[sebbysteiny]

SpiderMonkey

Again, another strawman as I've said none of these things. I'm guessing you feel yourself being pushed into a corner that makes the original position increasingly rediculous. However, if you were telling the truth, there should be no corner.

What I am doing is standard cross examination techniques whereby I test your arguments to determine if they are plausable. If they are, you should have no fear of answering.

For example, we've just established that the militia will be manned by voluntary people who will be taking time out of their every day lives to do this. Well, this is a huge committment. So I was enquiring how much committment we could expect without preventing that man from earning his own living. The idea being, when having to choose between feeding his children and guarding his own electricity supply, I think he will choose his family.

But this means you must have a shift system. And the problem is, if you split the day into, say, 6 shifts of 4 hours each, now you need a militia of six times greater number than the number one would need on the battlefield to guard against a full frontal assault by anti nuclear militias. The latter will not need shifts as they know the time of attack so all they need is about a fifth of the numbers to obtain numerical superiority. All of a sudden, you need a large supply of man-power and a body to organise all of this... a government if you will.

[ninurta]

SpiderMonkey

Again, another strawman as I've said none of these things. I'm guessing you feel yourself being pushed into a corner that makes the original position increasingly rediculous. However, if you were telling the truth, there should be no corner.

What I am doing is standard cross examination techniques whereby I test your arguments to determine if they are plausable. If they are, you should have no fear of answering.

For example, we've just established that the militia will be manned by voluntary people who will be taking time out of their every day lives to do this. Well, this is a huge committment. So I was enquiring how much committment we could expect without preventing that man from earning his own living. The idea being, when having to choose between feeding his children and guarding his own electricity supply, I think he will choose his family.

But this means you must have a shift system. And the problem is, if you split the day into, say, 6 shifts of 4 hours each, now you need a militia of six times greater number than the number one would need on the battlefield to guard against a full frontal assault by anti nuclear militias. The latter will not need shifts as they know the time of attack so all they need is about a fifth of the numbers to obtain numerical superiority. All of a sudden, you need a large supply of man-power and a body to organise all of this... a government if you will.

Okay, well we can debate this in the militia thread, back on topic. (Yes there is one, I made it just for us to debate this further.)

[sebbysteiny]

Ninurta

My understanding is that nuclear energy will be oposed by some. This will make it likely to be attacked and physically stopped. This would be extremely dangerous. If there was to be nuclear energy without the state therefore (which I think you will agree IS on topic), there would have to be a militia to act as a police force. But if the only party capable of putting together such a militia/police force is some kind of government or organistional body, then you can't get a militia without the state so you can't get nuclear energy without the state.

The whole house of cards comes crumbling down. So I don't see how one can debate this topic without discussing the practicalities of organising a militia without a state.

Further, since this entire debate is founded on whether or not there is a realistic prospect of making a land function sensibly without a state, if we don't get bogged down into the practicalities of protecting the nuclear power, I will get this debate bogged down into the practicalities of something else, like deposing of nuclear waste in a land without law, or maintenance of the energy grid system without a government organising body, or health and safety checks without a government regulatory body and so on.

This debate is won or lost on the little details.

[ninurta]

I see what you are saying, I am neutral on the issue, and personally would prefer solar power. But thats another issue.

[sebbysteiny]

How will the solar panels be protected against determined theives?

[Kasu]

How about instead of using Uranium 235 or 238 powerplants, we use the collective power of the people to research nuclear fusion energy?

[Figlio di Moros]

How about instead of using Uranium 235 or 238 powerplants, we use the collective power of the people to research nuclear fusion energy?

Assuming it's possible, what would you propose in the meantime?

[ninurta]

You protect the solar panels the same way you would everything else you have. Or you share it with a community that helps protect it.

[sebbysteiny]

Is that another way of saying "form a militia"?

[canadiancapitalist]

hey sebbysteiny

post more plz.

[ninurta]

Is that another way of saying "form a militia"?

Be a little cleaer, is what a way of saying "form a militia?"

A militia to guard a solar panel on a building that is huge? ummm......would a militia be necessary? there are other ways to protect it.

[sebbysteiny]

Group of 4 guys with ladders climb up to the top of the building. Unscrew the solar panels, pass them down and leave.

How would you stop that?

[SpiderMonkey]

sebbysteiny is clearly trolling. The concepts have been explained several times and yet he feigns ignorance in order to wind people up. I would stop responding.

[ninurta]

Group of 4 guys with ladders climb up to the top of the building. Unscrew the solar panels, pass them down and leave.

How would you stop that?

Its called set up technology that is already commonplace. There are many ways to do it, that is like me asking,"how do you prevent a bicycle from getting stolen in a state in a neighborhood constantly watched by police?"

I lived for a while in a crime infested city with things bigger than a solar panel, at least one that can be carried down off a roof when sealed in, get stolen. I think it may be easier since I can shoot them down, set up traps, seal them in and even keep the solar panels out of sight to begin with.

sebbysteiny is clearly trolling. The concepts have been explained several times and yet he feigns ignorance in order to wind people up. I would stop responding.

I am starting to think that too.

[sebbysteiny]

Ninurta

My understanding is that you brought up the solar panels idea because you tried to get away from the problems of nuclear power requiring a militia. However, I was demonstrating that the problem still doesn't go away. You need a militia or some other kind of force to preserve law and order.

You can't keep the solar panels out of sight because then they will not be able to reach the sun. Traps are an idea but there are two problems. First, the attackers may be aware of the traps and know how to avoid them. Second, if a kid kicks his football over the fence and tries to get it, the trap could kill the kid.

And gunning them down only works if you can out gun them. A militia, however, would ensure that you do outgun such intruders!

Infact, a militia would solve all the above problems. Go on, go for the militia approach!

Alright, lets go onto tack two. What happens if somebody decides to build a big house next to your solar panel such that it effectively blocks out the light to the solar panel? Without a planning authority, what could you do?

[ninurta]

Ninurta

My understanding is that you brought up the solar panels idea because you tried to get away from the problems of nuclear power requiring a militia.

No, I was saying that for those who do not like nuclear energy, they can use solar panels, it wasn't trying to direct away from anything.

However, I was demonstrating that the problem still doesn't go away. You need a militia or some other kind of force to preserve law and order.

That depends, and I already said why.

You can't keep the solar panels out of sight because then they will not be able to reach the sun.

Why not? putting them on a roof is the best place anyway to get sun, especially when its built in to look like a sunroof.

Traps are an idea but there are two problems. First, the attackers may be aware of the traps and know how to avoid them.

Same in a state. Also, theifs can figure out how to avoid the police. that doesn't say they will succeed. Also, that isn't anything to do with the topic at hand........... It isn't an anarchy-specific issue, it can exist in a police state.

Second, if a kid kicks his football over the fence and tries to get it, the trap could kill the kid.

Unfortunately, but there is pros and cons to everything.

And gunning them down only works if you can out gun them. A militia, however, would ensure that you do outgun such intruders!

Infact, a militia would solve all the above problems. Go on, go for the militia approach!

Okay, but there is still room for traps.

Alright, lets go onto tack two. What happens if somebody decides to build a big house next to your solar panel such that it effectively blocks out the light to the solar panel? Without a planning authority, what could you do?

You could do nothing.

Back to nuclear energy, sorry for going offtopic with the solar energy thing.

[sebbysteiny]

It seems we both got confused about what we were each saying.

Okay, nuclear power (guarded by an enormous militia).

Lets talk about health and safety. There are a number of cost saving measures that could take place that will probably amount to nothing. However, these cost saving measures could risk a nuclear meltdown. So how would you ensure the power plant is run in a sensible way using sensible technology to prevent a risk of a melt down? I'm assuming health and safety inspectors funded by the tax payer will not be your solution.

[RonPaulalways]

You accusing me of having a tantrum is laughable. You spit the dummy out ever time I bring up your forced labour camps. And your racism. And your opposition to free speech.

No it's not laughable, it actually an accurate description of your reaction to my criticisms.

And me pointing out that you're blatantly lying and making up stories about me, when you accuse me of wanting forced labor camps for poor people, supporting racism and opposing free speech of all things, is not a tantrum, it's a statement of fact.

When I criticize you, I point to your actual positions and words. When you criticize me, you make things up. You say things that are not based on reality and insist that you're not lying.

[Figlio di Moros]

It seems we both got confused about what we were each saying.

Okay, nuclear power (guarded by an enormous militia).

Lets talk about health and safety. There are a number of cost saving measures that could take place that will probably amount to nothing. However, these cost saving measures could risk a nuclear meltdown. So how would you ensure the power plant is run in a sensible way using sensible technology to prevent a risk of a melt down? I'm assuming health and safety inspectors funded by the tax payer will not be your solution.

We already discussed this in the beginning of the thread; no modern plant is at risk of exploding. There might be a number of unlikely events which might be bad, but proper maintanence and watch-standing prevent that.

[sebbysteiny]

Figlio

How can you ensure that all nuclear reactors will use more expensive but safer modern technology? Also, how can you ensure that the nuclear power plant will be properly maintained and that proper watch-standing will take place?