The solution to "regulatory capture" is sometimes less regulation, but at other times transparency and better regulation. This is the real world, and there aren't any silver bullets.

Actually, you're just misinformed, e.g. read this:

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/priceanders...

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.

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."

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.

"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.

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.

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 the right of a society to make rules that govern those within it.

I realize from previous experience that it's likely you think this is an illegitimate right. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that this is how societies have functioned throughout human history.

Edit: I believe this is a distraction from the nuclear regulation debate - which I note you have chosen to ignore.

I agree that, yes, there is a fair debate to be had about the legitimacy of laws deciding what someone can do to their own body. However, there is a fair amount of historical evidence that indicates it has been a long accepted right (eg, laws against drunkenness). As I said previously I don't have a strong opinion either way as to if these should apply to private use of cannabis.

But from your answer I can see why you don't want to have this discussion, it's just sheer nonsense. The word "right" doesn't refer to "we've always raped and pillaged after we won a war, so that gives us a right to keep on doing it."

I don't think you are philosophically equipped to use the word "right" here. For you, "right" simply means "might." So you might as well just say, "Yeah? Whaddya goin to do about it?" Don't pretend to be having a discussion about "right".

The word "right" doesn't refer to "we've always raped and pillaged after we won a war, so that gives us a right to keep on doing it."

I agree with that 100%. I don't think anything I have said could be taken to mean that I support rape & pillage.

For you, "right" simply means "might."

No it doesn't, and just saying that is what I think doesn't make it so.

I understand the libertarian view: that governmental power is illegitimate because it is derived from force.

I also completely reject that view: I believe that governmental power is derived from a civil society and that power is society's way of imposing an agreed set of behaviour in the face of bad actors. I see nothing immoral or wrong in this - indeed, it is the very principle of democracy.

A couple of additional points:

1) Trying to say I don't want to have this discussion is demonstrably wrong (ie, this reply, and all the other ones). Saying something is sheer nonsense is unhelpful - I'm not clear if you think the discussion is nonsense or if it is merely an expression of frustration?

2) I don't care either way about drugs. Clearly that is something you feel passionate about, but I'm not the person to discuss it with. Sorry.

3) I find it very interesting that you have avoided the problems with your theory about nuclear regulation and insurance. I find that is often the case with libertarians - their ideas sound nice on a surface level but when you dig a little bit there is nothing there. I'm unclear if this is because the ones I discuss it with don't understand their own philosophy, or they are unable to explain it, or because there really is nothing there.

So far you haven't tried to explain it. Unfortunately that leaves me none-the-wiser.

This is incorrect. Certainly some strains of libertarianism wrongly think that, but certainly not all. The word "libertarian" is a very loose idea, not some specific ideology. And besides, you were the one who claimed I was "libertarian", I never made the claim myself. What I'd say is that I'm pro-individual consent. "Classical liberal" is a fine word.

I also completely reject that view: I believe that governmental power is derived from a civil society and that power is society's way of imposing an agreed set of behaviour in the face of bad actors. I see nothing immoral or wrong in this - indeed, it is the very principle of democracy.

The question you're ignoring is: what are the proper limits of government power? You claim I'm ignoring questions, but this is the only question of importance. I only bring up the drugs example to highlight an obvious abuse. Nuclear power is a more complex issue. When you're confused about arithmetic, we don't discuss calculus. Likewise, when you're confused about rights, we don't discuss nuclear power. We stick with simpler issues.

Many early people groups (nomads, pueblos, even manors and unfederated fifedoms), had optimized for small communities. Presumably they were not aware of the efficiency of centralized power, or capable of the centralization we can accomplish today. Some apparently were aware, and chose the benefits of small communities.

I believe we are now at a crossroads. We choose small communities and relinquish the convenience of centralized power, or we submit to the requirements of centralized power (lack of privacy, lack of individuality, etc).

The informed opposition to GMO covers two types of modifications.

#1 Making plants more resistant to herbicides, so that more herbicides can be used.

#2 Giving plants new abilities to create their own insecticides.

Both are terrible ideas. Mostly because they're pumping the biological arms race as well as the side effects.

GMO for increased yield, durability, flavor, whatever are totally okay (depending on ones esthetics). We've been doing that for millennia thru breeding, artificial selection, and hybridization.

The notion that the genes spliced into crops could spark an evolutionary feedback loop that spirals out of control -- the evidence doesn't indicate any great cause for alarm, afaik. And the toxic side effects are unlikely to be of greater concern than from chemicals made in labs. I think the amount of public alarm about GMO is way out of proportion to the actual risk. This technology holds the promise of making agriculture less damaging and more efficient. I think the fixation on this issue is related to traits that make it a good a viral meme, and have nothing to do with rational risk-assessment.

There are sereval of studies that show that those examined can be harmful -- but it's a whole field, one cannot speak for all of them as harmful, can only examine them one by one. The general practice is harmful to me, because profit motives and patents are involved.

I don't think just because they found out how to genetically modify plants that they also can understand the long term effects of their creations (to other plants, insects, animal life, the consumer, etc). Nor do I believe that they have the scientific rigor and patience to study those with the timeframes needed. It's more: "fuck it, let's sell these things".

Plus it's a huge industry, with trillions to be made, that dwarfs smoke -- not many research labs get the funds to examine it critically. It's like pre-eighties, when tons of smoke studies were sponsored by tobacco companies, and found "little or no evidence" of it causing cancer.

They have been markedly less successful at that than other industrial accidents.

edit: Wikipedia suggests a total of about 9250 accidental deaths worldwide over the past 56 years related to nuclear research, power, weapons and therapy, of which some 126 died of radiation while the rest died from explosions and cancer (estimates vary; except for the 9000 deaths attributed to Chernobyl, the numbers likely discount some terminal cancers).