Talk-Polywell.org

Interesting video from Bill Whittle.
How the Progressives stole the future:
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2907

h/t Msimon

Jccarlton wrote:h/t Msimon

Thanks!

It's sad to see conservatives so defeated, especially when nothing has particularly changed.

I mean, you can see that the US is doing nothing with regards to COP15, so there's no need to sit back and cry and worry about AGW hurting our economy. If anything loan guarantees are allowing new entrepreneurs to get into the business of renewable energy (something that a few dozen individuals could not do with regards to nuclear fission). In Colorado if you can produce more than 250 MW of energy you can be your own private electrical provider (and I think this goes for many states). I myself am considering wind turbines or concentrated solar (ideal for the clear skies here).

Meanwhile anti-state progressives like myself find Obama's policies the harbinger of capitalism (forcing people to pay money so they can get for profit / privatized health care? What a joke). More of the same.

Josh,

Brits are getting hit hard for shutting down coal fired plants:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy ... inues.html

I have some thoughts about that here:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... a-and.html

And the EPA may take up CO2 regulation. It is not over yet.

And every one hates the health care bill:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2 ... msher.html

BTW I'd be interested in how anti-state socialism (progressive) works. Are you proposing voluntary adherence? Where I come from it used to be called charity (conservatives give more and yeah I can give lots of links).

I'm all for making mutual help voluntary. It will be done better and more efficiently.

Anarchism (the original kind). Yes, essentially mutualism or some variants of voluntarism. (Not to be confused for that aberration called "anarcho-capitalism.")

Josh Cryer wrote:Anarchism (the original kind). Yes, essentially mutualism or some variants of voluntarism. (Not to be confused for that aberration called "anarcho-capitalism.")

The anarchist always get co-opted by the Stalinist, the fascists, etc.

We are safer with limited government and laws protecting property. What a man owns he takes care of.

Josh Cryer wrote:It's sad to see conservatives so defeated, especially when nothing has particularly changed.

I mean, you can see that the US is doing nothing with regards to COP15, so there's no need to sit back and cry and worry about AGW hurting our economy. If anything loan guarantees are allowing new entrepreneurs to get into the business of renewable energy (something that a few dozen individuals could not do with regards to nuclear fission). In Colorado if you can produce more than 250 MW of energy you can be your own private electrical provider (and I think this goes for many states). I myself am considering wind turbines or concentrated solar (ideal for the clear skies here).

Meanwhile anti-state progressives like myself find Obama's policies the harbinger of capitalism (forcing people to pay money so they can get for profit / privatized health care? What a joke). More of the same.

Anti State progressivism is an oxymron. The essence of progressivism is to use the state and statist prinicples to achieve their ends. Without the power and terror of the state, progressivism is toothless tiger. As for the so called alternative enegy schemes, you cannot power an industrial society on wind and solar. The laws of thermodynamics and physics always work against you. The funny thing is that some nuclear reactor concepts are actually quite small and a few people could get together to fund one if they changed the regulatory environment. One of the tools progressives used to destroy the free market and the hope for the future, decade after decade.

MSimon,

The anarchist always get co-opted by the Stalinist, the fascists, etc.

We are safer with limited government and laws protecting property. What a man owns he takes care of.

You are using a website paid for by someone else, with software written by many others. Basic anarchism right there. Private property can be maintained through collective will, ie, I trust you won't delete my posts, and I behave civilized here. Distinct from laws which are agreements which I never agreed to.

This discussion probably belongs in the post-scarcity thread, though.



Jccarlton, you need a history lesson. At least MSimon knows the history here (the anarchists, original kind, were in fact raped by the statists).

I can build wind turbines with a small coop of guys, we sell 'em for $5 mil a pop and make a dozen a year. Quite dooable, and could get really rich off of it. You ain't doing that with a nuclear power plant in a million years. Sure, non-proliferation has a lot to do with it, but if the 9/11 attackers had easily acquired uranium, I'm sure that the outcome would have been a lot worse. Even anarchists would be against proliferation (from a POV of free association; sanctions; I don't trust you I don't give you nukes, etc). And let's be honest here, the capital required to get a nuke plant up, even a small one, is going to be many orders of magnitude higher than a few wind turbines (yes I realize the nuclear plant produces more power, the point is that it's not for the little guy).

Josh Cryer wrote: I can build wind turbines with a small coop of guys, we sell 'em for $5 mil a pop and make a dozen a year. Quite dooable, and could get really rich off of it. You ain't doing that with a nuclear power plant in a million years.

I may be mistaken about this, but hasn't there been recent news that the market for Wind Turbines is only viable because of tax write offs and government subsidies/grants ?

If this is true then the economic viability is artificial and temporary.

Government loan guarantees, yes. The loans get repaid. But it's composed of a surprising number of startups.

Jccarlton wrote:As for the so called alternative enegy schemes, you cannot power an industrial society on wind and solar. The laws of thermodynamics and physics always work against you.

With current technology, perhaps, but why do you think this is generally true?

You are using a website paid for by someone else, with software written by many others.

And if you know your history this web site came about because NASA Spaceflight was not doing the job. And why wasn't it doing the job? A group of activists had been working since Nov. of 2006 to get Polywell on the map.

I call it the great Polywell Inflation of the Summer of 2007. There were about 5 or 8 efforts going on then. What survived? This board. The Yahoo group and the IEC Fusion blog. I am just now starting to see a number of new efforts. A number have come and gone since then.

Basic anarchism right there. Private property can be maintained through collective will,

Nice theory. We don't actually see that. Common property is not treated as well as private property. See Garrett Hardin and the Tragedy of the Commons.

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/art ... mmons.html

The incentives are wrong.

===

The deal is I used to be an anarcho-communist a very long time ago. Then I looked at actuals vs promises.

The ACs delivered the opposite of what they promised not to mention the piles of dead bodies from socialism: Stalin, Mao, and the Austrian Corporal.

I used to be you Josh. I know where you are coming from and I know it from the inside.

===

BTW this www site is not maintained by collective will. Joe pays for the upkeep and I take care of day to day operations. We are both oriented towards the light hand. That does not mean no hand.

And if you screw up bad enough (that takes some very serious effort) we will ban your @$$. Private property in action.

Look at the mess at wiki from having every one in charge - war of the words.

The USA was founded on the idea of ordered liberty. A set of limited rules and otherwise you can go about your business.

I do not think no rules works well. You get the anarchos breaking things and stealing as much as they can if they feel they have been wronged.

MSimon wrote:Common property is not treated as well as private property. See Garrett Hardin and the Tragedy of the Commons.

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/art ... mmons.html

The incentives are wrong.

The 2009 Nobel Prize for Economics was awarded for the solution to this:

The Nobel jury at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm cited Prof Ostrom "for her analysis of economic governance" saying her work had demonstrated how common property can be successfully managed by groups using it.

Nobel-prize-for-economics-Elinor-Ostrom-and-Oliver-Williamson