Re: High strength fibers for high pressure tubes.

Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:mjones-3FE2BC.13333005052005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> In article <Xns964A4663E8418WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> news:mjones-C630BB.22461301052005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>> > In article <Xns96492B163688EWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> >> news:mjones-04F04C.00284001052005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <Xns96472ACA7C4FWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> >> > bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> >> >> news:mjones-223160.01354929042005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> > <Xns9646861EC47E2WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> >> >> > bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:mjones-72AA33.12394628042005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> >> > <Xns964641AC76568WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> >> >> >> > bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
.....
>> > ***{This very concept of "cleaning up the environment" implies that
>> > force is to be used, because nobody, including the government, owns
>> > "the environment."
>> > The reality is that parts of it are owned by some, and
>> > other parts by others; hence by its very nature any generalzed effort
>> > to "clean it up" is going to require violating the property rights of
>> > those owners who do not agree with the part of the cleanup plan that
>> > applies to their property. The reality is that it's none of society's
>> > business what owners do with their property, so long as they respect
>> > the property rights of others.
>>
>> What about their invading my property when they contaminate MY air or
>> my water or my land with any of the byproducts of their operations?
>
> ***{The statement to which you responded was qualified. Note the last
> phrase, "so long as they respect the property rights of others." What
> that means is that if your objections are real and significant, rather
> than a figment of your imagination, you will be able to collect evidence
> that you can use to prove that your property rights are being violated.
> In that case, your proper course will be to file charges and get a
> judgment against them. --MJ}***
.....
> ***{Again, the statement to which you responded was qualified. Note the
> last phrase, "unless it is close enough to pose a significant threat to
> his property, including his person." Again, obviously, if there is a
> real threat to your neighbor, what you do becomes his business, and his
> proper course it to file charges and seek a judgment against you.
> --MJ}***
.....
> ***{*** happens, under any political system. For example, an engineer I
> used to know (he's dead now) once told me about a refinery in the
> northeastern U.S. that is in a heavily populated area subject to
> frequent temperature inversions. According to him, if that refinery were
> to catch fire under those conditions, a million people could die. If
> that happens, the people suing the company afterwards will *not* be
> people who lived in the area, but instead will be relatives who lived
> elsewhere. While such happenings are tragic, those who think having
> legislatures pass laws will solve such problems, are mistaken. The fact
> of the matter is that a legislature is more likely to pass a law
> exempting the owners of such a refinery from liability, than they are to
> do something about problems of that sort. The best cure is a system in
> which the threatened parties have a right to sue and can get a hearing
> before a neutral arbiter. That way, if they have a solid case, they will
> win. And the threat posed by such a state of affairs will strongly
> motivate owners to locate dangerous facilities far from population
> centers and make sure the danger is widely known

A problem comes when the dangers are not known to anyone before the damage
occurs. Asbestos was once thought safe.

> , so that anyone who
> moves near the facility after it has been built will voluntarily assume
> the risks, and, thus, cannot sue the owners successfully even if the
> risks come to fruition. --MJ}***

Involuntary assumpion of risk is the more likely occurence.

>> > If the neighbor believes that it is too
>> > close and cannot persuade me to make changes that will put his mind
>> > at ease, then a neutral arbiter should consider the facts of the
>> > case, decide whether the threat is in fact real, and prescribe a
>> > remedy. To ensure neutrality, such an arbiter should be selected by
>> > means of a neutral winnowing process--e.g., by making a list of the
>> > persons willing to decide the case, and the plaintiff and defendant
>> > taking turns striking a third of the names off the list, rounded to
>> > the nearest whole number, until only one name remains.
>>
>> I don't know the poeple on the list. How do I know if they are neutral
>> and not my neighbor's friends or in his pay?
>
> ***{You do research. If you can't find out anything about some of the
> people who offer to arbitrate, you strike them off of the list. If you
> find out that they are crooks, you strike them off of the list. Result:
> the list becomes winnowed down to an individual who seems acceptable
> both to you and to your opponent, and he adjudicates the case.
>
> Of course, no system is perfect, including this one. But at least you
> have a good shot at neutral arbitration: you don't have to face some
> political hack (a so-called "judge") who will ignore the facts of the
> case and hand down a verdict based on the orders of a legislature (a
> "law"), or based on a bribe, or based on ideology, or whatever. And you
> don't have to face a "jury" of idiots carefully selected, instructed,
> and controlled by the "judge," so that they will do what he would have
> done.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***

Our current system is the worst in the world, except for all the others.
The only way to get the system you advocate (and it looks good to me too,
in many ways) is to start a new colony somewhere off earth and make those
part of the covenant signed by emigrants.
......
>> I agree that govenment officials are not neutral parties. They have
>> their own agendas.
>>
>> XYZ Chemicals Corporation, in north Baton Rouge, just invaded my
>> property with a plume of fumes from their operations. I need not even
>> prove the plume is harmful to me.
>
> ***{If you want to collect damages, you need to show harm, and the
> greater the harm, the greater the damages. --MJ}***

Under the current system, I do.
How about under your proposed system? Why do I need to show harm. It is my
property. It has been crossed without my permission. Can my neighbor cross
my land without my permission until I show evidence that he caused harm?

> It was on my property. I was forced, I had no
>> choice as long as I wanted to breath, forced to breath chemicals.

> ***{Maybe. It depends on the situation. Was the factory there first?

Doesn't matter unless I signed away some of my rights when I moved in.

> Did
> you, for example, purchase your land from the owner of the factory,
> subject to a proviso that noxious fumes would drift across your property
> from time to time?

NO.

> If so, you assumed the risks

I agree.

> , and a lawsuit would be
> nothing more than harassment.

If I signed away my rights, I wouldn't sue.

> You would wind up paying, not he. --MJ}***
>
>> What is my remedy?
>
> ***{If you were there first and owned your property free and clear, with
> no deed restrictions permitting such a facility to be erected nearby,
> then your rights, via the principle of encumbrance, trump the rights of
> the owner. If he puts a factory there, he will have to make very sure it
> poses no threat to you, or he can expect to lose a lawsuit. But if he
> does that, it will run his costs up, so unless there is some strong
> advantage to being in that area--e.g., because an ore deposit is
> there--there is a good chance he will opt to locate somewhere else.
> --MJ}***

The river is there. It is his transportation channel.

He saves enough money by locating there that he can afford to fight me. If
he loses, he still wins.

>> The plume is odorless. The fumes are cumulative and toxic. I don't know
>> I have been exposed. What is my remedy?
>
> ***{You will have to sue when you find out. If you die first, then your
> relatives will have to sue. *** happens, and it happens in every
> system, not merely in systems where people have to prove by means of
> reasoned arguments that a wrong has been done or is about to be done. At
> least under a system where such matters are settled by neutral
> arbitration, the numberless wrongs done by politicized courts would be
> eliminated. --MJ}***

More likely transformed into a new set of wrongs.

>> > Bottom line: those who want to impose "cleanup" requirements on
>> > others ought to be required to demonstrate, on a case-by-case basis,
>> > that the conditions to which they object are violating, or pose a
>> > serious danger of violating, their rights. If they refuse to do so,
>> > they are criminals.
>>
>> You don't accord the property owner rights to be security in his own
>> property.
>
> ***{Of course I do, and I have no idea what I said that made you think
> otherwise. Obviously, a property owner can install a fence, or a hedge
> of firethorn, let vicious dogs roam on his property, install alarms, or
> make use of any other procedure that safeguards his property, so long as
> it respects the property rights of others. --MJ}***

I can't know when a plume of poison gas will invade my property and I
shouldn't have to install monitors to detect an indefinite series of
hazards.

>> You would give my neighbor the right to cross my property any
>> time I don't catch him.
>
> ***{Why do you say that? I would do no such thing. He wouldn't have the
> right to trespass, obviously, though of course to take action against
> him you would have to catch him at it. But that applies to all crime:
> you have to catch a murderer, or else he gets away with his crime; you
> have to catch a burglar, else he gets away; etc. --MJ}***

And I have to catch a poluter, else he gets away with it.

>> Not only that, I must then prove that he caused me
>> damages. That doesn't sound like I have many rights at all.
>
> ***{Trespassing is a threat: a reasonable person will fear that the
> trespasser intends to steal or kill. And it can be demonstrated that the
> perception of a threat has significant, adverse effects on the human
> body. Result: neutral arbiters will consider that damage is done by the
> act of trespassing, even if no crime has been committed; and if the
> owner kills or injures a trespasser, he is likely to get off scott free.
> Result: under a system of neutral arbitration, precedents will be set
> that, in their effects on behavior, will be very much like law. People
> will learn what the precedents are, in a system based on neutral
> arbitration, just as they learn what the laws are, under a system based
> on law. The difference between the two systems is not that one is
> anarchistic and the other is tranquil, but rather than under a system of
> neutral arbitration, the rules are reasonable, and under the system of
> law, they are tyrannical. --Mitchell Jones}***

I understand and at heart I agree with you but I argue the contrary case.
By living in a country, one agrees to its rules, so it is not tyrany.

>> If I have property rights, the violator has to prove that I gave them
>> permission to cross my property, otherwise I have NO property rights at
>> all.
>
> ***{Invite an enemy over for dinner, and then kill him. He can't prove
> he was invited, so you get off scott free! :-) Clearly, things have to
> be more complicated than that. A neutral arbiter, looking at a
> potentially criminal act, would have to base his decision on evidence,
> and decisions about people killed while trespassing would set
> precedents, just like other types of cases. One result would likely be
> that, if you are invited by an enemy to come onto his property, you had
> better make sure others have proof that he invited you, and that he
> knows they have proof. --MJ}***

Agreed.

.....
>> >> Now 'waste' is a resource out of place. Much 'waste' could, if it
>> >> were in the right location, be used as a raw material in the
>> >> manufacture of some other product.
>> >
>> > ***{Yup, but that's for the owners to decide, and becomes the
>> > business of others only when their property rights are violated, or
>> > when there is a demonstrable likelihood that they will be violated in
>> > the future. --MJ}***
>>
>> My property rights are violated when the car in front of me is spewing
>> a blue cloud into the air.
>
> ***{No, it depends on the facts. If the blue cloud is cyanide, you are
> probably right. But if it is within the range of normal engine exhaust
> and is relatively non-toxic, or if its detrimental effects were either
> explicitly or implicitly accepted by you when you put yourself in that
> situation, then you haven't a leg to stand on. If, for example, you are
> driving in the Indy 500 and the car ahead of you puts out a cloud of
> blue smoke, that is merely the lesser of a number of risks you assumed
> by being where you are. --MJ}***

It is on the expressway. The car in front of me has worn out rings. The
cloud is unburned oil.

.....
>
> ***{It is if you transport yourself into an area where such vapors can
> be reasonably expected. If you do that, you assume the risks
> voluntarily. You are not the king of the world. You have no right to
> decide what others can do on their own property. If you enter a
> restaurant where smoking is allowed, you assume whatever trivial
> risks--likely none--may be associated with the smoke you will breathe
> while there. --MJ}***
>

And if every restaurant allows smoking, I don't go to restaurants because
of my asthma. I can't even work in restaurants. I can't even live near one.

>> >> My 'cleaning up the environment' includes proper use or disposal of
>> >> all waste.
>> >
>> > ***{That's fine, and you get to decide for your property, just as
>> > others get to decide for theirs--assuming, of course, that you
>> > *really* "don't want to force anyone." --MJ}***
>>
>> I don't want to force anyone and I don't want to be forced.
>
> ***{Until you admit that other people have the right to do things you do
> not like, on their own property, such statements from you will ring
> hollow. Do you admit that a restaurant owner has the right to allow
> smoking in his restaurant, and that if you go there you assume the risk
> of breathing that smoke voluntarily, and hence have no grounds for
> complaint?

As long as smoke exhausted from the restaurant does not drift to my house,
located next door.

> Do you agree that if you drive on a private toll road, where
> the owner is known to tolerate lots of vehicles trailing plumes of
> white, black, blue, and brown smoke, you assume the risks of breathing
> that smoke?

Yes, but those vehicles can not drive on public roads nor by my house.

> Do you agree that if you buy coffee from a restaurant known
> to serve coffee very hot, and spill in on your lap and burn yourself,
> you assumed the risks voluntarily? --MJ}***

Yes. I only have a complaint if I order orange juice and it turns out to be
scalding hot coffee in the container.

>
>> I don't want to be forced to drink water that is contaminated with
>> runoff from spraying the fields upriver from me, nor the runoff from
>> that hog farm.
>
> ***{And if someone ties you up, sticks a funnel in your mouth, and pours
> hog-farm runoff down your throat, you will have good grounds for
> complaint. :-) --MJ}***

When you are thirsty, no one has to force you to drink with a funnel.
If you are thirsty enough, you will drink sea water or urine or hog-farm
runoff.

....
> > I have a property right to clean water.
>
> ***{Nope. Nobody I ever heard of had a property right to clean water.
> Not unless you get it piped in from a utility, at any rate.

It usually is.

> The water
> rights that sometimes come with property are rights to dirty water, for
> the most part, and depend on the specific package of rights you acquired
> when you purchased your property. For example, if there is a spring-fed
> creek on your property, do you own the spring?

If the spring is on my property, I own it.

> If so, then you have a
> right to keep others from coming onto your property and polluting your
> spring, and the creek which it feeds. As a practical matter, however, I
> would advise you not to drink from either your spring or your creek:
> birds, bears, foxes, fish, bugs, and lots of other critters are going to
> *** or die in your water, so you had better treat it before you drink
> it.

Treatment to remove pollution from that chemical dump, 10 miles away, is
difficult and expensive. Who pays?

> And if you own a creek fed from sources on the property of others,
> then your rights are further reduced. For in that case, in addition to
> the critter-based filth that is going to get into your water from your
> own property, other filth is going to flow in from other people's
> property. That's just the way the world is. --MJ}***

I may own the spring but I do not have the right to pollute the water that
leave my land. If I do so, my trash is trespassing on my neighbor's land.

>> The water was clean before the hog farmer and the wheat field
>> owner invaded MY property.
>
> ***{Nope. Water in a state of nature is filthy stuff. When you acquire
> surface water rights, you had better treat the water before you drink
> it, whether there is a hog farmer or a wheat field nearby or not. As to
> whether the hog farmer has the right to pour in so much waste that he
> kills all the fish and turns the creek into an open sewer, it all
> depends on who holds the rights to the water, and how they are held. If,
> for example, the hog farmer originally owned everything for 20 miles
> around, and sold it off piecemeal with the proviso that he could do with
> the creek as he wished, then you are out of luck, because you acquired
> your property, directly or indirectly, from him, and your right to a
> creek that you could fish in, or even to a creek that did not stink, was
> explicitly deleted. --MJ}***

And if he recently started his farm and there are no previous agreements?

>> What? You say the water belongs to the water company, not to
>> me? The water company has the right to clean water, not me?
>> I paid for the water. It is mine and I have the same rights to clean
>> water that the water company has.
>
> ***{No offense, but that just sounds silly. If the water company owns
> the water, then you don't own it.

I do, once I have paid for it.

> If you own it, the water company does
> not. Nobody has a "right to clean water," unless they are party to a
> contract in which someone else agrees, for a fee, to clean up some water
> and let them have it. Most rights, including water rights, are based on
> contractual agreements tracing back to the first person reliably known
> to have possessed the resource. People don't get such rights
> automatically, and thus the only way to determine who does or does not
> hold them, is to examine the evidence--to wit: the chain of ownership.
> --MJ}***

And who owns the waters of the Mississippi river as it flows past Baton
Rouge?

>> ....
>> >
>> > ***{Unless you plan on lifting the oil to some other celestial body,
>> > such as the Moon, the fixed and irreducible energy costs will always
>> > be less than the fuel value of the oil.
>>
>> We disagree on the 'always'.
>
> ***{The calculation is simple. I posted it, and you made no claim either
> that it was in error or that there were important considerations that
> were ignored. Hence your statement that you disagree is without any
> credibility whatsoever. --MJ}***

I disagreed with the assumptions that underlay your assertion. I still do.

.....
>>
>> Nuclear is clearly LESS dangerous than coal, IF handled properly.
>> Cheaper? Be sure to include the costs of waste disposal and
>> decomissioning and the cost of accidents.
>
> ***{At present, the procedures for waste disposal and decommissioning
> are prescribed by government; hence so are the costs. Under capitalism,
> those procedures would be determined by the owners of the property, so
> long as they did not violate the property rights of others. The likely
> solution would be to sell any of the radwaste that anyone would pay for,
> and either return the rest to the mine from which it was originally
> extracted for eventual burial, or else pay a concrete supplier to grind
> it up and mix it into his concrete, etc.

I don't think you understand the effect mixing hot waste into the contrete
would have.

Putting aside the hazards to those working near the concrete due to the
increased exposure to radiation, there is also the fact that the decay
products will cause rapid deterioration of the concrete and subsequent
mechanical failure.

> Result: under capitalism, those
> costs would be trivial. --MJ}***

You underestimate.

>
>> Short term operating costs are not the total cost of fossle fuel nor
>> nuclear. We need to look at long term costs.
>
> ***{I have no idea what you are talking about. Property owners are
> concerned with the total costs, to them, of disposal of the waste, and
> will choose the most cost effective pathway to that end. Long term
> costs, obviously, are part of total costs. --MJ}***

The property owner is only concerned about what happens while they own the
property. A lifetime is the longest that they will own the property. That
is not what I mean by 'long term costs'.


.....
> ***{No, in a property based system, it would be necessary to buy up
> those rights, before extracting the oil. One of my major irritations
> with the present system, in fact, is that ground-water contamination is
> so often simply ignored by the authorities, even in cases where the
> water rights were in private hands long before the oil rights. There are
> lots of stripper wells in West Texas, to name only one example, where
> oil interests have had their way in the courts in preference to the
> owner's of water rights, and because of that judicial bias so much salt
> has been introduced that all the local water wells have been ruined.
> --MJ}***

I find this to be unjust.

.....
>> There WILL come a day when the peak is past.
>
> ***{Of course, but there is no reason to expect that point to arrive
> while any of us are still alive--or even our great grandchildren, for
> that matter. --MJ}***

I think it will come much sooner. We may even live to see who is right.

.....
>> No technology can improve without limits.
>
> ***{It's been a long slog, for living in trees to living in skyscrapers,
> and that's pretty strong evidence that you are wrong. --MJ}***

There have been changes in location in your example. Unless we go into
space, that process will soon be at an end.

>> > It is easily proven
>> > that we have deposits equivalent to more than 100,000 years of usage
>> > at current rates of consumption,
>>
>> Deposits of carbon containing strata is not deposits of reduced carbon
>> in useable forms.
>
> ***{Why are you forcing me to repeat myself? I was referring to deposits
> of usable hydrocarbon fuel equivalent to more than 100,000 years of
> usage at current rates of consumption. I've said that repeatedly, when
> you have forgotten it before. Please try to hold my meaning in your head
> a little longer this time. If you can't retain the context of the
> discussion, how can we make progress? --MJ}***

We can agree to disagree on this point (I disagree with the assumptions
that lay under those figures) and go onward to other things.

.....
> ***{Ingenuity is skill at getting around limits. Getting around a
> limitation involves finding a way to reach a goal that doesn't involve
> violating the laws of nature. For example, suppose you want to get oil
> out of deposit where it is entrained in shale. You can't just drill down
> to the shale and pump out the oil, because it is entrained: it won't
> flow. So what do you do? Do you just say: "Can't be done--there are
> limits," and walk away? Well, maybe you do. But lots of minds will
> linger on a problem like that, and, one day, one of them will find the
> answer.
>
> What kind of mind will that be? It will be a mind who understands the
> relevant laws of nature, and finds an allowed path to the goal--which
> means: the problem will be solved by an engineer.
>
> And what is the basis for thinking that the ingenuity of engineers is
> unlimited? Simply that it has been a long slog, from living in trees to
> living in skyscrapers, and engineers, with and without degrees, brought
> us every step of the way. At some point, don't you think we ought to
> notice what they have done for us, and admit that, if we will merely get
> out of the way, they will take us to the stars?
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***

I find your faith in engineers touching. I have worked as an engineer. My
wife is a licensed chemical engineer (and has a PhD in analytical
chemistry). I know some of the limits that engineers face.

>> > Hence the only question is whether the
>> > politicians will let them get at the oil. --MJ}***
>>
>> Not politician. The owners of the properties effected.
>
> ***{The owners? Hell, they are the main ones who hire the engineers!
> Engineers are primarily creatures of the private property system. They
> show the owners of mineral deposits how to get them out of the ground.
> They show the owners of automobile manufacturing companies how to build
> cars. They show architects how to build skyscrapers. They show power
> companies how to build hydroelectric dams. And on and on and on. It
> isn't the owners who are standing in the way of the engineers. They are
> standing behind them urging them on! --MJ}***
.....
>> > ***{Man uses force against animals, 'tis true. But that's OK: it is
>> > perfectly moral to use force against creatures who have voluntarily
>> > accepted its use, and hence its risks, by using it themselves.
>> > --MJ}***
>>
>> And animals have voluntarily accepted the use of force?
>
> ***{Any creature who violates the property rights of others cannot
> complain if his own property rights are violated. That is as true of a
> man who burglarizes my house as it is of a squirrel who gnaws his way
> into my attic. --MJ}***

The squirrels and other animals were here first. We have invaded THEIR
territory.

If space aliens came down and arbitrated the disputes between us and the
animal species of earth, justice would demand that we pay reparations to
the animals.

>> Informed consent?
>
> ***{Informed schminformed. The thought process that led to the decision
> to violate someone's rights is irrelevant. I don't care why the squirrel
> gnawed his way into my attic, and I will not read him his rights before
> I blow him away. --MJ}***

You built your house on HIS property. He has priority. His ancestors lived
here before our ancestors came down from the trees in south east africa.

>> Or do you classify humans that use force as animals?
>
> ***{I classify them as creatures who gave up their right to complain if
> others use force against them. --MJ}***

Then you give up your right to complain if the squirrel uses force against
you?

....
>> My neighbor just invaded my property with cigarett smoke. I do NOT
>> allow cigarett smoke on my property. I have a right to decide how my
>> property is used and by whom.
>
> ***{Yup. So tell him to stub out his cigarette or leave your house. If,
> however, he is sitting on his front porch and the smoke is blowing onto
> your property, then you are out of luck, because any sane arbiter before
> whom such a complaint was lodged would laugh it out of court. --MJ}***

He is free to smoke as long as his smoke stay off my property. Once it
crosses onto my property, he is trespassing on my rights, or I do not have
rights.

.....
>> > ***{Politically, freedom is the state of the man who can reasonably
>> > expect that his property rights will not be violated.
>>
>> Under your system, I do not have property rights.
>
> ***{You will find no statement to that effect in anything I have
> written, here or elsewhere. The only question is, what have you been
> smoking? --MJ}***

I have been breathing my neighbor's second hand smoke. And you have told me
I have no right to make him stop allowing it to cross onto my property.

>
>> > Politically, a
>> > choice is free if the owner was uncoerced when he decided how to
>> > employ the property. Period. It doesn't matter whether he was toilet
>> > trained improperly and wet the bed as a child. It doesn't matter
>> > whether his choice was influenced by bad advice from his mother. It
>> > doesn't matter whether she beat him as a child, and, as a result, has
>> > undue influence over him in the present. All that matters is that he
>> > made the decision without being subject to force or the threat of
>> > force, at the time the decision was made. If he felt like he was
>> > forced because of the way he was treated as a child, it doesn't
>> > matter. Unless his mother was standing in front of him with a cocked
>> > revolver pointed at his head, or something similar, he made the
>> > choice, and he assumed the risks associated with that choice.
>> > --MJ}***
>>
>> Ahh, but I live near the railroad tracks.
>
> ***{If they were there first and you chose to move there, and choose to
> remain, then you accepted both the noise level and the view. Result: you
> have no grounds for complaint about either, so long as they fall within
> the realm of what one might reasonably expect when living near a
> railroad. --MJ}***
>
>> I am FORCED by my location to accept certain risks (train derailment,
>> leaks, explosions, etc.), to accept diesel fumes
>> from the trains, to accept noise and vibrations from passing trains.
>> They invade my property. They hold a gun to my head.
>
> ***{I repeat: you chose to move there, and you choose to remain.
> --MJ}***
>
>> Lets assume that the tracks were not there when I bought my property
>> and that they have never received permission to invade my property.
>>
>> What is my remedy?
>
> ***{Your remedy, which you did not exercise, was to either purchase
> enough land so that such a use would not have been close enough to
> bother you, or else purchase a lot in a subdivision where deed
> restrictions prohibited such use.

The railroad already owned the land but it was part of a golf course.
I had no reason to expect them to put a railroad there.

Before I buy a piece of land, I must see who owns or may buy all land
within a 10 mile radius, determine what they may choose to do with their
land? If I don't then it is my fault when hazard or harm comes to me from
distant property?

> Since you did neither, you have no
> grounds to complain about any activity that can be defended as serving a
> reasonable purpose, unless it is demonstrably a threat to you. If, for
> example, the railroad stores nitro in a shed on their property, 30 feet
> from your house, you have grounds to complain, due to the threat.

If they are forced to publish notice of what they store and where.

> Or if
> they build a track close enough so that you face derailment risk, or
> cannot sleep at night, you have a case. Assuming, of course, as you say,
> that you were there first. All such details would have to be weighed by
> an arbiter, in order to come up with an appropriate solution to such a
> conflict. --MJ}***

At least here on earth, your system is not likely to come into effect any
time soon. Lets move into space. I'll support your system then.

Oh, by the way, if we move to space, spreading 2nd hand smoke will likely
be an 'airlock offense' resulting in immediate ejection of the smoke from
the nearest airlock. Smokers, are, of course, free to smoke all they want,
inside a sealed space suit.

.....
>>
>> If he was coerced by propaganda, his choices were not free.
>
> ***{You are talking about psychology, not coercion. Politically, his
> choice was free, regardless of whether he was dumb enough, or neurotic
> enough, to be influenced by propaganda. That's why when a lynch mob
> hangs an innocent man, they commit a crime. In reason, they cannot
> escape the responsibility for what they did by claiming that they were
> "coerced by propaganda." All are guilty, not merely the man whose
> rhetoric whipped up the mob. --MJ}***

Psychological force is stronger than guns and more dangerous. Many
dictators came to power through use of psychological force.

>> ***{You are talking about psychology, not coercion. Politically, his
>> choice was free, regardless of whether he was dumb enough, or neurotic
>> enough, to be influenced by propaganda. That's why when a lynch mob
>> hangs an innocent man, they commit a crime. In reason, they cannot
>> escape the responsibility for what they did by claiming that they were
>> "coerced by propaganda." All are guilty, not merely the man whose
>> rhetoric whipped up the mob. --MJ}***
>>
>>> > You could say a guy was "coerced by hate" into remaining on Earth,
>>> > because he despises the intellectuality of engineers, scientists, and
>>> > the like, and knows he will have to associate with lots of them if he
>>> > moves into space. But would you say that?
>> If he was coerced by propaganda, his choices were not free.

> ***{That answer has nothing to do with the question. --MJ}***

I disagree. If "hate producing propaganda" was used to sway his decision,
it was not a free choice.

>> > As for being "coerced by poverty," I can't even hazard a guess at
>> > what you mean by that, since free enterprise in space would need
>> > grunt labor so badly that they would doubtlessly pay the fares into
>> > space of those they hired, and train them on the job. (How else could
>> > you train someone to work in zero gravity, other than on the job? You
>> > sure won't be able to learn such skills at a university on Earth.)
>>
>> If he was too poor to migrate, then his choices were not free.
>
> ***{I said, "free enterprise in space would need grunt labor so badly
> that they would doubtlessly pay the fares into space of those they
> hired," and you said, "If he was too poor to migrate, then his choices
> were not free."
>
> Were you drunk when you wrote this stuff?

It has been many years since I have had a drink. NOTE: I do NOT ask you the
same question. I treat you with respect. :)

....
> ***{I wrote a book called *The Dogs of Capitalism,* which among other
> things explains why slavery, including indentured servitude, is a
> violation of property rights. That argument is too lengthy to repeat
> here. If you are interested, you can obtain the book at Amazon.com.
> --MJ}***

I am glad you consider indentured servitude a violation of property rights.
[aside: what do you think of credit cards and the indentured servitude they
engender?]

I have heard of the title, I think.
I will look for it at the library.
If it is worth adding to my book collection, I will buy a copy.

.....

> ***{When I speak of "coercion" or "use of force," I am referring to
> violations of property rights. Since "circumstances" cannot violate
> property rights, we cannot be coerced by circumstances. Coercion comes
> from other beings, mostly from other people, and the vastly greater part
> of coercion by other people occurs through the medium of government.
> --MJ}***

Coercion by people using 'government' or 'religion' as a prop for their
power. I am not sure we can get away from that without fundamental changes
in human nature, like mankind growing up from the current 'collective
emotional age' of nations [equivalent to a 2.5 or 3 year old human being].

.....
>> Property rights, the freedom to swing my arm, end when my arm or any
>> other result of my actions cross my property line.
.....
>> > ***{Oops, sorry: you just left reality behind. While there are ways
>> > that the world might gradually become free, the authorities would
>> > continue to use force to oppress us while that gradual process was
>> > underway.
>>
>> But, by your reasoning, if we don't use force to prevent oppression, we
>> get oppressed. If we DO use force, then we consent to their using force
>> on us.
>
> ***{Nope. If you violate my rights--e.g., by punching me in the
> nose--you give up grounds for complaint if I punch you in the nose--but
> when I defend myself, that does not mean I can't complain about your
> punching me. I did not consent to your punch by going peacefully about
> my business. If I implied anything by doing that, it was that you should
> go peacefully about yours. --MJ}***

I think you meant to say "--but when I don't defend myself, that does not
mean...."

>> > .... enable individual humans to transport themselves
>> > into space, or to live underground, or to live beneath the sea, and
>> > then post your plans on the internet.
>>
>> I am trying to do my part toward that goal.
>
> ***{Seriously? Well then good for you! So am I, as it happens. --MJ}***

Seriously.

.....
>> > ***{Any attempt to unilaterally settle a dispute over property is a
>> > criminal act. The proper course is always to bring the disupte before
>> > a neutral arbiter, and let him decide.
>>
>> Where do I find a neutral arbiter? I tried. All are biased.
>
> ***{When I use the term "neutral arbiter," I am referring to an arbiter
> selected by a neutral winnowing process. There is no implication that a
> neutral winnowing process is infallible, only that it is better than
> the alternative, which is letting one's case be settled in government
> courts, where justice is almost certain to not be done for either party.
> --MJ}***
>
It is a bad system but better than any other currently available.

.....
>> I disagree on your final point. I see demagogic manipulation of a
>> population as a crime, one of the worst of crimes.
>
> ***{Many people rely on what they call "hot buttons" to persuade others
> to buy whatever they are selling. But if what is being sold is
> encyclopedias, there is no crime. It is only when what is being sold is
> some sort of mob action in violation of rights--e.g., a lynching, the
> banning of DDT, etc.--that criminality is involved. --MJ}***

....lynching, the use of DDT, etc..... :)

I do NOT consider reasoned debate over the wisdom of the use of DDT
criminal, just the act of 'trying to raise the rabble'.


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+nanae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.