Richard Prosser wrote:
> There's also the factor that once rules are written, then loopholes
> allows one to work within the rulebook while breaking the intent. But
> making the rule too general can create other unintended results! And,
> as noted above, adding new rules to specifically close loopholes can
> make the overall situation worse.
>
> Hence, a "belevolent dictatorship" can be a very effective method of
> control.  Except .......

We have it already: our FDAs, OSHAs, EPAs, FCCs, etc regulators have=20
czar-like powers. And every time they mess up, they are given even greater=
=20
powers -- it's a viscious cycle.

Soviet inspectors had even greater powers, but they still got Chernobyl.=20
There is a paper trail of violations going back several years before the=20
accident, some of the reports signed by the then-KGB chief Andropov.

We don't need more regulation or oversight, we need more direct=20
responsibility. Private ownership combined with unlimited liability=20
(regardless of the cause of the accident), would provide the proper=20
incentives to locate, design, build, protect, and operate the power plant i=
n=20
the safest possible manner. And get us electricity almost too cheap to=20
meter. :)

Vitaliy=20

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.