And once you've solved that equation, you might want to consider this number as well: 2^43,486,543,900,000,000,000.
That's a really big number. And your arguments need to address the size of that number.
2^43,486,543,900,000,000,000 + 1 My number is bigger. And Rassah, I see you're online. Feel free to address the posts I made a week or more ago. |
|
|
|
Fred,
I take it you haven't read the short story "The Library of Babel"? Tell me now, did you see "Pride and Prejudice" starring Keira Knightley? What's significant about these two products, and why do they essentially make your points pointless? Furthermore, why haven't you addressed my latest posts in this thread?
Even if I did read it, it wouldn't change my mind. I've read enough about the basic principles, concepts and purpose of law that any book written about it (if that's what your referring to), would change my mind. If you can't actually address even some of the content written by someone else, then how possibly can you believe that anything you write is relevant? The Library of Babel is hardly a book on law. And incidentally, a book on law would be irrelevant in the absence of a universe to apply knowledge of law to. Here is a synopsis of The Library of Babel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel |
|
|
|
|
And once you've solved that equation, you might want to consider this number as well: 2^43,486,543,900,000,000,000.
That's a really big number. And your arguments need to address the size of that number.
|
|
|
|
Fred,
I take it you haven't read the short story "The Library of Babel"? Tell me now, did you see "Pride and Prejudice" starring Keira Knightley? What's significant about these two products, and why do they essentially make your points pointless? Furthermore, why haven't you addressed my latest posts in this thread?
Been vacationing. Politicking gets tiring after awhile. Well, that answered the question in the last sentence. What about the rest of my post? And one more thing: what is 2^24 * 5,000 * 3,000 * 24 * 60 * 120? EDIT: changed the equation so that the large number is not a denominator. |
|
|
|
|
Fred,
I take it you haven't read the short story "The Library of Babel"? Tell me now, did you see "Pride and Prejudice" starring Keira Knightley? What's significant about these two products, and why do they essentially make your points pointless? Furthermore, why haven't you addressed my latest posts in this thread?
|
|
|
|
No need to get down on yourself. You'll learn some day. Was it you who was quoting stuff from the Heartland Institute? If so, that's already been covered in another thread. |
|
|
|
Some one (^) hasn't turned on a TV or read the news in a few days.
I don't think an attack is going to happen. It doesn't make sense right now. On a side note just for you: anthropogenic global warming is happening though. |
|
|
|
So, when you own a dog, I assume that you own his skull and his brain inside the skull as well? Do you agree with this? By virtue of you owning the dog's brain, you then own the synaptic weights of the dog's brain as well? Correct?
Yes, I guess? Not sure where you're going with this. How is me owning the dog with the brain inside different from me owning a couch with the stuffing inside, or a friedge with the shelves inside? You guess? Please recall, that it is you who wish to be very precise about property rights and what that entails, as it seems to be fundamental to your belief system. So let's not guess. Please answer with conviction. If you are the owner of the dog, are you the owner of the synaptic weights that exist inside the dog's brain? |
|
|
|
Final question, do I still maintain property rights to my parcel of land if all the roads encircling my property are owned by some single individual?
Plenty of examples of this is real life. Just means you have an easment contract with the road owner, or own a helipad. Two different questions (try not to confuse them): So, when you own a dog, I assume that you own his skull and his brain inside the skull as well? Do you agree with this? By virtue of you owning the dog's brain, you then own the synaptic weights of the dog's brain as well? Correct? Let's say I sell you a black cube, 3" on a side with 1/4" thick walls. Inside the black cube is a white cube, 2 1/2" on a side, with 1/4" thick walls. Although I have sold you the black cube, I have specifically stated that the sale does not grant you ownership of the white cube or its contents. However, by virtue of taking possession of the black cube, I give you permission to transport the white cube where you wish, but I do not give you permission to inspect the contents of the white cube, as it is my property. Do you have any disagreement with this? I have effectively granted ownership to you only the mass and volume of the black 1/4" thick shell. If I have agreed to these terms, then that's fine. But I haven't. I paid for the black box with the functionality of the white box, and did not agree to your terms concerning the white box. Or, alternatively, I did but the guy I sold it to second hand certainly did not. If I agreed not to resell it, or to only resale it under the same terms, then you have a contract beef with me; but not with the next owner. Your business secret is gone. IP is the attempt to assert control on the next guy, which is the problem because he had no arrangement with you and whatever agreement you had between yourself and me is our problem. You can claim that the idea is your property all you like, but it's not. It's just data, information that allows the black box device to operate in a particular manner. If the next guy has the means to replicate the white box, you have no honest claim on what he does. IP is all about creating a monopoly on that data, but it cannot exist without the force of government. What you refuse to acknowledge is the gun that is in the room, and that it may grant you the ability to compel others to your will but it cannot grant you the right. It's really not clear to me why you're discussing IP and data. We were discussing a black cube and white cube inside. If you did not agree to the terms, then it was not sold to you. If you did agree to the terms, then you are the owner of the black cube, but not the white cube inside. As for selling it to someone else, you can only sell what you own - the black cube. Transfer of ownership of the black cube to another still leaves me the owner of the white cube. When you sell property, it's important that you make very clear what you are selling. For example, when the owner of the road sells to another, he must make clear that the sale only includes the road, and not the parcel of land that the road surrounds. Are these terms not clear? |
|
|
|
Final question, do I still maintain property rights to my parcel of land if all the roads encircling my property are owned by some single individual?
Plenty of examples of this is real life. Just means you have an easment contract with the road owner, or own a helipad. Two different questions (try not to confuse them): So, when you own a dog, I assume that you own his skull and his brain inside the skull as well? Do you agree with this? By virtue of you owning the dog's brain, you then own the synaptic weights of the dog's brain as well? Correct? Let's say I sell you a black cube, 3" on a side with 1/4" thick walls. Inside the black cube is a white cube, 2 1/2" on a side, with 1/4" thick walls. Although I have sold you the black cube, I have specifically stated that the sale does not grant you ownership of the white cube or its contents. However, by virtue of taking possession of the black cube, I give you permission to transport the white cube where you wish, but I do not give you permission to inspect the contents of the white cube, as it is my property. Do you have any disagreement with this? I have effectively granted ownership to you only the mass and volume of the black 1/4" thick shell. |
|
|
|
So yes, this topic is done, because you can't come up with an argument for IP that isn't also an argument for slavery, and I think that is fucking sick.
Can you do with my property as you wish? No. I see where you're going with this, but just because it's called intellectual property doesn't make it the same as property. Just as me calling you human property does not make you the same as actual property. Where am I going with it? Also, were you right there with everyone else when I said owning a sofa is not like owning a dog which is not like owning land, and so on? Because, it appears that you're now conveniently stating that some property is not like other property. Final question, do I still maintain property rights to my parcel of land if all the roads encircling my property are owned by some single individual? Finally, answer my original question in my prior post. Assume it's not intellectual property, but physical property. |
|
|
|
So yes, this topic is done, because you can't come up with an argument for IP that isn't also an argument for slavery, and I think that is fucking sick.
Can you do with my property as you wish? |
|
|
|
Being forced or sold into sex is not a decision the child him/herself makes, and is not right regardless of vhe age. This is a straw an that goes completely against everything libertarianis, and the whole idea of rights, stand for.
I don't think society should ever intervene if the decision was not coerced. And should always try to intervene if anything is coerced.
If little Tommy learns how to give blowjobs, and uses that to make some extra income for himself, I personally don't see that as being worse that little Tommy going around cutting peoples lawns with a lawnmower to make extra cash. Both jobs are dangerous, one just has a stupid sexual taboo associated with it.
Where do you think little Tommy should get his rights from, and why is him wanting to make money by giving blowjobs not a right he is allowed to have, if he does it willingly, consentually, and safely?
The question was about little Tommy's parents selling his services. |
|
|
|
I have a right to use my own property, including data I bought and paid for, in any way that I choose.
So much here to discuss. Maybe later. But for now, why are you under the opinion that you bought and paid for the data on a cinematic DVD when you walked out of Walmart with the 'True Grit' DVD in your bag? This is what I don't get about you libertarians. You make these assumptions to support your views. You paid for a piece of plastic which affords you the ability to use the data on the DVD which represents 'True Grit', which you do not own. Let's say I sell you a cage, and inside the cage is a parrot which will entertain you while you own the cage. Just because you bought the cage (a necessary item to transport the bird), does not mean you bought the bird. The bird is only provided to you for certain use provided you buy the cage. Let's be clear. The parties involved in making the movie did not sell you their movie. They sold you a vessel which contains their data, which they still own and retain rights to. So many assumptions on your part, and so many erroneous conclusions. By the way, I can think of a way that you can legally own the data of all movies. Build your own Library of Babel, as in the short story by Jorge Luis Borges. But as soon as you understand that story, you'll then realize why the movie is valued to the point that you can never own it in the sense that you assume you can by purchasing the DVD. |
|
|
|
Though, granted, since you guys still don't even have a concept of "person," or understanding on where rights actually come from or what foundation they are built on, it's no surprise you keep confusing things.
Oh. Okay. I'll keep that in mind while you continue to defend the rights of a person to maim animals. See? Like I said, you have no idea what rights even are. Take your head out of your latest libertarian book for a change, read up on the issue, and get back to me. |
|
|
|
"Before you respond, I realize that you cannot imagine any alternatives to killing people in libertarian land for not abiding by your contracts. It's not your fault, it's the way you were brought up."
If you insist, I will do the hard thinking for you. Reputation. Shunning. No murder necessary. Until you catch the guy, you don't know who he is. If you let him go (because you didn't catch him), he'll just move onto another territory. You might want to try catching him. How are you going to do that? |
|
|
|
The animals are not accorded any rights any more than an owned couch is accorded any rights...
Well, in your idealized world, yes. But here in the real world, there are plenty of laws and regulations to ensure animals' safety, well being, survival, prevent abuse, etc. Not nearly enough, but as society matures, the trend is to increase the rights of animals, not decrease them. Read up on the subject. Your way of thinking is a step backwards. Those are "laws" and "regulations," not rights. You can't give someone rights by law. You can only take them away. You're right about the terminology. Cutting off shark fins and tossing the shark back into the water is quite definitely a taking the rights of the shark away. Though, granted, since you guys still don't even have a concept of "person," or understanding on where rights actually come from or what foundation they are built on, it's no surprise you keep confusing things.
Oh. Okay. I'll keep that in mind while you continue to defend the rights of a person to maim animals. |
|
|
|
They've also been extraordinarily successful with regard to eradicating drugs, protecting the environment, curing disease, and bringing the world out of poverty...
In some cases, yes. Your idealized world has no track record at all with regard to the matters, to be honest. It's fun for you to speculate though. Track record: USA has very strict laws on underage drinking. Result? Binge drinking, alcohol poisoning, drinking just to get drunk, and general alcoholism issues. Italy has practically no restrictions on alcohol for minors. Result? Drinking is something done socially and responsibly, getting drunk is considered embarassing and a sign of weakness or lack of control. Alcohol abuse is very rare. Totally agree. And it doesn't change anything I said about animals, property rights, poaching, etc. |
|
|
|
I was referring to the institutionalized, "because you didn't pay a fine" type of murder. The kind you call justice.
I don't consider murder to be the penalty for shark finning. Nor do I consider auto fatalities to be the penalty for driving dangerously, but there are on occasion consequences to actions. As for justice in libertarian land, you still have failed to acknowledge that in pursuit of justice regarding property rights violations, murder will happen as well. I suppose I could say something like the following to you, but I try not to be a hypocrite: "Before you respond, I realize that you cannot imagine any alternatives to killing people in libertarian land for not abiding by your contracts. It's not your fault, it's the way you were brought up." |
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with shark finning, unless someone already owns the sharks.
So an animal (a shark, dog, etc.) is accorded the right to different treatment depending on whether it is owned or not by the one mistreating the animal? Yes. Can a shark or dog respect your rights? No, they don't know any better. I believe rights can only be afforded where reciprocal behavior is possible. An arbitrary belief on your part. Show me that your belief is less arbitrary. At least mine does not justify murder. Murder will not go away in your libertarian land. Disputes due to property rights will result in murder from time to time. Please don't tell me that you believe this to not be the case. Your belief about rights is restrictive to Homo sapiens sapiens. Even if we accept this restriction (and there really is no need to do so), we can still show that destroying sharks for shark fins is a violation of human rights, for do not humans have the right to live in a world that is rich with life, diversity, and filled with productive and balanced ecosystems which will continue to sustain us? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
