Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[AyeYo]

So what happens when I have a nuclear bomb on my property and I don't just hand it over? What happens when I don't pay my taxes? You're going to send me a nasty letter? Fine, I'll ball it up and toss it in my trashcan. I doubt it will end there though. Ultimately, all laws are threats of imprisonment or death. If you don't understand that then you have no business saying what should and shouldn't be a law.

Same question I'm asking you here, which you still have not answered...

So which is it?  Are you going to bring about change by forcing it on people via violence (just like the state that you hate!) or are you going to win over a majority through superior reasoning and arguments (which will still result in your forcing your opinion on the minority, thus concluding that libertarianism is hypocritical and contradictory no matter what way you slice it, as I've said in a million threads before, you can make EVERYONE happy ALL the time, thus you will ALWAYS have to suppress at least some people via threat of violence)?

[BitterTea]

Humans have to act humanely first. Try teaching spiders to not cannibalize their own kind. It's impossible. Most governments are just another form of rights cannibalism.

Ohhhh, how right you are.  How truly truly right you are.  Perhaps you have finally understood the core problem.

If you believe humans do not act humanely, by what logic do you allow the majority to elect a minority to have even greater power over all than a normal individual!?

[AyeYo]

He's got a blind spot for institutionalized violence. It's not really his fault, it was taught to him as a child and he has yet to be successfully deconverted. I really wonder why it's easier for some to see it than others.

I can assure you - I don't have a blind spot for chaos, which results in huge death rates.

Do you want a prime example of your libertarian system at work everyday in a really big way? It works exactly as you have specified. It's called the world. It has 192 members, and each claim their own property and do what they wish on their own property. Hands off to anyone else! There is no centralized authority. It's a classic example of "If you're on my property, you follow my rules!" Disagreements are worked out via sanctions, courts, treaties, private security forces, weapons, etc. Many have nuclear weapons! Imagine that. Kind of like your lib-land, eh?

LOLOL  Proof positive they have no brains, because this didn't seem to make their brains explode.

It is true that nation states interact in a way that is anarchic. However, they are still nation states, which are systems of institutionalized violence.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!  So even though it's an identical system, it's evil simply because of the word STATE.  Substitute "security force" for "state" and suddenly they're in love with the system.


"Libertarians don't denounce what the state does, they just object to who's doing it. This is why the people most victimized by the state display the least interest in libertarianism. Those on the receiving end of coercion don't quibble over their coercers' credentials. If you can't pay or don't want to, you don't much care if your deprivation is called larceny or taxation or restitution or rent. If you like to control your own time, you distinguish employment from enslavement only in degree and duration."
Bob Black

[AyeYo]

Humans have to act humanely first. Try teaching spiders to not cannibalize their own kind. It's impossible. Most governments are just another form of rights cannibalism.

Ohhhh, how right you are.  How truly truly right you are.  Perhaps you have finally understood the core problem.

If you believe humans do not act humanely, by what logic do you allow the majority to elect a minority to have even greater power over all than a normal individual!?

By the fact that current reality says it works better than the alternative.

No system will ever be perfect, because human nature is imperfect, but after thousands of years of struggle, mass death, disease, war, enslavement, etc. we've managed to light on something that works reasonably well.  It's far from perfect, but you've done absolutely nothing to prove your system would be better, in fact you've all consistantly shown it would be worse.  Which, ironically, is why it never has and never will be voluntarily implimented by any society.

[BitterTea]

LOLOL  Proof positive they have no brains, because this didn't seem to make their brains explode.

His critique was not of anarchy, but of anarchy between nation states. How can you support his claim that the current system leads to all that violence, and support the notion that the current system is better then any possible alternative simultaneously. Is that cognitive dissonance I hear?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!  So even though it's an identical system, it's evil simply because of the word STATE.  Substitute "security force" for "state" and suddenly they're in love with the system.

It's not an identical system, and you know it, because you support the current system, but not one without states. I know I shouldn't bother responding to your trololols, but this isn't so much for you, but for others who would eat the bullshit you put on their plates.

What we object to is not law or law enforcement, but a geographical monopoly on the provision of law and law enforcement.

Just as you support the provision of food, but not a geographic monopoly on the provision of food. If you want to critique this idea, show that law and law enforcement, unlike any other good or service, are better provided by a monopoly than by a market.

[BitterTea]

By the fact that current reality says it works better than the alternative.

[citation needed]

All of the problems you insist we solve exist in the current system.

No system will ever be perfect, because human nature is imperfect, but after thousands of years of struggle, mass death, disease, war, enslavement, etc. we've managed to light on something that works reasonably well.  It's far from perfect, but you've done absolutely nothing to prove your system would be better, in fact you've all consistantly shown it would be worse.  Which, ironically, is why it never has and never will be voluntarily implimented by any society.

I'm not claiming that democracy is in some senses better than tyranny. However, in some senses it is also worse. Either way, all I claim is that a lack of states would be better than any state at all, not that anarchy is perfect.

Why do you so strongly support a violent monopoly? Why can you not imagine that just like every other good or service you need and desire, security can be better provided through a market than a geographical monopoly?

[AyeYo]

LOLOL  Proof positive they have no brains, because this didn't seem to make their brains explode.

His critique was not of anarchy, but of anarchy between nation states. How can you support his claim that the current system leads to all that violence, and support the notion that the current system is better then any possible alternative simultaneously. Is that cognitive dissonance I hear?

Quote where you or any other the other libertards have demonstrated your system to be better than the current one.  So far we've seen that your system would allow anyone to own nukes and allow any and all ridiculously risky behavior by individuals, up to and including behavior that would endanger all life on the planet.

That's not a better system.  If you've got an idea for a better system and you can demonstrate how it will be better, let's hear it.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!  So even though it's an identical system, it's evil simply because of the word STATE.  Substitute "security force" for "state" and suddenly they're in love with the system.

It's not an identical system, and you know it, because you support the current system, but not one without states. I know I shouldn't bother responding to your trololols, but this isn't so much for you, but for others who would eat the bullshit you put on their plates.

What we object to is not law or law enforcement, but a geographical monopoly on the provision of law and law enforcement.

Just as you support the provision of food, but not a geographic monopoly on the provision of food. If you want to critique this idea, show that law and law enforcement, unlike any other good or service, are better provided by a monopoly than by a market.

Don't kid yourself.  What you object to is the word "state" and nothing more.  You have no problem with the geographic monoploy of a "security force" or any large business, which is exactly what you'll get in libertardland.  You only object to it when "security force" is changed to "state", even though the net effect is identical.

[Rassah]

It doesn't, at least according to b2c & fb.  All a libertarian society could hope for, it seems to me, is that all along the chain from uranium ore mine, to extraction plant, to purifying plant, to weapons assembly, to transport and eventual sale, and re-sale, and re-sale, and resale^N, that EVERYBODY follows a strict voluntary code of conduct consistent with social safety.  And that's everybody - including the malnourished children picking away at the ore, the underpaid worker who needs money to get treatment for his sick child, everybody follows it.  In EVERY mine, EVERY extraction plant, EVERY EVERYTHING.  Is that the answer you're looking for?

edit: and even then, it's enough for a crazy person to *seem* sane, just for long enough to convince the seller that he, for some reason, really needs a nuclear weapon.

OK, so why would anyone in the production chain have a reason to make sure their stuff doesn't get used for bad purposes? Nuclear and bioweapon materials are extremely dangerous to handle and extremely expensive to produce. What's the incentive for someone making tem, and do you think there can be any incentive outside of an even bigger bullky with guns to keep those who make the stuff from selling it to whomever? (Like avoid selling a nuke to anti-nuke groups who use it to blow up your own factories?)

[AyeYo]

By the fact that current reality says it works better than the alternative.

[citation needed]

All of the problems you insist we solve exist in the current system.

Really?  They do?

When is the last time you heard of private nuke possession?  Are people allowed to juggle small pox vials in their front yard?  Are people even allowed to possess small pox vials?  Are there no pollution regulations?  Are their no health and sanitary regulations?  Is there a clusterfuck court system whose rulings only have to be followed if you're in the mood to follow them?  Can your neighbor fire automatic weapons in his backyard?  Do you have to employ research organizations to ensure that you don't buy contaminated food, products that support terrorists, etc.?  Do you have massive highway interchange right at the end of your driveway to allow you access to multiple privately own roads?

I didn't think so.

No system will ever be perfect, because human nature is imperfect, but after thousands of years of struggle, mass death, disease, war, enslavement, etc. we've managed to light on something that works reasonably well.  It's far from perfect, but you've done absolutely nothing to prove your system would be better, in fact you've all consistantly shown it would be worse.  Which, ironically, is why it never has and never will be voluntarily implimented by any society.

I'm not claiming that democracy is in some senses better than tyranny. However, in some senses it is also worse. Either way, all I claim is that a lack of states would be better than any state at all, not that anarchy is perfect.

Why do you so strongly support a violent monopoly? Why can you not imagine that just like every other good or service you need and desire, security can be better provided through a market than a geographical monopoly?

Because unlike you, I actually have an understanding of economics and I know that your premise that "every other good and service can be provided better by an unfettered market" is total BS.  Totally free markets have existed no where, ever.  That's because markets don't just HAPPEN.  They are established via sets of rules and regulations.  Markets are created, they don't just exist.

There's also these things called market inefficiencies that must be dealt with.  Do you know what happens when you start allowing private security forces?  They first have to be large enough to protect their clients from not just individuals, but also corrupt security forces.  Now you've got an arms race, just like with world governments!  These security forces are now very large and powerful.  They don't have to answer to anyone, because they've got all the fire power, just like with world governments!  If they don't provide the services you're paying them for, you can't a do a goddamn thing about it because they've got infinitely more firepower than you, just like world governments!  In fact, they don't even need to go to the bother of contracting for services, they can extort money from you directly because they're big and powerful, just like world governments!

Your ENTIRE system hinging on not just these, but ALL organizations and ALL people being benevolent, caring, honest people... but yet you openly admit to the corruption and dishonesty in the world today.  That's the pinnacle of delusion.

The key difference that makes the state option better than the private security force option is that states are still accountable.  We still have a vote.  We can still change things.  You have NO say and there is NO accountability with a private military force.  If you don't like what they do, your only choice is to die trynig to violently stop them.



"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?"
Noam Chomsky

[BitterTea]

Quote where you or any other the other libertards have demonstrated your system to be better than the current one.

What type of demonstration do you want? I'm pretty sure no words would convince you that a stateless society would be better than one with states. How can I possibly prove this to you? It would have been impossible to demonstrate to a slave owner that a society without slaves would have been better than one with slaves.

If I'm wrong, please list out the specific points I need to demonstrate in order to convince you that a stateless society would be better than the current, state run society.

So far we've seen that your system would allow anyone to own nukes and allow any and all ridiculously risky behavior by individuals, up to and including behavior that would endanger all life on the planet.

No, you've hypothesized that it would be the case. That's all. I could hypothesize that in a stateless society, everyone would voluntarily agree to dismantle all nuclear weapons. Or that tomorrow all of the world leaders will decide to launch all their nukes at each other. Still just hypothesis.

Don't kid yourself.  What you object to is the word "state" and nothing more.  You have no problem with the geographic monoploy of a "security force" or any large business, which is exactly what you'll get in libertardland.  You only object to it when "security force" is changed to "state", even though the net effect is identical.

Actually, you are somewhat right. I don't have a general problem with monopolies, just coercive ones. If a business becomes a monopoly through providing the best good or service, then I have no problem. If they gain or maintain their monopoly status through the use of coercion, then I have a problem. The history of states is the gaining and maintaining of geographic monopolies on the initiation of violence, through the initiation of violence.

[BitterTea]

By the fact that current reality says it works better than the alternative.

[citation needed]

All of the problems you insist we solve exist in the current system.

Really?  They do?

When is the last time you heard of private nuke possession?  Are people allowed to juggle small pox vials in their front yard?  Are people even allowed to possess small pox vials?  Are there no pollution regulations?  Are their no health and sanitary regulations?  Is there a clusterfuck court system whose rulings only have to be followed if you're in the mood to follow them?  Can your neighbor fire automatic weapons in his backyard?  Do you have to employ research organizations to ensure that you don't buy contaminated food, products that support terrorists, etc.?  Do you have massive highway interchange right at the end of your driveway to allow you access to multiple privately own roads?

I didn't think so.

No system will ever be perfect, because human nature is imperfect, but after thousands of years of struggle, mass death, disease, war, enslavement, etc. we've managed to light on something that works reasonably well.  It's far from perfect, but you've done absolutely nothing to prove your system would be better, in fact you've all consistantly shown it would be worse.  Which, ironically, is why it never has and never will be voluntarily implimented by any society.

I'm not claiming that democracy is in some senses better than tyranny. However, in some senses it is also worse. Either way, all I claim is that a lack of states would be better than any state at all, not that anarchy is perfect.

Why do you so strongly support a violent monopoly? Why can you not imagine that just like every other good or service you need and desire, security can be better provided through a market than a geographical monopoly?

Because unlike you, I actually have an understanding of economics and I know that your premise that "every other good and service can be provided better by an unfettered market" is total BS.  Totally free markets have existed no where, ever.  That's because markets don't just HAPPEN.  They are established via sets of rules and regulations.  Markets are created, they don't just exist.

There's also these things called market inefficiencies that must be dealt with.  Do you know what happens when you start allowing private security forces?  They first have to be large enough to protect their clients from not just individuals, but also corrupt security forces.  Now you've got an arms race, just like with world governments!  These security forces are now very large and powerful.  They don't have to answer to anyone, because they've got all the fire power, just like with world governments!  If they don't provide the services you're paying them for, you can't a do a goddamn thing about it because they've got infinitely more firepower than you, just like world governments!  In fact, they don't even need to go to the bother of contracting for services, they can extort money from you directly because they're big and powerful, just like world governments!

Your ENTIRE system hinging on not just these, but ALL organizations and ALL people being benevolent, caring, honest people... but yet you openly admit to the corruption and dishonesty in the world today.  That's the pinnacle of delusion.

The key difference that makes the state option better than the private security force option is that states are still accountable.  We still have a vote.  We can still change things.  You have NO say and there is NO accountability with a private military force.  If you don't like what they do, your only choice is to die trynig to violently stop them.



"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?"
Noam Chomsky

I take back the offer I made in my previous post. You're an ignorant troll, and I have better things to do than waste my time on you.

[Rassah]

Don't kid yourself.  What you object to is the word "state" and nothing more.  You have no problem with the geographic monoploy of a "security force" or any large business, which is exactly what you'll get in libertardland.  You only object to it when "security force" is changed to "state", even though the net effect is identical.

I think the blatantly obvious reason (though maybe not to everyone) is that the state answers to whichever political party is in charge, or worse, whichever politician happens to be corrupt and in the pocket of a megacorporation, while those security forces and large businesses in "libertardland" still have to answer to them directly if they want their money. In short, the state gives corporations with political money the right to arbitrarily make laws that benefit only those corporations, help them establish monopolies, and force you to buy their products, while without the state those corporations would have to compete, and even monopolies will have to worry about threats from new technologies or substitutes.
Just a guess here :/

[AyeYo]

Don't kid yourself.  What you object to is the word "state" and nothing more.  You have no problem with the geographic monoploy of a "security force" or any large business, which is exactly what you'll get in libertardland.  You only object to it when "security force" is changed to "state", even though the net effect is identical.

I think the blatantly obvious reason (though maybe not to everyone) is that the state answers to whichever political party is in charge, or worse, whichever politician happens to be corrupt and in the pocket of a megacorporation, while those security forces and large businesses in "libertardland" still have to answer to them directly if they want their money. In short, the state gives corporations with political money the right to arbitrarily make laws that benefit only those corporations, help them establish monopolies, and force you to buy their products, while without the state those corporations would have to compete, and even monopolies will have to worry about threats from new technologies or substitutes.
Just a guess here :/

So the megacorporations run things now because of the existence of the state.  But if we replace the state with private security forces, thus allowing megacorporations to own military hardware directly, wage war, create their own kangaroo courts to try people in, and basically do whatever the fuck they want, etc. they'll magically turn benevolent and everything will be happy happy joy joy?  Tell me again why I shouldn't think you're delusional.

I take back the offer I made in my previous post. You're an ignorant troll, and I have better things to do than waste my time on you.

That's not surprising.  I knew you'd have no way to counter that big dose of realistic thinking.

[BitterTea]

So the megacorporations run things now because of the existence of the state.  But if we replace the state with private security forces, thus allowing megacorporations to own military hardware directly, wage war, create their own kangaroo courts to try people in, and basically do whatever the fuck they want, etc. they'll magically turn benevolent and everything will be happy happy joy joy?  Tell me again why I shouldn't think you're delusional.

Nope. Can't have war without taxation.

[AyeYo]

So the megacorporations run things now because of the existence of the state.  But if we replace the state with private security forces, thus allowing megacorporations to own military hardware directly, wage war, create their own kangaroo courts to try people in, and basically do whatever the fuck they want, etc. they'll magically turn benevolent and everything will be happy happy joy joy?  Tell me again why I shouldn't think you're delusional.

Nope. Can't have war without taxation.

Hahahahahahaha!

[BitterTea]

Hahahahahahaha!

Can you name a war not funded by taxation?

It's ok, I know you're laughing so you don't cry.

[Rassah]

So the megacorporations run things now because of the existence of the state.  But if we replace the state with private security forces, thus allowing megacorporations to own military hardware directly, wage war, create their own kangaroo courts to try people in, and basically do whatever the fuck they want, etc. they'll magically turn benevolent and everything will be happy happy joy joy?

I never claimed that. As you suggested, I think both systems of government will have similar results. The only big difference will be that certain rules (laws) will exist because some companies are blatantly enforcing them for their own financial benefit, not because of some random arbitrary political bullshit. Current private security forces answer to corporations, and current armies and police forces answer to politicians (and sometimes also corporations). They do not seek funding from private citizens, do not depend on it, and thus do not have to answer to citizens. Can you not at least concede that having a portion of their income come from protecting individuals would at least give them an incentive to work on keeping individuals safe, and not waste money on arbitrary wars on concepts like war on terrorism?
Also, um, why would private corporations waste money on paying their security companies to wage war?

Tell me again why I shouldn't think you're delusional.

Because unlike you, I don't believe I have all the correct answers, don't believe the world is exactly as I have constructed it in my limited scope of mind, and am willing to learn about other alternatives, even if I don't believe they are realistic, as opposed to just dismissng them out of hand with "that's stupid?" In short, I don't think I'm an omnipotent god with all the answers. THAT would be delusional.

[FirstAscent]

Because unlike you, I don't believe I have all the correct answers, don't believe the world is exactly as I have constructed it in my limited scope of mind, and am willing to learn about other alternatives, even if I don't believe they are realistic, as opposed to just dismissng them out of hand with "that's stupid?" In short, I don't think I'm an omnipotent god with all the answers. THAT would be delusional.

If you'd stop propping up your fantasy ideal of what lib-land would look like, and choose to engage and debate us about the real world and the real issues it faces, you'd find that all of your opponents here in this thread actually are very dissatisfied with how a great many issues are handled by government. We'll happily debate you at an adult level about different specific issues, and how they might be addressed within the context of the framework we are living.

[BitterTea]

If you'd stop propping up your fantasy ideal of what slavery-free land would look like, and choose to engage and debate us about the real world and the real issues it faces, you'd find that all of your opponents here in this thread actually are very dissatisfied with how a great many issues are handled by slave owners. We'll happily debate you at an adult level about different specific issues, and how they might be addressed within the context of the slavery.

That's what I hear from you.

edit... For clarification (thought I though it obvious), the emphasized words and phrases in the quote above are my words, attempting to show how ridiculous it is to ask us to work within the framework we consider completely immoral.

[Hawker]

I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.

Creating a situation where people will die unnecessarily of smallpox and radiation poisoning for the sake of what you freely admit are random ideas from your head is not justice.

Surely you can think of some reason for people to take your ideas seriously?  Or are they intended to be simply thought provoking?  I've enjoyed having being provoked into thinking so its no disrespect to say that your objective is to make people think.