Re: High strength fibers for high pressure tubes.

Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:mjones-67A804.13091011052005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> In article <Xns964E53A1F5E42WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> > Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> > news:mjones-3FE2BC.13333005052005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
.....
>> A problem comes when the dangers are not known to anyone before the
>> damage occurs.
>
> ***{In such a case, properly, there is no one to sue. It makes no more
> sense for the employee to sue the employer than it would make for the
> employer to sue the employee. Lack of omniscience is not anybody's
> fault; it's just the way things are. --MJ}***

Omniscience is not required. Due dilegence is.

>> Asbestos was once thought safe.
>
> ***{Nothing is "safe." Asbestos is heat and fire resistant. Hence its
> use saves lives by preventing fires. The fact that it also causes an
> occasional mesothelioma doesn't offset that benefit.

There are other substances that have the same benefit without the asbestosis.

> No one ever
> balanced off its benefits against its costs: the environmentalist lynch
> mob was simply whipped up into an ignorant frenzy, as they were with
> DDT. Result: the use of asbestos was banned, and the idiotic lawsuits
> began. [For some facts on this topic, see
> http://www.heartland.org/archives/perspectives/taylor-leahy.htm.]

There needs to be a line drawn at the point the company becomes aware there
is a problem.

> The whole problem traces back to the government courts, which refuse to
> honor contractual limitations on liability.

The problem traces back to "oh, we seem to have a problem. It is cheaper to
fight it in court than to change what we are doing."

> A company can't simply say,
> "We will sell you asbestos wallboard, if you exempt us from all
> liability connected with its use." Similarly, a physician can't say,
> "I'll operate on you, if you exempt me from liability if a mistake is
> made."

Drawing the line is sometimes difficult.

There needs to be a line somewhere between:

'I'll operate on you, if you exempt me from liability if I take normal care
and something goes wrong'

and

'I'll operate on you if you exempt me from all liability even if I am
neglegent.'

Neglegence should not be permitted, no matter what the contract says.
.....
>> Involuntary assumpion of risk is the more likely occurence.
>
> ***{In a system where contractual limitations on liability are not
> respected by the courts, that is absolutely correct. The public does not
> recognize that the judgment of the marketplace about product safety is
> better than the judgment of the government. Result: they also do not
> recognize that any government which reserves the right to violate
> property rights in what it deems to be the public interest, in the net,
> kills people. That's why we need to strip government of the power to
> make law, and get it out of the business of adjudicating disputes.

> Governments should be limited to national defense, bringing accused
> persons to trial, and appointing prosecutors in cases where no private
> plaintiff has come forward to address a grievance. --MJ}***

.....
> ***{Off of Earth, or underground, or under the sea. Independent minded
> people need to be able to get away from the narrow-minded,
> authoritarian, conformist fools who are destroying this civilization,
> before a complete financial and economic collapse occurs. Otherwise, so
> much technology may be lost in the coming dark age that mankind will be
> unable to rise up again. --MJ}***
.....
>> 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?
> ***{There is no way to assess a penalty for trespassing unless harm has
> been demonstrated and quantified.
Then I don't have a right to be secure on my own property from trespass, and
I am not just talking about physical walking on to my property, I am talking
about smoke from their property crossing onto my property, runnoff from their
property crossing onto my property.

> As I pointed out earlier, there is a
> residual harm from trespass even when no physical damage to property is
> done: anxiety is inflicted on the owner, because trespassing may be a
> prelude to other criminal acts, such as robbery or murder. It is a form
> of a threat, and to threaten is a crime. Hence a penalty is appropriate
> in all cases. The degree of penalty, however, depends on the particulars
> of each specific case. Under a system of neutral arbitration, the most
> insightful and logically persuasive decisions about such matters will
> become established precedent, and the process of proof and the
> calculation of damages will become routine.

Gosh, we are now saddling the neutral arbitrators with that ugly word,
"precedent".

That is what judges are currently constrained by and which you decry.

.....
>> Doesn't matter unless I signed away some of my rights when I moved in.
>
> ***{Of course it matters. Every right conveyed cannot be explicitly
> written into a deed. If the title to your tract traces back to a man who
> settled there 50 years after the factory was in operation, any arbiter
> worth his salt will conclude that he accepted the noise, bustle, smoke,
> etc., put out by the factory when he settled there.

And he died of cancer due to the fumes put out by the factory, but no one
knew it.

> All property rights
> trace back to what I call the principle of prior claims: the notion that
> the earliest provable claim trumps all subsequent claims.

Then we have to give the land back to the Amerinds and they have to give it
back to the animals.

If we go by prior rights, we have big problems. There is hardly any square
inch on earth that has not been taken away from someone that has prior and
moral claim to that land. Usually several times over.

.....
> ***{Do you also agree that if the chain of title to your property does
> not date back as far as the chain of title to your neighbor's property,
> an arbiter would legitimately apply the principle of encumberance to any
> dispute that you had with your neighbor, when it concerned activities
> that were ongoing prior to the origination of your title? --MJ}***

Sure, provided I knew or should have known about the activity before I bought
the house.

Actually the smoker/loud music player that lives next door moved in recently,
so I have priority. The old lady that used to live there never smoked or
played loud music.

.....
>> The river is there. It is his transportation channel.
>
> ***{If all disputes over property are settled by neutral arbitration,
> then somebody is going to own the shipping rights along that channel. If
> he owns them, then you cannot gripe if ore barges are floating past your
> house at all hours of the day and night. And if you own it, and the
> noise interferes with your sleeping, you are probably going to use your
> profits to relocate your house to a quieter location. Either way,
> problem solved. And no steenking government courts are required in the
> process. --MJ}***

If I live on the river, it is wake damage that will be eating away my land.
Without the government to regulate the speed of vessels on the river, the tow
boats will be pushing it as fast as they can.

Some things can simply not be owned by individuals.

Corporations were invented to handle some of the problems caused by
individual ownership and liability. State ownership was invented to solve
some other problems.

Navigable waterways and highways are such property.

And then there is the tradition of 'right of way'.

Private ownership was tried and led to robber barons exacting huge tolls from
all passersby.

Much of current law and government was developed to solve that problem.

Free competition and the law of supply and demand break down.

In the early 1900's, my Great Grandfather and some other men from Missouri
went to Alaska to make their fortune. They had a paddlewheeler built for
them. They were going to dredge gold from the rivers. If they couldn't dredge
for some reason, they were going to use the boat to carry cargo and make
money that way. The boat construction got delayed. When it finally got there,
it was too late for them to dredge, and they found out that someone already
had a monopoly on carrying cargo.

There were cartels controlling everything.
That is the difference between theory and reality.

.....
>>
>> More likely transformed into a new set of wrongs.
>
> ***{How so? --MJ}***

The law of unintended consequences.

Smurfies law says "whatever you try to do, to make things better, is going to
make you blue".

.....
>> 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.
>
> ***{If a person has a rational basis for worrying about plumes of poison
> gas, then he should install monitors, so that he can obtain the evidence
> he needs to prevail, when his suit goes into arbitration.

And how would he know unless his neighbor chooses to tell him what the plant
is making, or he gets sick or dies?
.....
http://www.american.edu/TED/bhopal.htm&e=7207
http://www.getipm.com/articles/seveso-italy.htm&e=7207
http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/&e=7207

These are reasons why laze faire capitalism does not work, no matter how good
it sounds. Ayn Rand's ideas appealed to me when I was a college student in
the 60's. They still appeal to me, but I can see why they will never work
here on earth.

These are all good reasons to move industry into space.

.....
I am not talking only of physically crossing. I am talking about polution
crossing onto my property. Polution that I may not even be able to detect.

.....
>> By living in a country, one agrees to its rules, so it is not
>> tyrany.
>
> ***{Nice try. It would even work, if there were a better country
> available to live in.

To 'paraphrase' MJ, "Tough. 'Stuff' happens."

You want a better place to live, you go someplace where you don't step on
anyone's toes that likes the current sitution and you BUILD your own utopia.

> But that is not the case, if you live in the
> United States. You might as well say that when a robber points a gun at
> you and you give him your wallet, you agree to his rules, so it is not
> robbery.

You can always leave. ... But you say there is no place better to go?
By your own philosopy 'tough'. 'Stuff happens'.

> The important distinction, in such cases, is this: any person or
> organization that attempts the unilateral settlement of a dispute over
> property, commits a criminal act.

This applies to revolutionary groups.

> That means if the robber thinks he has
> a better right to your wallet than you, he should make his case before a
> neutral arbiter, rather than point a gun at you and take the wallet by
> force. Since he didn't, he is a criminal. By the same token, when the
> government claims the right to prevent the manufacture and sale of DDT,
> refuses to go to neutral arbitration to prove its case, and instead
> forces the case into courts that it controls, it also commits a criminal
> act.

The government is elected. Doesn't mean they do what we want, but we did
elect them.

You don't like it, you go elsewhere. Leave those that do like it to live with
the consequences. That is straight from the philosophy of Mitchell Jones.

.....
> ***{Under a system in which disputes over property are settled by
> neutral arbitration, someone is going to own the expressway.

The guy that owns the expressway doesn't like people who drive green cars. He
charges them 10 times as much as he charges those that drive red cars.
You drive a green car.

Tough.

> Whoever
> that is sets the rules regarding what is permitted and what is not. If
> you drive on his expressway, you accept his rules. --MJ}***

And you pay his prices. He decides he wants prima nochta, and all other
nochta whenever you and your honey drive on his expressway. You accept his
rules.

.....
>> 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.
>
> ***{If your asthma is as bad as that, smokers in restaurants are the
> least of your worries, because you are doomed.

Right. I spent 22 months in the hospital with asthma when I was 16. BTW, we
are ALL doomed. No one makes it out, alive.

> Well, too bad. Hope for
> better lungs in your next life, because there is *no* hope, under a
> system of neutral arbitration, of forcing restaurant owners to cater to
> your condition. It is simply a fact that being sick has negative
> aspects. That's why people prefer to be healthy. --MJ}***

Hope to be born in a world with a better form of government in YOUR next
life, or help build those space colonies (I will help too, I want to get away
from the pollen and pollution here).
.....

>> As long as smoke exhausted from the restaurant does not drift to my
>> house, located next door.
>
> ***{That's ridiculous. The smoke would be so dilute at that point that
> you wouldn't even be able to reliably detect its presence, much less
> show harm.

That is NOT true.

I can tell you from experience that just being down wind from a business that
allows smoking can cause serious problems to those alergic to smoke.

> No neutral arbiter would find in your favor on a nonsensical
> suit like that. It would be you who paid damages, if you brought such a
> case.

Then there is a problem with the neutral arbitration (as you imagine it).

> Hell, you might as well sue your next door neighbor because, when
> he turns over in his bed at night, the shift in the gravitational field
> wakes you up! If you did, how far do you think you ought to get?

Gravity waves have never been demonstrated. The effect of small amounts of
cigarett smoke on those alergic to smoke can be measured.

When I was in the hospital, I participated in some research. They would
measure vital capacity (the volume of air one can exhale). Lets say it was
4.2 ltr. They would then have me breath a mist containing an alergen. They
measured how much was retained in the lungs. They measured vital capacity
again. I have seen it drop to as little as 0.6 ltr. Untreated, that can be
life threatening. I was in the hospital. They gave me a shot of adrenaline.

Try breathing through a thin soda straw if you want to see what asthma feels
like.

.....
> ***{Not every mistake is actionable. If you got someone else's order,
> your remedy is to take it back to the counter and explain what happened.
> --MJ}***

If they neglegently hand me the cup with hot coffee.
I am expecting a cold drink and I am surprised and spill it on me and get
burned, there SHOULD be a remedy.

On the other hand, if I put the cup that I know has hot coffee between my
legs and then spill it and burn my self, that should NOT be their fault.

.....

>> 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.
>
> ***{And if someone ties you up, waits until you are out of your mind
> with thirst, and then offers you a glass of hog-farm runoff, you have
> good grounds for complaint. --MJ}***

So, I can only complain if they physically force me? I don't have much in the
way of property rights then.
.....

>> Treatment to remove pollution from that chemical dump, 10 miles away,
>> is difficult and expensive.
>
> ***{Nope. Distillation costs the same amount whether you are removing
> organic or inorganic waste. --MJ}***

Simple distillation will NOT remove all compounds, especially not some of the
organics.

....
> ***{If you want safe drinking water, I advise you to distill it.
> Government supplied tap water is *not* to be trusted. Home distillers
> are cheap and inexpensive to use. --MJ}***

Home distillers are cheap, inexpensive to use and not effective.

You want clean water, your run it through FRESH activated charcoal, then
through a couple of ion exchange columns to deionize.

.....
> ***{The world is not so simple as that. Nobody is born with water
> rights. They are acquired. If you acquired the right to dump sewage in
> the creek, then you have that right.
.....
No one should have that right.
.....
> ***{Then it could get tricky, depending on the specifics of the case.
> The proper course would be to take it before a neutral arbiter, and let
> him decide. --MJ}***

.....

>> > ***If the water company owns
>> > the water, then you don't own it.
>>
>> I do, once I have paid for it.
>
> ***{Did they agree to supply you with treated water that was safe to
> drink? If so, and if the water was in fact untreated and filthy, and you
> can show harm, then collect the evidence you need to prove your case,
> and demand that they compensate you. If they refuse, then sue. --MJ}***

Right. And they can sue the farm owner.

Oh... I thought we had to go to a neutral arbitrator. What should we call
that? Sue won't do. Neutarb? Yeah how about that for a word.

We neutarb them.
.....
>> And who owns the waters of the Mississippi river as it flows past Baton
>> Rouge?
>
> ***{Water rights are rights to take water from a source. No one is big
> enough to take all of the water from the Mississippi at Baton Rouge.

> Under a system where all disputes over property are settled by neutral
> arbitration, rights to take water from the Mississippi will be
> disseminated among many entities, and the sum total of all of them is
> likely to be less than the water available even in a dry year, unless I
> miss my guess. In any case, when disputes arise about such rights, they
> should be settled by neutral arbitration, not by government courts.
> --MJ}***
>
But the guy that says HE owns the river (it belonged to his ggggrandfather,
chief bullshoot), says I can't have any water from it. He says YOU can't have
any water from it, either.

.....
>> I disagreed with the assumptions that underlay your assertion. I still
>> do.
>
> ***{Why not state your reasoning? --MJ}***

I did. The carbon is NOT all in the form of reduced carbon. Much of it is
tied up in minerals such as CaCO3 (calcium carbonate). Much of the reduced
carbon is so fine, it is like the soot from a fire, but it is disbursed
within rocks, NOT like oil shale which has a high percentage of reduced
carbon, but like crystal of quartz with a few microscopic flecks of carbon
here and there throughout. It will NEVER be recoverable.
.....

>> I don't think you understand the effect mixing hot waste into the
>> contrete would have.
>
> ***{The idea is to grind up radwaste

Do you have any idea of the problems associated with grinding 'hot'
materials? Even wet grinding ends up scattering small pieces all over the
place. Small HOT pieces.

Do you have any idea of the problems associated with handling 'hot'
materials.

Do you know what can happen when someone makes a mistake and puts too much
hot material together in one place?

Read some of the cases.
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/accident/

Fuel processing is dangerous too.
Read http://www.uic.com.au/nip52.htm

> and distribute it in ready mix at
> very low concentrations, in areas where the background count is so low
> as to be unhealthy. Many regions of the country are like that, and so
...as to NOT be unhealthy????

> this technique of waste disposal would save lives. --MJ}***
First, the raw materials going into the ready mix already have their own
background levels of radioactive materials, anything you add will ADD to
that.

The waste is very hot. Do you realize how much dilution would be needed to
make it safe?

NO level of radiation is 'safe', any additional radiation yields an increase
in risks. The increase may be small. You may go from 1 chance in 10,000 to 1
chance in 9,999 or from 1 chance in 10,000 to 2 chances in 10,000.

Would YOU want to be sitting on something radioactive that would increase
your risks by either of those figures?

BTW, some risks are acceptable. Your wife (if you are married) has
radioactive isotopes in her body(as do you) and if you sleep close, you get
more radiation than if you sleep alone.

>> Putting aside the hazards to those working near the concrete due to the
>> increased exposure to radiation
>
> ***{There would be benefits, not hazards. (Ever heard of "radiation
> hormesis"? :-) --MJ}***

It is an interesting theory. I think it is a bit more likely than some of the
other homeopathy theories, and I certainly wouldn't want to stop you if you
decide to collect some old radium dial watches and lick the paint off of
them, but I wouldn't do it.

>>, there is also the fact that the decay
>> products will cause rapid deterioration of the concrete and subsequent
>> mechanical failure.
>
> ***{Nope. We are talking about a slight elevation of the background
> level, not "hot" concrete. Such concrete would be roughly as radioactive
> as common granite, no more. --MJ}***

There is no possible way to disburse high level radioactive wastes enough so
that they would be safe to use as common building materials.

If the total amount of radioactive material on the surface of the earth was
the material that had been mined and concentrated, then what you are talking
about could work.

But when a reactor is in opperation, NEW radioactive material is being made.
Those new radioactive isotopes often have high activity. The alpha and beta
emitters can be shielded against. Encapsulating them with molten glass would
give us pellets that were safe to handle, as long as they are not broken.

The neutron and gamma emitters are a different story all together.

You don't want to ingest alpha/beta emitters. They are bad news inside the
body but of little danger outside.

It doesn't matter much with neutron and gamma emitters, whether they are
inside or outside. Both are bad.

>> > Result: under capitalism, those
>> > costs would be trivial. --MJ}***
>>
>> You underestimate.
>
> ***{Nope. The volume of concrete being poured would be gigantic compared
> to the volume of nuclear waste that would be produced, even if the
> entire grid were supplied by nuclear. Result: all radwaste could be
> disposed of in concrete,

NO way. You have not done the math.
[quote http://www.ecosmart.ca/enviro_statistics.cfm]
* Global production of cement in 2000 was 1.56 billion tones. One third
of this was produced in China alone. (Source: USGS Minerals Information.
Cement Statistics 2000)
* In manufacturing 1.56 billion tonnes of portland cement each year
worldwide, an equivalent amount of CO2 is released into the air.
[unquote]

http://pub15.bravenet.com/faq/show.php?usernum=1254714839&catid=2993
[quote]
A single fuel assembly from a boiling water reactor contains 28.3 million Ci
of radioactivity. To turn one rod into 'Class A low level radioactive waste',
[unquote]

you would have to disburse this in 28.8 million cubic feet of concrete. That
is for ONE fuel rod. Concrete weighs about 143 lb/ft^3, that is 2 million
tons for one rod. So, the total world concrete demand would handle 754 fuel
rods and turn them into 'low level nuclear waste'. We haven't done anything
about current low level waste, nor all the intermediate level waste out
there. And the VOLUME of those is much greater than the high level waste, one
catagory of which we just 'handled'.

Of course, it would not qualify as low level waste because the half life of
the isotopes is too long. But you could 'handle' the stuff, with some
precautions. But it is not safe yet.
[unquote]

[quote]
All HLW contains fission products and therefore self heats. Much of it
produces hydrogen gas. Due to the acid and alkali constituents it is
corrosive unless treated. It all must be remotely handled. There are a number
of long lived isotopes contained in it and it must therefore be isolated from
man and the environment forever. It accounts for 95% of the radioactivity
generated in the last 50 years.
[unquote][quote]
The following categories of waste exist in the U.S.: High Level Waste (HLW),
Low Level Waste (LLW), Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF), Transuranic Waste (TRUW),
By-Product Material (BPM)-also known as Uranium Mill Tailings (UMT) and as
Source Material, Naturally Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive
Materials (NORM/NARM), Special Nuclear Materials (SNM), and Mixed Waste (MW).
In addition, Low Level Waste has four subcategories: Class A, Class B, Class
C, and Greater than Class C (GTCC). TRU waste has two subcategories: Contact
Handled (TRU-CH) and Remote Handled (TRU-RH). Mixed Waste has three
subcategories: Low Level Mixed Waste (LLMW), High Level Mixed Waste (HLMW),
and Transuranic Mixed Waste (TRUMW). According to DOE, Low Level Waste or LLW
is ?any radioactive waste not classified as high level waste, Transuranic
waste, or uranium mill tailings? LLW has four subcategories; Class A
<1Curie/Cubic foot, Class B up to 2 C/ft3, Class C up to 7C/ft3, and Greater
Than Class C or GTCC 300-2500C/ft3. The first two Classes must be short lived
isotopes, the other two can be a combination of short and long lived
isotopes. A huge range of items are classified as LLW.
[unquote]


http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/nuclear_waste.shtml

> without rendering the concrete any more
> radioactive than common granite.

And what makes you think granite is safe? I don't advise that you make your
bed out of granite.
[quote]
Source Activity
1 kg of coffee 1000 Bq
1 kg of granite 1000 Bq
A household smoke detector 30 000 Bq
1 kg low level radioactive waste 1 000 000 Bq
1kg uranium ore 25 000 000 Bq
1kg medium level radioactive waste 12 000 000 Bq
Radioisotope for medical therapy 1014 Bq
[nb: 1 Bq ~ 27 pCi, 1 Ci = 37 GBq = 37e9 Bq]

fuel rod = 28.3 MCi =1e18 Bq
so, to get to 'granite' levels, we need 1e15 kg of concrete.
That is only 1e12 tons, or 1 Tton for one fuel rod.
Now, we have made the fuel rod no more dangerous than granite, but we have
just exceeded the worlds demand for concrete. That was for ONE rod.


One facility, Hanford [quote from
http://nuclearhistory.tripod.com/waste3.html]
It is estimated that the current inventory totals 498,000,000 Ci
[unquote]
That translates into 2e13 Tton
[quote]
A single fuel assembly from a boiling water reactor contains 28.3 million Ci
of radioactivity, a pressurized water reactor assembly contains 101 million
Ci . A 1000MW BWR uses up 175 assemblies per year, a PWR the same size uses
60. Each offloading of fuel consists of about 30 metric tons, containing
180,000 Ci per metric ton and producing 1.5MW thermal output of afterheat per
metric ton. The fuel assembly is removed from the reactor vessel and placed
into a pool via remote control. It sits in the pool for at least 5-10 years
to cool. [unquote]

> What that means is that the problem of
> nuclear waste disposal is just another example of environmentalist
> bull***.

Check my figures. Have you ever worked with 'hot' stuff?

I have. My wife and I did some research with tritiated benzo(alpha)-pyrene
(itself a carcinogen/mutagen).

If you haven't worked with 'hot stuff', you really don't know what you are
talking about.

> The problems are political, and stem ultimately from the fact
> that people without knowledge or judgment cast more votes than their
> betters.

The problems are practical, that leads to political problems also.

> That's all there is to it. --MJ}***

There is more to it. Over 1e12 tons of concrete per fuel rod 'more' to it.

.....
>> 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'.
>
> ***{Telling me what you do *not* mean is useless. Let's see an example
> of what you *do* mean. --MJ}***

What were the long term costs of the decision by a Roman Governor to nail one
rabbi?

That is what I am talking about when I speak of 'long term costs'.
What will history show it cost mankind, thousands of years from now.

.....

.....
>> ....
>> >> No technology can improve without limits.
>> >
>> > ***{It's been a long slog, from 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.
>
> ***{Too true. But you can't blame that on the engineers. They gave us
> technology--nuclear rockets--that

There are many technologies that would work.

> could have colonized the asteroid belt
> 50 years ago. It was blocked by politicians and remains blocked to this
> very day. --MJ}***

We agree on this point.

.....
>> > ***{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
>
> ***{What assumptions? --MJ}***
[quote]
> ***{Incorrect. All the oxygen in the atmosphere was released by
> photosynthesis. The formula for photosynthesis is 6CO2 + 6H2O + solar
> energy --> C6H12O6 + 6O2. I suggest that you do the following: (a)
> compute the amount of O2 in the atmosphere, (b) assume all of it was
> produced in accordance with the above equation, (c) compute the amount
> of carbon that was freed up when that O2 was released, and (d) compare
> to the total amount of carbon used as fuel since the industrial
> revolution began. If you do that, you will find that enough carbon
> remains in the Earth to support more than 100,000 years of usage at
> current rates of consumption.
[unquote]

.....
>> The squirrels and other animals were here first. We have invaded THEIR
>> territory.
>
> ***{Show me a squirrel or any other animal who is willing to take
> disputes to a neutral arbiter, and you will have my attention. Until
> then, I will regard them as criminals who, by the use of force, gave up
> the right to complain when force is used against them. --MJ}***

So, you want justice for you but don't grant it to others.
What if you were born deaf and dumb? Should you lose your rights, or should
someone be appointed to represent your interests?

In your dispute with the squirrel, someone should be appointed to represent
their interests.

He should take it to the arbitrator. Of course, he could take up a gun and
defend the squirrels against you, by your logic.

>> 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.
>
> ***{That's totally preposterous. Animals don't respect property rights,
> and deal with others only by means of force. Hence it is totally
> appropriate to deal with them by force. --MJ}***

Man is an animal. Animals don't respect property rights. Man doesn't respect
property rights.

What makes you think we deserve special rights?

>
.....
>> Then you give up your right to complain if the squirrel uses force
>> against you?
>
> ***{The person who fires the first shot violates the principle of
> non-initiation of force. The person who returns fire does not. --MJ}***

The squirrel has never fired a shot at you. You moved onto his property.

.....
>> 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.
>
> ***{Correct. You would have to show harm, and you can't. --MJ}***
.....
>> 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?
>
> ***{One problem with this discussion is that you ask ambiguous
> questions, forcing me to assume some specific situation before
> answering, and after I answer you inform me that you intended different
> assumptions.

We are both kinda guilty of 'movin the goal posts' now and then.

> Here, therefore, is the answer to all of your questions: if
> you think you have been wronged, collect evidence, take your case before
> a neutral arbiter, and see what happens. If you say you can't do it,
> that the government forces all disputes into courts that they control,
> then I suggest you do your best to bring about a situation where that is
> no longer the case. --MJ}***

I can vote for different people in office or I can try to leave.

.....
>> If they are forced to publish notice of what they store and where.
>
> ***{I am guessing that the precedents that would arise under a system of
> neutral arbitration would exempt them from liability if they gave public
> notice of dangerous materials that they had in storage, because those
> who, despite that, chose to live and work in the danger zone, would have
> voluntarily accepted the risks. But, again, the generalized solution to
> all problems of that sort is to establish a system of neutral
> arbitration, and let appropriate precedents arise from the consideration
> of actual cases. --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'
>
> ***{If a shopping center on Mars has a good filtration system, they
> might permit smoking. If so, smoking wouldn't be an "offense" at all. If
> they do not permit it, and someone smokes, the resulting disupte, and
> the punishment, would have to be decided by neutral arbitration.
> --MJ}***
>
>> resulting in immediate ejection of the smoke from
>> the nearest airlock.
>
> ***{I assume you mean ejection of the smoker, not of the smoke.

Yep.
> If so,
> the answer is that if you did that, you would be acting unilaterally to
> settle the dispute, and would be guilty of murder.

Oh, disposin o' vermin ain't murder. But there would be a trial.
It would be short, however.

Most space travelers will be non smokers.

> --MJ}***
>
>> Smokers, are, of course, free to smoke all they want,
>> inside a sealed space suit.
>
> ***{With good filtration, why not? --MJ}***

Right.

.....
>> Psychological force is stronger than guns and more dangerous. Many
>> dictators came to power through use of psychological force.
>
> ***{As I said earlier, when I use the word "force" in a political
> context, as here, I am referring to violations of property rights. In
> such a context, "psychological force" becomes a contradiction in terms.
> --MJ}***

We disagree.

.....
>> >> 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.
>
> ***{Anyone who can be controlled by demagogic manipulations is of course
> insane,

If you look carefully, you will find that anyone can be controlled, given
enough time and skill on the part of the controller.

That implies that we are all insane.

> but an insane person is no less free in the political sense than
> anyone else. Politically, if his property rights were not violated, then
> his choice was free. Period. Insanity confers no rights that the person
> would not have otherwise. --MJ}***

Meine Gedanken sind frei. The only ultimate property is my mind. That is
where we need freedom and protection the most.

.....
>> > 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. :)
>
> ***{It may not be disrespectful to toss out a question which, had you
> reflected for a mere instant, you would have seen to be ridiculous, but

Well, I consider many of your statements as rediculous but realize that wise
men of good will can differ on many things.

> it can be annoying to the person who has to respond to the question. I'm
> not trying to make a big deal out of this, mind you. I'm just asking
> that you self-criticize your stuff a bit more before you send it off. Is
> that too much to ask? --MJ}***
>

NO, it is Not too much to ask of anyone.

.....
> ***{Credit cards are not indentured servitude. If you default on your
> obligation, you do not go to prison, even under the present system.
> Slavery and indentured servitude are of course OK, if applied as
> reasonable punishments for criminal acts. Prisoners in a jail are
> slaves, whether admitted or not; and if they were offered the choice of
> serving out their sentences by being indentured to private employers,
> most would jump at the chance. What acts might lead to such punishments,
> if any, I would of course leave to neutral arbiters to decide. --MJ}***

I tend to agree with what you said. I was thinking about how the ignorant are
persuaded to overuse credit cards and how a $3000 credit card debt, paid at
the minimum each month, takes 30 years to pay off and costs over $10,000. Of
course our high schools should teach things like that and the rule of 72 in
math class.
.....
>> 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
>
> ***{The human genome is 98.4% identical to that of the chimpanzee. We
> are apes. Result: most of us have a hard time living in peace with one
> another. The norm is not to live by production and trade (capitalism),
> but by the code of Rob Roy--to wit: that he should take who has the
> power and he should keep who can. Capitalism is the highest achievement
> of mankind, and creating a governmental form that will preserve and
> protect it from our animal natures is not easy. The U.S. Constitution
> was the best attempt so far, but it has failed, and the collapse of the
> U.S. is now guaranteed. As to what will follow, only time will tell.
> --MJ}***

I hope you are wrong. I fear you may be right.

.....
>> > ***{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...."
>
> ***{No. I meant exactly what I said. I did not consent to your punch by
> going peacefully about my business, and I did not consent to it when I
> hit you back.

Failure to hit back does not imply consent to being hit. Likewise, defense
does not mean I can not complain about being hit first.

> As I said earlier, the person who fires the first shot
> violates the principle of non-initiation of force; the person who
> returns fire does not. Think about it. --MJ}***

.....
>> > 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..... :)
>
> ***{The banning of DDT is akin to lynching. The use of DDT is *not* akin
> to lynching. --MJ}***
>
>> I do NOT consider reasoned debate over the wisdom of the use of DDT
>> criminal, just the act of 'trying to raise the rabble'.
>
> ***{The rabble were raised by the environmentalists, the ban was
> enacted, 33 years have passed, and more than 50 million people, almost
> all of them children, are dead. Lynchings never killed a fraction of
> that many people, and there is no way to undo what was done. Those
> people are dead, and that is that. --MJ}***

I do not work for the chemical industry. I am not an advocate of their side,
As a person with a BS in chemistry, I feel I am able to judge the validity of
the pro and con arguments for the use of DDT. From the data I have seen, I
disagree with your postion.

By the way, what happened to the lake on mars?

--
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


--
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
.