3 ms·

I think you're confused. Actually, you're just misinformed, e.g. read this: http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/priceanderson-act-is-it-consisten

by wissler 13y ago

I think you're confused. Actually, you're just misinformed, e.g. read this: http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/priceanderson-act-is-it-consistent-sound-energy-policy http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/priceanders...

nl 13y ago
For those who didn't click the link: This is a 1984 argument from the Cato institute that an act limiting liability to nuclear power facilities should not be renewed. I think wissler is implying that this shows that the government does "not exert[ing] sufficient regulatory force against bad actors in the nuclear industry" I think many non-libertarians would agree with that analysis, but would add that the existence of bad regulation does not invalidate the idea that regulation is appropriate. To be clear: most non-libertarians are less inclined to agree with the idea that this use of government force is illegitimate.
- wissler 13y ago
  Whether most agree or disagree is irrelevant. It is immoral to attack someone who has not attacked or threatened you. It is likewise immoral to advocate attacking innocents. Take that how you will. Nuclear power is a special case since it arguably represents a threat, even libertarians would argue that it should be "regulated", in the sense of being required to prove that it's safe. Part of proving safety is by being able to obtain private insurance from a reputable insurer, which is precisely contrary to the non-libertarian solution of just having the government say "just trust us, the nuclear power is fine, and besides, it helps us build nuclear weapons."
  - nl 13y ago
    It is immoral to attack someone who has not attacked or threatened you. It is likewise immoral to advocate attacking innocents. Take that how you will. I reject the implication that government regulation is an attack of any kind. I do not agree that the fact a government can enforce its power is an attack, nor do I believe it is immoral. I do not agree that government regulation is immoral. As a specific example, I believe in the right of government to tax and their ability to enforce that. I do not agree that private insurance is a solution for things like nuclear power, even in a "perfect world" theoretical sense. A nuclear disaster is a "black swan" event, and many people/companies would be quite happy to ignore the possibility of disaster and take the insurance premiums while things are going well. If a company can make 50 years of "free" profits from insuring a nuclear plant, and then go bankrupt in the 50th year when they can't pay out the coverage then all that means is that investors have to make sure to safeguard their dividends/profits over the 49 preceding years.
    - wissler 13y ago
      I explicitly stated that a libertarian case could be made for regulating nuclear power, on the grounds that it constitutes a threat. Is there a reason you're choosing to ignore that fact? "I reject the implication that government regulation is an attack of any kind." It critically depends on the meaning of "regulation". If by "regulation" we mean "prove to us that your nuclear power is safe", then as I said, there can be a moral case for that, given the threat of meltdown. But if you mean "don't smoke that plant that's been growing on Earth for millions of years, and we'll send in a SWAT team if you disobey", then that kind of regulation is a crime against humanity. So, you need to be clear here. Bandying about the term "regulation" is just not good enough.
      - nl 13y ago
        I explicitly stated that a libertarian case could be made for regulating nuclear power, on the grounds that it constitutes a threat. Is there a reason you're choosing to ignore that fact? I'm not ignoring it - I thought you meant that the requirement for private insurance would be a major part of it. I replied how that wouldn't work. What exactly do you mean by "regulation" beyond the (non-workable) private insurance idea? To be clear - my idea of regulation in this case is an independent government body with the sole purpose of being responsible for safety oversight. This means approval for blueprints, locations and operational procedures etc, as well as continuous operational monitoring, the ability to shut down the plant and to impose penalties of fines and jail time (subject to oversight of the court system course). if you mean "don't smoke that plant that's been growing on Earth for millions of years, and we'll send in a SWAT team if you disobey", then that kind of regulation is a crime against humanity. Yes, I believe that government has a right to make laws regarding the use of drugs. No, I don't think they should send in a SWAT team if someone smokes a joint (And no, that isn't a contradiction as the many places that do have drug laws but don't use SWAT teams to enforce them shows). I do not have strong opinions for or against cannabis prohibition. I don't want to derail this into a drug law discussion though.
        wissler 13y ago
        Yes, I believe that government has a right to make laws regarding the use of drugs. This is the critical issue. By what right? Where does an institution of mere men get the prerogative to interfere with other men deciding to consume certain types/arrangements of matter?

by wissler 13y ago

nl 13y ago

For those who didn't click the link: This is a 1984 argument from the Cato institute that an act limiting liability to nuclear power facilities should not be renewed. I think wissler is implying that this shows that the government does "not exert[ing] sufficient regulatory force against bad actors in the nuclear industry" I think many non-libertarians would agree with that analysis, but would add that the existence of bad regulation does not invalidate the idea that regulation is appropriate. To be clear: most non-libertarians are less inclined to agree with the idea that this use of government force is illegitimate.

wissler 13y ago
Whether most agree or disagree is irrelevant. It is immoral to attack someone who has not attacked or threatened you. It is likewise immoral to advocate attacking innocents. Take that how you will. Nuclear power is a special case since it arguably represents a threat, even libertarians would argue that it should be "regulated", in the sense of being required to prove that it's safe. Part of proving safety is by being able to obtain private insurance from a reputable insurer, which is precisely contrary to the non-libertarian solution of just having the government say "just trust us, the nuclear power is fine, and besides, it helps us build nuclear weapons."
- nl 13y ago
  It is immoral to attack someone who has not attacked or threatened you. It is likewise immoral to advocate attacking innocents. Take that how you will. I reject the implication that government regulation is an attack of any kind. I do not agree that the fact a government can enforce its power is an attack, nor do I believe it is immoral. I do not agree that government regulation is immoral. As a specific example, I believe in the right of government to tax and their ability to enforce that. I do not agree that private insurance is a solution for things like nuclear power, even in a "perfect world" theoretical sense. A nuclear disaster is a "black swan" event, and many people/companies would be quite happy to ignore the possibility of disaster and take the insurance premiums while things are going well. If a company can make 50 years of "free" profits from insuring a nuclear plant, and then go bankrupt in the 50th year when they can't pay out the coverage then all that means is that investors have to make sure to safeguard their dividends/profits over the 49 preceding years.
  - wissler 13y ago
    I explicitly stated that a libertarian case could be made for regulating nuclear power, on the grounds that it constitutes a threat. Is there a reason you're choosing to ignore that fact? "I reject the implication that government regulation is an attack of any kind." It critically depends on the meaning of "regulation". If by "regulation" we mean "prove to us that your nuclear power is safe", then as I said, there can be a moral case for that, given the threat of meltdown. But if you mean "don't smoke that plant that's been growing on Earth for millions of years, and we'll send in a SWAT team if you disobey", then that kind of regulation is a crime against humanity. So, you need to be clear here. Bandying about the term "regulation" is just not good enough.
    - nl 13y ago
      I explicitly stated that a libertarian case could be made for regulating nuclear power, on the grounds that it constitutes a threat. Is there a reason you're choosing to ignore that fact? I'm not ignoring it - I thought you meant that the requirement for private insurance would be a major part of it. I replied how that wouldn't work. What exactly do you mean by "regulation" beyond the (non-workable) private insurance idea? To be clear - my idea of regulation in this case is an independent government body with the sole purpose of being responsible for safety oversight. This means approval for blueprints, locations and operational procedures etc, as well as continuous operational monitoring, the ability to shut down the plant and to impose penalties of fines and jail time (subject to oversight of the court system course). if you mean "don't smoke that plant that's been growing on Earth for millions of years, and we'll send in a SWAT team if you disobey", then that kind of regulation is a crime against humanity. Yes, I believe that government has a right to make laws regarding the use of drugs. No, I don't think they should send in a SWAT team if someone smokes a joint (And no, that isn't a contradiction as the many places that do have drug laws but don't use SWAT teams to enforce them shows). I do not have strong opinions for or against cannabis prohibition. I don't want to derail this into a drug law discussion though.
      - wissler 13y ago
        Yes, I believe that government has a right to make laws regarding the use of drugs. This is the critical issue. By what right? Where does an institution of mere men get the prerogative to interfere with other men deciding to consume certain types/arrangements of matter?