Clamshell Reunion

[Porcupine_in_MA]

I do not believe a person has the right to own, (property rights) something for which if a 'accident' occurs they could never provide compensation for.

You can never provide complete compensation for a single killing of another human being. So you want to take away everyone's firearms... knives... automobiles... hammers... and all other property that could be used to kill someone?

???

Yeah. Wanna clarify, David?

[Porcupine_in_MA]

I don't understand what the problem some folk have with nuclear power plants. Its great technology. I don't buy for a second that it would never have been created in a free market. It's clean, reusable, technology. The best power providing technology out there. If there was a free market it would be even better.

[J’raxis 270145]

I do not believe a person has the right to own, (property rights) something for which if a 'accident' occurs they could never provide compensation for.

You can never provide complete compensation for a single killing of another human being. So you want to take away everyone's firearms... knives... automobiles... hammers... and all other property that could be used to kill someone?

???

Yeah. Wanna clarify, David?

Thinking about this further, this argument for a sort of "preëmptive self-defense" (if I'm understanding David's argument correctly, which I may not be) justifies pretty much all government safety regulation. The EPA, FDA, OSHA, &c., all exist to make sure a company doesn't cause an accident that they could never provide compensation for.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Oh yeah, I know the justification for regulatory statism I was just wondering if David could clarify his perspective because it seems a very anti-freedom mind-set to have.

[BillKauffman]

The EPA, FDA, OSHA, &c., all exist to make sure a company doesn't cause an accident that they could never provide compensation for.

The difference is that insurance purchased on the open market provides for compensation after an accident rather than trying to insist on safety procedures prior so as to not cause an accident via a regulatory agency. Now it is true that the insurers will more than likely heavily monitor their insured for safety purposes to protect their interests but that is a private entity.

Ending limited laibility protection and requiring insurance would all but end the nuclear power industry.

[David]

I do not believe a person has the right to own, (property rights) something for which if a 'accident' occurs they could never provide compensation for.

You can never provide complete compensation for a single killing of another human being. So you want to take away everyone's firearms... knives... automobiles... hammers... and all other property that could be used to kill someone?

No.  You are right about compensation for killing.  But harm can be quantified, not easily, but doable.  I oppose crimes against humanity.  Your examples are all relatively harmless compared to a single bad 'accident' of a nuke plant.  The compensation is withing the realm of payability. 

But, within reality, there will be many, many nuke plants.  The Clamshell people will not stop very many of them.  I believe there will likely be another use of nuclear bombs within my lifetime.  I am not too horribly worried about it, mostly because I cannot control it.  But when it happens, it will be impossible to hide it the way the holocaust in Japan was hidden, or the Chernoble accident.  And when it happens, what is previously 'propaganda', will become common knowledge.   

[John Edward Mercier]

The EPA, FDA, OSHA, &c., all exist to make sure a company doesn't cause an accident that they could never provide compensation for.

The difference is that insurance purchased on the open market provides for compensation after an accident rather than trying to insist on safety procedures prior so as to not cause an accident via a regulatory agency. Now it is true that the insurers will more than likely heavily monitor their insured for safety purposes to protect their interests but that is a private entity.

Ending limited laibility protection and requiring insurance would all but end the nuclear power industry.

There is that word 'requiring'... by whose authority.
If I can't require you to have auto insurance... and more people die in auto accidents than other formats.
Why the heck should I require someone else to insure against the possible, but impropable outcomes from their efforts.

[John Edward Mercier]

I do not believe a person has the right to own, (property rights) something for which if a 'accident' occurs they could never provide compensation for.

You can never provide complete compensation for a single killing of another human being. So you want to take away everyone's firearms... knives... automobiles... hammers... and all other property that could be used to kill someone?

No.  You are right about compensation for killing.  But harm can be quantified, not easily, but doable.  I oppose crimes against humanity.  Your examples are all relatively harmless compared to a single bad 'accident' of a nuke plant.  The compensation is withing the realm of payability. 

But, within reality, there will be many, many nuke plants.  The Clamshell people will not stop very many of them.  I believe there will likely be another use of nuclear bombs within my lifetime.  I am not too horribly worried about it, mostly because I cannot control it.  But when it happens, it will be impossible to hide it the way the holocaust in Japan was hidden, or the Chernoble accident.  And when it happens, what is previously 'propaganda', will become common knowledge.   

Crimes against humanity? The Iraq war is based on 'crimes against humanity'.
The Regime was murdering hundreds of people, had made hostile moves against at least two countries, and had offered a $25,000 reward to the families of suicide bombers that murdered specific targets in their act.
A pretty bold jump of circumstances can be made under the heading of protecting humanity.

[J’raxis 270145]

The EPA, FDA, OSHA, &c., all exist to make sure a company doesn't cause an accident that they could never provide compensation for.

The difference is that insurance purchased on the open market provides for compensation after an accident rather than trying to insist on safety procedures prior so as to not cause an accident via a regulatory agency. Now it is true that the insurers will more than likely heavily monitor their insured for safety purposes to protect their interests but that is a private entity.

Ending limited laibility protection and requiring insurance would all but end the nuclear power industry.

We weren't talking about insurance vs. regulation here: This was in response to David's assertion that some forms of preëmptive self-defense are justifiable. Regulation could be considered a form of preëmptive self-defense.

[J’raxis 270145]

I do not believe a person has the right to own, (property rights) something for which if a 'accident' occurs they could never provide compensation for.

You can never provide complete compensation for a single killing of another human being. So you want to take away everyone's firearms... knives... automobiles... hammers... and all other property that could be used to kill someone?

No.  You are right about compensation for killing.  But harm can be quantified, not easily, but doable.  I oppose crimes against humanity.  Your examples are all relatively harmless compared to a single bad 'accident' of a nuke plant.  The compensation is withing the realm of payability. 

But, within reality, there will be many, many nuke plants.  The Clamshell people will not stop very many of them.  I believe there will likely be another use of nuclear bombs within my lifetime.  I am not too horribly worried about it, mostly because I cannot control it.  But when it happens, it will be impossible to hide it the way the holocaust in Japan was hidden, or the Chernoble accident.  And when it happens, what is previously 'propaganda', will become common knowledge.   

A sufficiently well-built nuke plant shouldn't have an accident à la Chernobyl. We've never had a nuke accident in the United States on that scale, only incidents that killed a handful of workers within the plant itself. That's certainly not a good thing, but no different from the safety record of your average non-nuclear power plant.

And, whether or not you can compensate for any killing, at all, is debatable. Compensation is "making the victim whole," and how do you do that when the victim is dead? In fact this is being discussed over here right now.

[BillKauffman]

The EPA, FDA, OSHA, &c., all exist to make sure a company doesn't cause an accident that they could never provide compensation for.

The difference is that insurance purchased on the open market provides for compensation after an accident rather than trying to insist on safety procedures prior so as to not cause an accident via a regulatory agency. Now it is true that the insurers will more than likely heavily monitor their insured for safety purposes to protect their interests but that is a private entity.

Ending limited laibility protection and requiring insurance would all but end the nuclear power industry.

We weren't talking about insurance vs. regulation here: This was in response to David's assertion that some forms of preëmptive self-defense are justifiable. Regulation could be considered a form of preëmptive self-defense.

My point was requiring insurance could too because the insurer would monitor their insured for safety reasons  to prevent an accident.

[Pat McCotter]

From the perspective of working in power plants (not nukes but oil, natural gas and wood fired boilers, gas turbines and hydro) insurance companies provide a number of services for the premiums paid by the plants.

Knowledgeable experts visit the plant on an annual - or other - basis and inspect the plant equipment and operations. The insurance comapny generates a report detailing where we are deficient with regard to industry best practices, general safety guidelines, etc. The plant management then makes a decision on whether or not to implement some or all of the recommendations based on various criteria.

This is my view of what home/auto insurance companies should be doing for their customers. This would get the government out of the business of home inspections, building codes, vehicle safety, driver training, etc., and out of telling insurance companies what to do.

[John Edward Mercier]

Home inspections are private.
Building codes are written by the industry... I think government simply adopts them to appear to be doing something.
Vehicle safety is private mechanics... wasn't even a big deal until emissions testing.
And driver training is still a private function, seldom associated with public education.

Presumptive self-defense? I hope your kidding.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

From the perspective of working in power plants (not nukes but oil, natural gas and wood fired boilers, gas turbines and hydro) insurance companies provide a number of services for the premiums paid by the plants.

Knowledgeable experts visit the plant on an annual - or other - basis and inspect the plant equipment and operations. The insurance comapny generates a report detailing where we are deficient with regard to industry best practices, general safety guidelines, etc. The plant management then makes a decision on whether or not to implement some or all of the recommendations based on various criteria.

This is my view of what home/auto insurance companies should be doing for their customers. This would get the government out of the business of home inspections, building codes, vehicle safety, driver training, etc., and out of telling insurance companies what to do.

As someone in the insurance industry, this is very well put Pat. Key in fact, nuclear power plants in a regulated market have the best safety record of any kind of power industry. Imagine with a purely market regulated industry what things would be like.

[Pat McCotter]

Home inspections are private.
Building codes are written by the industry... I think government simply adopts them to appear to be doing something.
Vehicle safety is private mechanics... wasn't even a big deal until emissions testing.
And driver training is still a private function, seldom associated with public education.

New construction requires home inspection by government in many locales to ensure compliance with building codes.

Yes, building codes are industry written, government should not be enforcing. Insurance companies and/or building certification firms, should be ensuring the homes meet these or other codes. If I wanted to build my own home and I don't want someone hanging over my shoulder I should be able to do so. Of course, if I want to sell that home it better be certified as safe by a reputable firm - the buyer should be requiring this. And if I want to insure it I would expect the insurance company to give me more service than just promising to give me money if something happens.

Yes, vehicle safety is private mechanics but safety inspections are government mandated in many locales. Again, the insurance company should be providing this service in exchange for those premiums. This could include certifying mechanics as a service to their customers.

Yes, driver training is private and, again, mandated by many state governments for those of a certain age - some even requiring it for some folks over a certain age. Again, the insurance companies are those who will be out money for untrained drivers getting into accidents so they should be basing their premiums on this and maybe even certifying driver training schools for their customers.

I know, you don't want to buy insurance for home or vehicle. We all know how the free market would work if something happened in that case so I am not going to rehash that here.