I have a friend who is a nuclear engineer working for EDF, the French generator creators. He says that the present system of generating nuclear power is hopelessly inefficient compared to allowing people have small nuclear generators on their own property. If that could be done safely, electricity would essentially be free as whole neighbourhoods could share a micro-generator. He also says that the present systems are too unsafe to deploy this solution as it would be easy for terrorists to make "dirty bombs" out of the micro-generators. If you were a nuclear engineer, I am sure you would have views that are similarly insightful. But that only an implementation detail so it doesn't concern me  The important issue was that you accept that society can choose the best way to regulate to prevent itself being harmed. Maybe true of the present nuclear system, but that doesn't mean the future can't change. Besides, I could personally care less how inefficient it is, any more than I care that you take the "scenic route" to your destination in your SUV, is an inefficient use of your fuel consumption. Unfortunately, your regulations are probably going to make that nigh to impossible to attempt because of the "scare" tactics some nuke haters spout, and then convinced their local politician -who most certainly does not have a nuclear engineering background- made a law for. Ignorance and politics is an extremely dangerous combination. Happily, this covers Intellectual Property as well. You accepted that property rights are created by society, you accepted that society is capable of creating intellectual property rights and now you accept that if society feels it will be harmed by the abolition of Intellectual Property rights, it can enforce them. Its nice to come back on topic.
Quite a leap to IP rights. Not going for that one either. An entire waste of conclusion. It's almost as entertaining if I said that the sun doesn't exist because it's dark at night. Wow. |
|
|
|
Well its progress that you now accept society can use the best way to prevent itself being harmed. We don't need to waste time on implementation as neither of us are nuclear engineers. If it turns out that nuclear engineers say allowing anyone and everyone access to nukes is the safest way, I don't mind. But as they don't we don't need to worry about it as the existing system works.
...and another thing, access and threat of use already violates the premises we both set forth. You're already violating the axioms of our assumptions. Some chemists say meth can be bad for us so we need to get rid of N-methyl-1-phenylpropan-2-amine. Or regulate them. Some fire arms experts say bullets can kill people so we need to get rid of bullets and the guns that shoot them. Or regulate them. Some nuclear engineers say nuclear materials can be used to make bombs so we should get rid of plutonium. Or regulate them. ...and so forth and so on.... None of that speaks to the intent or threat of aggression by one person to another. It speaks of possession only. Possession of a thing vs. the threat to use said possession, is not the same. Can you not get that in your head? Guns don't kill, people kill. Nuclear weapons don't kill, people who detonate nuclear weapons kill. Big difference. You're just trading one persons possessions with another. You merely changed ownership. |
|
|
|
Well its progress that you now accept society can use the best way to prevent itself being harmed. We don't need to waste time on implementation as neither of us are nuclear engineers. If it turns out that nuclear engineers say allowing anyone and everyone access to nukes is the safest way, I don't mind. But as they don't we don't need to worry about it as the existing system works.
And you already start assuming things about me and others you have no knowledge of... |
|
|
|
The US dollar is backed by the bullets and bombs of the US Military. Try to dump them and you'll get royally screwed. Just ask Qaddafi & Saddam.
Are you saying that because Qaddafi and Saddam stopped using the US dollar as the reserve currency for oil transactions, is the reason they were invaded? Hadn't heard that one. References please. |
|
|
|
There are lots of big problems with society and government. I'll be happy to discuss solutions to any of those problems with you, when you decide you wish to do that.
Like all I've been doing here is frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog, right? As if. |
|
|
|
Being killed by a nuclear weapon detonated by someone committing suicide is an injustice. And so far, you are all for that...
Here I thought we were getting somewhere and you go throw that one at me. Why do I talk to you? What the hell... |
|
|
|
You either accept that society can use the way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used -for unprovoked aggression and threats thereto- where best means the way that has lowest probability of failure or you don't. Yes or No?
Alright, I give, yes. Hit me. P.S. I've got a feeling that some argumentum ad consequentiam or argumentum ad baculum is going to come back to bite me, but oh well. Here goes nothing. |
|
|
|
These conversations have ceased to be interesting. Like I said earlier, it's like arguing for whether the Easter Bunny should be required to carry a business license around with him.
I truly yearn for intelligent discussion with intelligent people about real issues that could stand to be solved. Not this crap about hypothetical societies advocated by fringe nutcases.
Ever considered the fact that your society might be considered by some to be fringe nutcase behavior? I'm all for solving problems, just not necessarily by following the status quo method, neither am I suggesting the whole "system" is broken. Many people believe that if you sprinkle a little truth in with the lies, that it's still all truth, or we have to take the bad with the good and just go along to get along. Can we not agree that it's okay to root out all injustice wherever and whenever it rears it ugly head? |
|
|
|
so you are agreed that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used -for unprovoked aggression and threats thereto- where best means the way that has lowest probability of failure?
Given that slight modification I'd entertain a few means. Depends on where you take it. |
|
|
|
No-one said "willy nilly". I said "best." Best means the way that has lowest probability of failure. Surely you can agree that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used?
Yes you did. My mistake. May the "best" man win. An is-ought conundrum for a very tricky situation no doubt. |
|
|
|
|
I've always thought that energy might make a good currency. Not sure exactly how it would work, just that everything living requires energy to subsist. Maybe if we attempted to create an energy currency, that could work better than a number of other commodities. Free market first, of course. No "legal" tender.
|
|
|
|
You are struggling with implementation details.
Before we clarify implementation , can we agree that you now accept that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used?
Never, not in a million years. Lawfulness is all about implementation and it shouldn't be any which way you desire. Willy nilly arbitrariness is not acceptable (I know this sounds incisive) but it can't be stressed enough that law can be about anything and for any reason. |
|
|
|
You are making the fundamental mistake of comparing a nuke with an ordinary weapon. I don't care how many people have unregistered guns in the Ukraine. I very much care if there is an unregistered nuclear weapon in the Ukraine as it will poison the air in England where I live. The law has to take that distinction into account. If there is a loose nuclear weapon in the Ukraine, I expect the English government to take whatever steps are needed to make sure that its decommissioned. Concepts like sovereignty and private property take second place to the concept of where I live being destroyed and the people in my community killed.
I know the difference between daffodils and nukes. There's nothing ordinary about either of them, of course. It's not about whether a nuke is registered so much as it is about threat with the intent to do harm. What if I said I don't trust the Ukraine or the English Government, and I care nothing for their registration techniques (nukes, autos, guns or daffodils). Upon that dicta, were I a sovereign nation, I could invade you on the presumption that your possession of nukes is not in my best interests and you must let me investigate your lands for WMD or anything like unto it, and if you don't, there will be some "unintended consequences". To wit, if you resist my pleas, I will come "own you", and just for my trouble, I will conquer you and make you a part of my society. Doesn't sound friendly does it? It isn't about registration, or else, you see. Can you measure intent, or are you just not able (it seems you're not willing)? Maybe you're just not up to the task. I know it's just easier to manipulate peoples lives and their things. There just happens to be too many destructive behaviors associated with that type of thinking. It leads to authoritarian dictatorial governments; and those type of people really don't care about you. They say they do, but it's mostly lies. |
|
|
|
Frederic, they are related... they're both examples of disasters which can be averted through regulation. You, as a fundie libertarian, seem to want no regulation on anything, even things which affect the well-being of millions of people.
All laws are regulatory in nature. It's certain types of laws I oppose, not the concept of laws in and of themselves. Don't assume. I'm also not a fundie libertarian or a fundie. I don't like labels personally, since they rarely fit exactly who I am. And even if I were, you labeling me as such doesn't change my logic any, that's just ad hominem. It shows that you might be acting a bit infantile (yes I know... ad hominem, nobody likes it). |
|
|
|
Fred, you say "You can't say that the ownership of any nuclear weapon will lead to a nuclear explosion." but actually I can say that. People make mistakes, people get drunk, people get depressed and kill their families and then kill themselves, other people hate the wrong religion, some hate the wrong race, some believe that if they kill themselves killing heretics they go straight to heaven. There are many circumstances where the presence of a thermonuclear device that can be detonated by one individual will result in a detonation. If you make the weapons available to all and sundry, it is certain that some will get used.
And one nuclear explosion is too many. Lets say it detonates in London. Millions will die. The properties will be destroyed. The land itself will be poisoned.
I think you can see this is a bad consequence. Therefore, you need to frame your law in a way that prevents that consequence.
Drinking too much water will kill you too. We better regulate water drinking activities, right? Whatever. I do agree that laws need to be framed in such a way that they can prevent negative consequences. However, that's not the whole story. They should also not simultaneously cause negative consequences if possible. Example: I could make a law that says if a person waves a gun in my face (we'll presume it to be threatening), that I, or an agent of mine (security detail), could disarm that person. That type of law has reasonable outcomes and consequences (my opinion). It doesn't prevent all crimes, or individuals from becoming criminals, but then again, nothing does that perfectly anyway. On the other hand, if I regulate the type of gun a person can own by forcing people to enter their names in a national registry before they own one, say that they can't have extended clips, sawed of barrels, and auto fire capability, that would not be the approach I would take to prevent negative consequences, as there are more negative consequences from doing that than merely preventing crime. The unintentional consequence of that law is to potentially create more criminals than the former example. And besides we all know criminals don't always register their weapons or use them for self-defense. |
|
|
|
Its a question of fundamentals. If you don't care about extinction of humanity through nuclear holocaust, then global warming will never be an issue. If you do care about that enough to prevent it, then there is a logical basis for seeing if global warming is a true threat and if it can be prevented.
Every is-ought issue is a question of fundamentals. I don't want to connect nuclear holocaust to global warming, which it seems you're trying to do. Use this thread for what it was intended. It seems you're taking this nuke thing to a bunch of threads where it wasn't supposed to be. |
|
|
|
|
Are nuclear weapons causing global warming? It seems were drifting pretty far from the OP. Perhaps we should take this conversation elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
A lot of countries and politicians are forgetting that we no longer live in a country-by-country world, but in a global world, and everyone has to compete against everyone else in the world, not against the other citizens in heir country.
I strongly disagree with your view of the world (let alone your prejudiced view of France): competition is the root cause of all corruption and ultimately leads to war. Competition must be replaced by compassion: it is way more effective in the long run and evrybody is a lot happier with it. It takes a political stance to state it because politicians get elected on promises predicated on "competition". Compassion is good. It may even be better than competition. I'll go out on a limb here though, and say they don't need to replace each other in particular. And if you're suggesting we force people to replace competition with compassion, you are neither competitive or compassionate, but violent and callous. Suggestions are one thing, lawful enforcement is a whole other bag of worms, probably best left in the bag and consumed sparingly. |
|
|
|
That example doesn't not apply but the general principle it illustrates does apply. Read the whole page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequencesA nuclear explosion is a bad or inconvenient consequence. We agree on that I assume? Your position that everyone should have personal access to nuclear weapons will lead to explosions. We also agree on that I assume? Since that is a bad thing, you should change your position. Or else admit you are being illogical. All interventions have consequences in and of themselves. You can't say that the ownership of any nuclear weapon will lead to a nuclear explosion. To say that access nukes will lead to explosions is a non sequitur. The likelihood is higher, but not absolute. Just like owning a handgun will lead to dead children is a certainty, is also a logical fallacy. I'm not supposing no intervention is necessary, just a different form of intervention from the one your suggesting. I have no problem "regulating" violent criminals, or individuals who are about to become criminals thru threatening acts. Those are all appropriate interventions. But to regulate the materials, if that's what you're suggesting, is wrongheaded in my opinion. One could logically argue that a nuke could be regulated because it has a fuse, has purified uranium in it, and has the shape of a bomb. If we regulate the fuse, then the materials in the fuse become illicit materials. Likewise for the uranium and the spherical "bomb" shape. Working your way backwards, you arrive at the possibility that my back yard may have sufficient trace elements of uranium that could be refined into a super-critical mass of "bomb grade" explosives. Now it seems were getting somewhere (sarcasm). At that point, you could decide to justify rooting around in my backyard. See how my liberties are slowly being eroded? It's only a matter of time before you apply it to just about everything. I'm tiring of all the "doogooders" deciding they have higher and loftier reasons for intruding on my life because they're so much more "divinely inspired" than the rest of us. It appears to be the reason why we have so many laws against things and not persons who use things to cause crimes. It's very disarming, no pun intended. What you need to do is stop regulating the materials themselves, and determine the intent of the user. Is the user's intent to kill and maim or possess and defend. That may take more effort, but I think it's worth trying. |
|
|
|
A piece of paper is not a weapon of mass destruction. There is a difference between burning 1 house at a time slowly and burning an entire city in a second.
Now with respect, please give your position; if it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?
Define the word "regulation" as it relates specifically to "nuclear bombs". Use your own words. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
