|
Gold(en) Will be the tombstone.
|
|
|
|
I said that each nation on this planet does what it wants, mostly, and it's hard to get a supervising authority that regulates (the UN?) effectively, since each nation does what it wants, except when coerced or ganged up on by others. If you think of each nation as an individual or a business which owns property, then you have the exact model of libertarianism. The population within any given nation generally operates under house rules (i.e. a household) - one nation (or nations) generally can't tell another nation how to run their own household or tell them what to do on their land.
The world is kind of fucked up. Look no further than that to understand libertarianism.
As for your links, it appears that laws guided by regulation within the given nation aided in catching the uranium smugglers. Is something wrong with that?
And every country should do as it wants . UN/US/France/etc. should not interfere because they are SOVEREIGN and the people there are responsible for their well/worst governance. And every country is responsible for it's own citizens. EVEN when you go free the Libyans or the Yugoslavians you are practicing aggression on a sovereign state. Let me ask you this: If for example USA would end up in a revolution now. A real revolution that would have proof that it can change the country for the better , it succeeds but the supporters of the past governance are heavily affected by the reform and revolt violently. What should the government do? Fight? Then should China/Iran/other choose parts ? And if they do which should they choose? Or should they just start bombing the government forces because it represses it's own citizens? OR should the new, better government just give up the power? I think they should stay put. And i think the revolutionaries should just fight the system from within not revolt. You revolt , you accept the risk , you are repressed you find ways to fight overtly , from within , You can't expect any government or power pillar to just give up it's grips without a fight , and it shouldn't give up without a fight. And no the law didn't aided in catching the uranium smugglers PEOPLE DID . The law is just words on a paper. If you obey it or not , or enforce it or not is purely a choice , you make base on your moral values , religious beliefs , scientific believes/proofs , etc. You can continue to believe in the power of law , but always remember there are some , that don't , and then we go back to the only law that counts survival of the fittest/smartest/richest. I'm not against law (agreement to use force) , but regulations that give birth to monopolies , or support failing business models , or save failing business , or repress "thieves" that don't deprive anyone of anything are regulations that i will never make the choice of obeying or enforcing. |
|
|
|
Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty. The design of the original abombs is widely available.
Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.
Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?
Really, the non-proliferation treaty makes producing materials difficult does it? Right... Go read a wikipedia article on how much energy it takes to purify Uranium coke (gas centrifuges being the prime reason). It ain't easy. Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it. That would be true of any endeavor government wants to intervene in. Look at the war on drugs as a obvious example. Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them? Yes . If regulation says no one can have them. If it says dangerous/peaceful can/can't have them then i'l treat it as if it doesn't exist. Consider why some nations have them and others don't. Consider why the world can't seem to get this right. It's because the world doesn't run the world. The world is actually like the libertarians want a community to be. The world, in its current state is an example of how messed up a libertarian community is. Self regulation (the world model) doesn't work. But regulation within a nation does work. The key is to choose the proper country to live in. hmm seems it didn't quite work here. https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?4436-Moldova-seizes-%EF%BF%BD7-million-worth-of-enriched-uraniumhttp://www.theonion.com/video/report-finds-troubling-rise-in-teen-uranium-enrich,19175/Huh? Do you understand what I said? Wheal . Guess i didn't . I thought you said regulation within a nation works. they almost got the Nuke , but (fortunately) they didn't wanted one , they wanted money . regardless of the regulations . |
|
|
|
Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty. The design of the original abombs is widely available.
Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.
Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?
Really, the non-proliferation treaty makes producing materials difficult does it? Right... Go read a wikipedia article on how much energy it takes to purify Uranium coke (gas centrifuges being the prime reason). It ain't easy. Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it. That would be true of any endeavor government wants to intervene in. Look at the war on drugs as a obvious example. Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them? Yes . If regulation says no one can have them. If it says dangerous/peaceful can/can't have them then i'l treat it as if it doesn't exist. Consider why some nations have them and others don't. Consider why the world can't seem to get this right. It's because the world doesn't run the world. The world is actually like the libertarians want a community to be. The world, in its current state is an example of how messed up a libertarian community is. Self regulation (the world model) doesn't work. But regulation within a nation does work. The key is to choose the proper country to live in. hmm seems it didn't quite work here. https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?4436-Moldova-seizes-%EF%BF%BD7-million-worth-of-enriched-uraniumhttp://www.theonion.com/video/report-finds-troubling-rise-in-teen-uranium-enrich,19175/ |
|
|
|
Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty. The design of the original abombs is widely available.
Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.
Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?
Really, the non-proliferation treaty makes producing materials difficult does it? Right... Go read a wikipedia article on how much energy it takes to purify Uranium coke (gas centrifuges being the prime reason). It ain't easy. Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it. That would be true of any endeavor government wants to intervene in. Look at the war on drugs as a obvious example. Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them? Yes . If regulation says no one can have them. If it says dangerous/peaceful can/can't have them then i'l treat it as if it doesn't exist. Consider why some nations have them and others don't. Consider why the world can't seem to get this right. It's because the world doesn't run the world. The world is actually like the libertarians want a community to be. The world, in its current state is an example of how messed up a libertarian community is. Self regulation (the world model) doesn't work. But regulation within a nation does work. The key is to choose the proper country to live in. Ok bro. If you can't kill because there is a law that says you can't then you are the only person that should ever reproduce, if a law (some words on a paper) has a disabling effect on you. |
|
|
|
Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty. The design of the original abombs is widely available.
Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.
Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?
Really, the non-proliferation treaty makes producing materials difficult does it? Right... Go read a wikipedia article on how much energy it takes to purify Uranium coke (gas centrifuges being the prime reason). It ain't easy. Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it. That would be true of any endeavor government wants to intervene in. Look at the war on drugs as a obvious example. Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them? Yes . If regulation says no one can have them. If it says dangerous/peaceful can/can't have them then i'l treat it as if it doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
And the main difference is HOW they work. LAW works by making you risk a very physical action being taken against you (imprisonment , fine , ) , Morality on the other hand works extremely different it only works inside your mind (you Conscience) and you can accept or not the mores that are thrown your way by society.
It's immoral to have extramarital sex. But it would be stupid to be illegal. (I don't value this, it's mine and my partner's business only)
It's immoral not to help someone in need . But it would be stupid to have a law demanding you do so.
it's immoral to prostitute yourself . And yes many countries have stupid laws that enforce this . IMO all trades are full of prostitutes , not sexual , but prostitutes , so the law should be abandoned. (I don't value this)
It's immoral to be selfish ....
It's immoral to let someone die. But you can't have a law demanding that someone should save someone.
It's immoral to kill yourself . But a law demanding that you don't would be useless. (also don't value)
It's immoral to harm yourself . And yes many countries have laws against drugs , but no laws against cutting yourself for example, wonder why. (not valuable.)
Morality is used by those in power to pass stupid laws that never should exist.
...It's immoral to rape another person. ...It's immoral to enslave another person. ...It's immoral to murder another person. ...It's immoral to steal from another person. It's still a moral question regardless of how you phrase it. The only real issue is what is both illegal and immoral. Which is to say, there can be an infinite number of immoral or moral things that can be done. The ones that we can make laws for are much more limited in nature. That's all I was trying to convey. Every question of 'ought' is more or less a moral, or at the very least, a preferential one. There are a lot of things going on in the world around us, the question is which of them ought we to concern ourselves with in relation to our fellow man? Which ought we to make laws for, and which should we ought not to make laws for? You see bro if violence, forcing against one's will is illegal then all those examples are covered regardless of the morality/amorality . Morality should have no role in law making. |
|
|
|
Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.
in proportion
in proportion
in proportion
in proportion
You have agreed that dangerous individuals and groups should not have nukes. But you still haven't answered the question of who decides if a person is entitled to have nukes? Hahaha . No one should have nukes . But we have them. If USA , Russia , etc. have them , why not Iran for example? What makes one group less dangerous than another? Until USA and the others nuclear powers dispose of their nukes , the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is pure Bigotry . Also the only country that ever used a Nuclear bomb to attack still has them. Why doesn't it dispose of them all first maybe then they could be more entitled to enforce a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. You missed his post. He believes that individuals should have a right to nukes. Every person would have their own weapon capable of killing a million or so people at a time and some would have collections. In his utopia, instead of suicidal people throwing themselves off bridges, they will detonate their personal stock of nukes. So forget Iran; we are talking about the Jared Loughners and Andrew Beievec's and the random drunken loons of this world having nuclear weapons. Like I said . NO ONE SHOULD HAVE THEM. Regardless if associated in groups (countries) or as individuals. |
|
|
|
Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.
in proportion
in proportion
in proportion
in proportion
You have agreed that dangerous individuals and groups should not have nukes. But you still haven't answered the question of who decides if a person is entitled to have nukes? Hahaha . No one should have nukes . But we have them. If USA , Russia , etc. have them , why not Iran for example? What makes one group less dangerous than another? Until USA and the others nuclear powers dispose of their nukes , the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is pure Bigotry . Also the only country that ever used a Nuclear bomb to attack still has them. Why doesn't it dispose of them all first maybe then they could be more entitled to enforce a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. |
|
|
|
Sure you can let go but then your just a lazy stupid fuck , and no you ain't legally responsible for the mans death. Whoever got him in that situation is. If someone pushes someone on top of you from a building you can't blame the one that crushed you because he didn't fly the pusher is responsible for both deaths. But if there are some people around you that aren't lazy stupid fucks than they should try to save you.
NOT legally responsible but morally responsible.
But is it not true that legal matters are derived from morality (i.e. mores)? To me there appears to be very little difference. No. Legal means allowed to be done more exactly tolerated. Moral from exactly the term you pointed out : Mores, in sociology, are any given society's particular norms, virtues, or values. but they are not enforced and it would be stupid for many to be put in to laws. And the main difference is HOW they work. LAW works by making you risk a very physical action being taken against you (imprisonment , fine , ) , Morality on the other hand works extremely different it only works inside your mind (you Conscience) and you can accept or not the mores that are thrown your way by society. It's immoral to have extramarital sex. But it would be stupid to be illegal. (I don't value this, it's mine and my partner's business only) It's immoral not to help someone in need . But it would be stupid to have a law demanding you do so. it's immoral to prostitute yourself . And yes many countries have stupid laws that enforce this . IMO all trades are full of prostitutes , not sexual , but prostitutes , so the law should be abandoned. (I don't value this) It's immoral to be selfish .... It's immoral to let someone die. But you can't have a law demanding that someone should save someone. It's immoral to kill yourself . But a law demanding that you don't would be useless. (also don't value) It's immoral to harm yourself . And yes many countries have laws against drugs , but no laws against cutting yourself for example, wonder why. (not valuable.) Morality is used by those in power to pass stupid laws that never should exist. |
|
|
|
So we love edge cases do we? Let's try this one on for size:
Let's suppose that you walk up to a bus stop. There is another man standing there. He's holding a rope. The rope is attached to something, but you don't know what it is. He asks you if you'd assist him in holding the rope while he ties his shoe laces. You oblige.
He hands you the rope and tells you that he'll get back to you in a sec. Unbeknownst to you, it's a ruse. However, before he leaves, he reveals to you that the rope you're holding is attaced to a guillotine, there's a man locked in, and the blade is very heavy. Don't let go, he says. He then departs leaving you by yourself. There is no one and nothing else around for miles. The bus stop is not a bus stop, but a mirage. It's just you, the rope, and the man headlocked in the guillotine.
You only have so much strength and stamina. Your only option is to hold the rope or let go. Do you let go of the rope, or hold on as long as you can? If you aren't under any obligation to hold the rope (you've been deceived) can you let go? If you let go, are you legally responsible for the man's death?
Sure you can let go but then your just a lazy stupid fuck , and no you ain't legally responsible for the mans death. Whoever got him in that situation is. If someone pushes someone on top of you from a building you can't blame the one that crushed you because he didn't fly the pusher is responsible for both deaths. But if there are some people around you that aren't lazy stupid fucks than they should try to save you. NOT legally responsible but morally responsible. |
|
|
|
|
Fuck jesus. I don't give shit about christ , god , or any other divine entity , but leaving a man die is just worst than bestial. Even animals empathies with the dieing but unfortunately a animal has no means to save it's pears. But then again this is coming from one of the most disgusting societies from the 21st century - AMERICAN SOCIETY. The same society that has deployed troops around the world , spends more money on military and aggression wars than any other country , and the same society that is responsible for the most deaths of the 21st century. So yeah let him die .. and use the money to search for Gaddafi and kill a few dozens more people along the way. Americans are so pathetic that they feel this burning desire to save the Libyans from the "oppression" of Gaddafi or to find a rogue CIA agent turned terrorist and are willing to spend whatever sum it takes but they aren't willing to spend money on sick compatriots. Like I said- PATHETIC. What i actually don't understand is why would anyone pay taxes in such a scheme , unless the majority of Americans are just a bunch of disgusting THUGS.
|
|
|
|
|
No i didn't miss the point. The point was that IP laws protect a business model. I'm against this kind of practice. No business model needs to be preserved. If a business model fails it should be left to fail.
You kind of miss the point. The IP (INTELECTUAL PROPERTY) laws is said to be about property , (infinite property , because , dam it , it can be copied infinitely) , and they should ensure that the inventor/artist/investor/ is the one that gets rewarded for that "creation" and can create a business model based on that property or not. The business model here is selling a copy of a property (movie) in a theater . So you are telling me that this is what we should protect? Or we should reward the creation of movies?
I'm sorry but do you really think that by preserving a business model you are ensuring progress? I actually don't .
Actually . Thank you . You just made a good point. IP LAWS ARE ABOUT PRESERVING THE ESTABLISHED BUSINESS MODEL. I'm against that.
|
|
|
|
Somehow, without copyright laws we still got great works of art, Beethoven, Shakespeare, etc. In fact, Shakespeare borrowed heavily from earlier fictional works which, under today's copyright laws, would have gotten his work sued into oblivion and we'd have a pretty huge loss on our hands. Artists produce art mostly for the enjoyment of the art itself. The average salary for an actor is something like $16,000 a year and that's including the megastars like Brad Pitt, Harrison Ford, etc into that figure. If you ignore the outliers, the average drops way down. The point is, there will always be great works of art and people to perform it. You might have to go see a play instead of a movie but at least we will be respecting the right of people to share information freely.
Thats the point. Creations that costs many millions of dollars, such as movies and computer games, do need some kind of way to recover those millions of dollars. Remove the IP protection and the whole business model disappears. So if i invest there needs to be some law that guarantees i recover my investment? That is bullshit. How about they start investing in ways to protect their investment instead of lobbyists. And how about they start investing in educating people why they need to pay for their creation instead of advertising? I can tell you this : If piracy didn't exist , the majority of people around the globe that use computers never would of used windows. Most just can't afford it. They downloaded it through torrents and that actually helped the companies , the same goes for music , and movies. I would like to see this great , genius , wonderful , creative , everything good in society , etc. companies to invest in something useful like a way to protect themselves from pirates , because that can only mean people won't be able to download their great creations and go with what will be available , like open source software , and real artists. So no they don't need a law to guarantee they recover those millions of dollars. They need to prove that what they provide is worth paying for and people will pay. And pirates aren't thieves because they don't deprive anybody of anything. |
|
|
|
|
Because if they don't punish them then everything gets devalued and capital buys more and then the cycle starts all over again.
|
|
|
|
|
So they are fraudulent because they are called liberty dollars?
|
|
|
|
The USA has a right to protect itself from fraudulent currency.
Fraudulent? or illegal? |
|
|
|
On the flip side of that the baseball cap is quite UN-European. If you look close you can see the shape of the Insignia on the cap, and how he whips it off his head when he sees the camera. well, he did put on a baseball cap, looking like he just got caught in the act, while not being able to make up his mind what to do. that is all pretty american.
Good points; you guys could very well be right. I would not be surprised at all for the US to have special forces in Lybia. I'm just saying be careful about touting this video as absolute proof. As someone mentioned above they could be contractors. CONTRACTORS you say? You mean some contractors contracted by Libyan "Rebels" ? I don't buy it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
