I'm pretty sure people will be worried about a potential meltdown or some other catastrophe. The house prices in the community will drop drastically even if the nuclear plant is regulated as hell, imagine what will happen when no one even has the right to look inside and see what safety measures were taken.

Re: My theory for safety regulations

John James — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 06:11:34 GMT

Friedmanite:
"If you don't like America, you can get out." I thought this was just neocon talk.

Re: My theory for safety regulations

Friedmanite — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 05:19:48 GMT

"If you don't like America, you can get out." I thought this was just neocon talk.

Re: My theory for safety regulations

John James — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 04:04:22 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ

Re: My theory for safety regulations

Bert — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 03:59:53 GMT

Please answer if you have something constructive to say.

You seriously posted...

By the way how a nuclear plant is different than a terrorist firing rockets on a yearly basis? Only once in maybe 20 years a rocket will actually hit someone, but should we wait until that happens?

You compared [what I'll assume is a civilian and technologically advanced] nuclear power plant to that of someone firing rockets on a yearly basis, and that maybe once about every 20 years a rocket will actually hit someone, and imply the same amount of entitled safety for both.

A criminal firing weapons with the intent to do harm is completely different than people running a nuclear power plant with the intent to help people.

What you posted reminds me of Keynes talking about burying jars of money in a mine covered in the town's rubble, and paying people to dig it back out, it's on that level right now.

I actually disagree with this. If someone builds an airport 10 kilometers away from my home and thousands of aircrafts start to fly over my head, it creates a significant risk for my safety. Am I not entitled to a compensation? I think I justly do.

Guess what? Oceana Air Base in Virginia Beach will fly their jets into the night (they stop at 10 pm I believe), and if you live in Virginia Beach anywhere even near the base you can hear the jets, and when they fly anywhere close you can't even talk to the person infront of you. Thus, thousands of people living in homes, going to work and school, etc. listen to the "sounds of freedom" flying day and night, and they do not get compensated. Oddly enough, a lot of people claim to enjoy the "sounds of freedom" and when I talk negative towards the air base say things like "I knew the air base was there when I moved in the neighborhood, if you don't like it get out!"

Re: My theory for safety regulations

John James — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 00:06:05 GMT

Eugene:
The private road in your last example was there before you came to live next to it

No it wasn't.

so just like with pollution the cars and the road owner don't owe you anything.

They owe me just as much as a nuclear power plant owner.

They were there first.

No they weren't.

However if someone builds a road next to your home, then perhaps you can sue them.

And there it is. Suing someone because they built a road on their own property. At least you admit that's one of the logical conclusions of your ridiculous notion.

Re: My theory for safety regulations

Eugene — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 23:28:11 GMT

I am quoting Walter Block:

"In contrast, were a nuclear power station to blow up, its negative power could not be so confined either, and yet this is legitimate under libertarian law. What is the difference? The difference is that the one is a weapon, the other is not. Were we to ban all appliances whose power, under the worst possible scenario, could not be confined to the appropriate people and their holdings, we would have to prohibit all aircraft, and laboratories experimenting with deadly viruses, etc. This applies, even, to roofless baseball stadiums (an escaping home-run ball can break a window). The difference between all these others and the ‘artiste’s’ atom bomb is that the latter is a weapon, the others not."

I actually disagree with this. If someone builds an airport 10 kilometers away from my home and thousands of aircrafts start to fly over my head, it creates a significant risk for my safety. Am I not entitled to a compensation? I think I justly do.

Re: My theory for safety regulations

Eugene — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 22:06:02 GMT

Please answer if you have something constructive to say.

Re: My theory for safety regulations

Bert — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 22:03:44 GMT

By the way how a nuclear plant is different than a terrorist firing rockets on a yearly basis? Only once in maybe 20 years a rocket will actually hit someone, but should we wait until that happens?

Are you serious?

Re: My theory for safety regulations

Eugene — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 22:02:32 GMT

By the way how a nuclear plant is different than a terrorist firing rockets on a yearly basis? Only once in maybe 20 years a rocket will actually hit someone, but should we wait until that happens?

You would argue that in the latter case there is also the intent to hurt, but why should it matter? In both cases the threat is real and the outcome is about the same.

Re: My theory for safety regulations

Bert — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:56:48 GMT

but its not possible with nuclear plants that pose danger even when they are far away from you. You can't homestead an entire country and deem it to be "nuclear plant safe"

It's not possible 1 million power plants will be built around your house either.