Obviously I am talking about an airport that was built AFTER you moved in. I am not talking about noise either. Noise is a physical harm to property and it violates NAP directly. I am talking about risk.
In real life, do you really see a community peacefully accepting the new presence of a nuclear reactor without demanding the owner at least to see what’s inside? I’m pretty sure people will be worried about a potential meltdown or some other catastrophe. The house prices in the community will drop drastically even if the nuclear plant is regulated as hell, imagine what will happen when no one even has the right to look inside and see what safety measures were taken.
Can you cite where a nuclear power plant was built next to a community (besides The Simpsons)? Even at that you don’t think people who live in the community or city would protest such construction? 3 or so years ago there was going to be a power plant built on the outskirts of Portsmouth (I do not remember what kind specifically, but was not nuclear - though it was something I was actually interested in), and the people gathered and city decided against it. Thus, I suppose this wraps up your argument that if someone wants to build a power plant near a community, the community can simply not allow it, and there you have it, empirical evidence to counter your hypothetical situations. There are things known as zoning codes, etc., cities generally have these in regards to building structures and utilities, and they keep things in accordance with safety codes, etc. This does not consent to your original post, which was that people should be entitled to some form of safety from risk, I’m merely hitting the mark that people can (on their own will) accept or deny certain measures in regards to their local environment, or in other terms protest and boycott certain things. If people feel this new type of power plant might help the community and economy, then they’ll allow it’s construction, and may feel the risk is not as great as one thinks, and yourself believes the risk is too great, but the risk is only a subjective value for yourself, you see the risk greater than the outcome.
If you actually read what I linked you you’ll understand how insurance companies will come into this equation, and that insurance companies themselves can set their own codes and regulations to make sure it’s subscribers are safe and will reduce the amount of potential risk, crime and otherwise. If insurance companies see the power plant as being risky, they may see that it is highly regulated as far as safety goes, but no one is entitled to insurance, and it’s a service people voluntary pay for.
I don’t understand how you suggest that either the people in the community or the insurance company stops the nuclear plant? By using force? By the way a nuclear plan doesn’t have to be right next to your home, even a distance of 500 kms is deadly if there is a meltdown.
And I am not saying nuclear plants should be stopped, but merely minimally regulated.
And I am not saying nuclear plants should be stopped, but merely minimally regulated.
The owners of a nuclear power plant are “self-regulated” in a free market, in the sense that they have strong incentives to operate the plant safely, because they don’t want to be liable for torts caused by accidents.
If the threat of liability ensures that the owners of the plant want to operate the plant safely, there’s still the question of whether they are capable of operating the plant safely. Who is more likely to know how to run the plant safely: (a) a professional nuclear power plant manager who the shareholders have hired at their own expense for the express purpose of running the plant safely, or (b) some Dept. of Energy regulator?