adam@npois.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) (06/10/85)
Bob, You write: >Weighing all the effects of government intervention (including effects >on insurance rates) for the nuclear power industry and comparing them >with similar effects on alternative energy sources, I believe that the >nuclear power industry would do very well in a laissez-faire market. >(For factual material written in a style pleasing to many readers of >net.politics, I highly recommend Petr Beckmann's *The Health Hazard of >NOT Going Nuclear*, $5.95 from The Golem Press, Box 1342, Boulder, CO 80306) It so happens that I agree with Beckmann about the relative safety and economics of nuclear and conventional power. Beckmann's book is fun to read and, if one has enough background in engineering to evaluate his arguments rationally, completely convincing. I, for one, would much rather live next to a nuclear power plant than next to a coal-fired one. This does not, however, mean that nuclear power plants would not be even safer if it were not for government intervention. Unfortunately, Beckmann is far less perspicacious in politics than in engineering. If the government says that Project X is "good for technology", then Beckmann immediately begins to blast all who oppose Project X as "enemies of technology". Me, I tend to take any claim that some government action or other is "good for technology" with the proverbial grain of salt. >Let me be more clear what it is about Libertarian statements on nuclear >power that bothers me. These statements imply that the nuclear power >industry is propped up by government intervention and that if you are >opposed to nuclear power, you should be opposed to government intervention, >hence pro-Libertarian. I disagree with the contents of this argument >and its tactics. > >When I look at the anti-nuclear power movement, I do not see potential >converts to capitalism; the movement is consistently asking for more >government intervention and consistently arguing from collectivist premises. >Even it were true that nuclear power is a dangerous evil forced on us >by the state, the "no-nukes" make strange allies for a movement that derives >its name from liberty. Since the libertarian movement is a political coalition, whose members often disagree about everything except the political goal of ending the coercive activities of governments, statements made by different members of the libertarian movement are often in disagreement. Beckmann has also published articles in Libertarian magazines, making the point that nuclear power would grow even faster in a free market. I agree that anyone who thinks the end of government intervention would be bad for the nuclear power industry is a fool. But then, as Edward Teller has aptly observed, our political system gives to a fool the same number of votes it gives to a genius.... Adam Reed ihnp4!npois!adam