Backpedaling, are you? Are you against regulations which would prevent others from keeping slaves on their own property?
Oh, and your earlier comments about animals having no rights is repugnant. Especially in light of how you feel about slavery.
I haven't backpedaled once since I started posting in this forum. I dare you to find one instance of it. I might even consider a bitcoin bounty just to make my point. There is no absolutely zero similarity with ownership of animals and slavery. None. Animals don't have rights. Slavery applies to humans, period. Keeping slaves is not a regulatory issue as it already falls under the NAP. Don't twist my words. Don't put words in my mouth either. |
|
|
|
Then we are in agreement. Any system will suffer from regulatory capture [except libertarian]. All you can do is mistrust every regulatory institution. Good governance requires a cynical public  Don't forget the Libs. I mistrust everyone who doesn't agree with the NAP in principle. Libertarianism is only a stepping stone to dictatorship so not really worth taking seriously. Try doing your homework before you respond. True libertarianism cannot possibly lead to dictatorship. Epic fail. |
|
|
|
You're really behind the times. Even in the 18th century, forward thinkers would be in disagreement with you.
You mean the same ones that believed and practiced slavery?
Actually, no. I refer to John Quincy Adams.
Supply a reference quote. |
|
|
|
You don't have the right to tell people what they "should" do. Torture of animals is repugnant - if that's what you are doing then you forfeit your right to have an animal.
Exactly my point: you don't have a right to tell people what the should do with their person or things. Torture of animals is repugnant. Duh. I wouldn't do it. If I were to sell a dog to another individual, I would sell the dog with the caveat that they not torture it; and if they broke contract, they must pay a fine and return the animal. Idiot... Think it thru. Use your imagination, trust me, it's refreshing. Try it sometime. I promise it won't hurt. |
|
|
|
But you are human and you don't have the right to torture dogs. Your right to own a dog was given to you by society subject to your not torturing it. Parliament is the voice of the people and people do care about cruelty to animals so parliament will either care or its members will be sacked.
“Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another… It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man.” --Thomas Paine I could care less about the voice of the people or parliament. I care about the principles, concepts and logic of law, specifically those originating with the NAP and expounding from there. Break those laws and I'm not listening to you. |
|
|
|
Why bother? There are plenty Acts of Parliament that do that.
Why should parliament care about what I do with my dog anymore than they do with my kitchen table? Remember it's just an animal, it's not human. Big difference. You're really behind the times. Even in the 18th century, forward thinkers would be in disagreement with you. You mean the same ones that believed and practiced slavery? |
|
|
|
Animal torture is different from dining table torture. Cut the legs of your dining table if you want to make it shorter. Nobody cares. If you want to cut the legs of your dog to make him shorter, people will care. I'm surprised others need to point out the extreme differences between owing a dining table and owning a dog.
Torture should only apply to humans, not animals, otherwise you could arbitrarily confiscate my property. Stop playing the animal torture card, it's annoying. Seriously? Damn serious. |
|
|
|
Then we are in agreement. Any system will suffer from regulatory capture [except libertarian]. All you can do is mistrust every regulatory institution. Good governance requires a cynical public Don't forget the Libs. I mistrust everyone who doesn't agree with the NAP in principle. |
|
|
|
Animal torture is different from dining table torture. Cut the legs of your dining table if you want to make it shorter. Nobody cares. If you want to cut the legs of your dog to make him shorter, people will care. I'm surprised others need to point out the extreme differences between owing a dining table and owning a dog.
Torture should only apply to humans, not animals, otherwise you could arbitrarily confiscate my property. Stop playing the animal torture card, it's annoying. |
|
|
|
Why bother? There are plenty Acts of Parliament that do that.
Why should parliament care about what I do with my dog anymore than they do with my kitchen table? Remember it's just an animal, it's not human. Big difference. |
|
|
|
Move to Syria then - a violent minority runs the place, they kill all who protest and you'd love it.
Personally I think the castration and killing of opponents is distasteful but if that is your ideal, get on the plane to Damascus asap.
No they aren't minorities. There are a majority of violent individuals operating as gangs in small groups. Not the same. Never said violence was ideal, just easier to deal with when it occurs in smaller numbers. |
|
|
|
Nope. If you are going to be cruel to the dog, you will have it taken off you. You don't have a right to gratuitously torture animals.
Define animal torture. |
|
|
|
Wrong. Demonstrate how they're the same. As an example, demonstrate how, because you handed Joe ten one hundred dollar bills in exchange for Rover, you are under the belief that such an act accords you the exact same rights as handing Sally ten one hundred dollar bills for her refrigerator.
Because both types of objects (even though one is biological) were sold to me as-is. Therefore I have every right to utilize them as I please (the exception being if they were human). More generally, you engage in act A with Joe, and he engages in act B with you. You engage in act A with Sally, and she engages in act C with you. Now, independent of act A in either case, your life is now affected by both acts B and C, which are radically different.
You're being way too vague and abstract here. I'll ask you again. Honestly, do you really think you can buy the rights to redistribute 'True Grit' for $20? Or, do you really think anybody would sell you the rights to redistribute 'True Grit' for $20?
And since your current answer is so bizarre, please tell me why a filmmaker would sell you distribution rights for $20.
Sure why not? Depends on what the contract would say. Oh and by the by, there is no such thing as "right to redistribute" (unless you're first-owner under a exchange contract, but that would be a "right to distribute", not a "right to redistribute"). Any supposed "agreement" beyond initial distribution or exchange, would be binding a third party to a contract he didn't agree to. Don't tell me I don't understand "copyright" laws, I do. I just don't think they are appropriate legal constructs because they violate contract and induce theft. Ya know, a pretty basic concept if you apply a modicum of thought to it. |
|
|
|
I agree. In fact in Italy and in Boston, sometimes the mafia has effectively won elections and used taxation coupled with corruption as an easy alternative to intimidation. But the fact that a violent minority uses force does not mean that the peaceful majority should not use force. In a democracy, if you break the law you do tend to find that people turn against you and punishment comes along. The alternative is surrender to the violent minority.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barron's cruelty sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --C.S. Lewis I'll take the violent minority any day of the week. It's definitely better than the alternative. |
|
|
|
So you're saying that you can make it illegal to read something? Sadly, Fred, you're the one who doesn't understand copyright law. It all boils down to ownership laws. Owning a sofa is not like owning land which is not like owning a dog which is not like owning a DVD which is decidedly not like owning rights to redistribute a movie.
Wrong, owning a sofa is exactly like owning land (except mobility), like owning a dog, like owning a DVD. Making IP laws, dog laws and DVD laws different distorts the meaning and interpretation of property and makes it inconsistent in its utility and logical construction. Because you guys are so in love with the concept of contract, it seems that some of us are forced to put everything in terms of contracts. You might own the plastic that is the DVD, but you don't own 'True Grit'. 'True Grit' the movie was not sold to you when you went to Walmart and bought it.
Honestly, do you really think you can buy the rights to redistribute 'True Grit' for $20? Or, do you really think anybody would sell you the rights to redistribute 'True Grit' for $20?
Yes that's exactly what we want. Contracts are exclusively between consenting non-coerced men, not consenting men and coercive legislators. That too is logically and materially inconsistent with the definition of contract. A piece of plastic was sold to you, which you now own. You are free to watch it, break it, give it to your friend, etc. When you bought the DVD, you paid for the plastic DVD, but not the data. I think somehow, somewhere, you got misled into thinking you are buying ownership rights to a movie when you buy a DVD. Why that is, I don't know. If you need a simplistic example, think of the DVD as being like a condo. When you buy a condo, you own the space inside the condo, various fixtures, etc., but you don't own what's inside the walls, although you're granted the right to benefit from them.
You've been offered a convenience when you buy a DVD. Nobody is required to sell you rights to redistribute a movie for $20.
If a "piece of plastic" was sold to me, and there was a contract proffered (visible and known) with consideration, that I signed to (binding only upon me), and it specified an explicit use or forbearance thereof of said piece of plastic, then I, and only I, am bound to those covenants. Otherwise, I own that plastic and every material aspect of it in perpetuity. I would have every right to destroy, copy, modify and exchange that item at any time, and with any person. No law(maker) should ever intercede between men and their contracts, except and unless there is a breach of the terms and arbitration is needed to resolve the materials or services in question. |
|
|
|
Small local militias will disappear when in combat with proper armies backed by foreign states. So if you don't have a nation state military with control over the territory of your nation state, your terroty becomes a warfield. Each battle will reduce the number of militias by at least one and eventually only one military force will be left. You can call that remaining force the government as they own you.
While I don't like a monopoly on force, I kind of see your point. Nation-states would probably collectively force their citizens to contribute to WMDs and other similar mass extinction superiorly efficient (one to many) types of weapons. They, in fact, already do this of course. Would a society of libertarians be cooperative enough to work together and match in a tit-for-tat, a struggle for mutually assured destruction game-play that other nation-states engage in? The real question is: would libertarian societies be able to survive in a sea of collective-force nation-states using competitive enforcement agencies, if their lands were significantly rich enough in resources (a worthwhile target)? Or would a libertarian society be able to match force for force, weapon for weapon, combine militias and armies in a united manner to effectively defend against a nation-state's invading army all without violating their charter? |
|
|
|
If MoonShadow can effectively demonstrate in court that he was not aware of any such contract, then he shouldn't have any problems. Tell me, is MoonShadow not aware of any such contract? A jury will decide. If it can be demonstrated that he has watched DVD movies sometime in his life, seen the FBI warning on the screen, purchased any DVD in the past, and in general, didn't crawl out from a underneath a rock yesterday, the jury might not be convinced. It's not complex. MoonShadow needs to convince the court he's not lying when he says he was not aware of any contract. Can he do that? It's a court case, and you libertarians admit that in your libertarian world, there will still be courts, and there will still be a need to convince others the real truth of the matter. So there is no real difference there.
This thread would probably serve as evidence that you and MoonShadow are indeed aware of the laws.
Being aware of a law/contract does not a just law/contract make. See below. So let me ask you this. This new and creative form of contract seems like it could be taken advantage of. There's the shrink-wrapped version of it, the law-warning version of it, and the copyright-notice version of it. Given the above "contract" styles, I'm going to try a little experiment. I'm going to rent a billboard, and on that billboard I'm going to write a message, but before the message I'm going to list the copyright notice, and a warning. The billboard will essentially say this, "Anyone reading this billboard without the prior permission of the copyright holder owes the owner $10,000." Now given that one need only be "aware of", "unwraps" or gives "warning" regarding the message, that contract should be valid. I should be able to legally collect fees. I think you have no idea what a contract is. |
|
|
|
Um no. Its a civil action so there is no prospect of jail.
Let me guess, if I were to resist the civil action, you tell me what would happen eventually. Sure it may be civil, but if I never show up in court, they will attempt to confiscate my property, and if I resist that, they will attempt to arrest me, and if I resist that, I could very well get a bullet in the head. Yes, all laws that are enforced will lead to dire circumstances given enough resistance. That's the nature of law. “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master! It is an instrument of force and unless our conscience is clear that we would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail or forcibly deprive him of his property for failing to obey a given law, we should oppose it.” --George Washington |
|
|
|
Given that all religions allow slavery, I don't see where you get the notion that that there has always moral opposition to it. Please substantiate.
False and unsubstantiated. Straw man. |
|
|
|
|
Here's a simple way of looking at it,
If you take your property/materials that are currently in your possession (involving no other person) and make an exact replica of somebody else's stuff, and no one (other than yourself) could ever become aware of that act, you have committed no unlawful crime.
To wit, how could anybody commit a crime in solitude, but then become criminal via mere public exposure?
Knowledge is a dangerous thing I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
