Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 02:31:54 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 ... 116 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!  (Read 95885 times)
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 09:04:44 PM
 #1181

Everything is voluntary, therefore laws are useless. They may exist, but no one can be forced to follow then or be punished for not following them, therefore they are useless and effectively do not exist.

If you are found guilty of stealing my property and refuse to turn it over, you will be forced to do so. It's a shame you don't even understand the system you're criticizing. You'll never convince any libertarians that they are wrong until you can at least make a cogent argument.

If I have my own court, It won't find me guilty.  For example, I you are a woman and I choose a Sharia court, I get a better divorce deal that you. 

And even if I refuse to attend any court, if I have a nuke, how will you force me to turn over any property?

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480861914
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861914

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861914
Reply with quote  #2

1480861914
Report to moderator
1480861914
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861914

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861914
Reply with quote  #2

1480861914
Report to moderator
1480861914
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861914

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861914
Reply with quote  #2

1480861914
Report to moderator
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 09:05:45 PM
 #1182


Any state, individual, or collective, is corrupt if it violates the NAP. Pretty obvious. No need to doll it all up with fancy words like Nation, Society, State, Government, Modernity, Advanced, or Leadership etc.


Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 09:09:22 PM
 #1183

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 09:10:21 PM
 #1184


Then, if i am still alive, I go after whoever sold him that nuke, and/or whoever helped him to raise the money to buy it. Why, what would your government do if a nuke was detonated, if its regulations that failed to stop fertilizer bombs and terrorism fail to prevent a nuke too?

What a stupid argument.  Millions die and you say you will sue someone?

BTW, my government would not allow a terrorist access to nukes.  Unlike you.  

Please, tell me that you have something to offer to balance the lives of the millions that die as a result of your deciding to give everyone nukes.  There must be some benefit - or why are you advocating it?


NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 09:12:07 PM
 #1185

There must be some benefit - or why are you advocating it?

Justice.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 09:13:21 PM
 #1186

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

I have a nuke.  Unless you want to die, you will leave the country.  Once I find your address, I'll have a nuke in a truck parked a mile from your house and you'll be dead in less than 10 seconds.

I know your estate will sue me but I can nuke them too.  Provided I keep my address secret, I win.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 09:16:18 PM
 #1187

There must be some benefit - or why are you advocating it?

Justice.

I don't accept your idea of justice.  Nor will people getting nuked or smallpox as a result of your generous distribution of access to nukes and the smallpox virus. 

I think you meant "Justice for you and the sword of death for everyone else - assuming you don't get nuked as well."

That's not a benefit.

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 09:18:39 PM
 #1188

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

I have a nuke.  Unless you want to die, you will leave the country.  Once I find your address, I'll have a nuke in a truck parked a mile from your house and you'll be dead in less than 10 seconds.

I know your estate will sue me but I can nuke them too.  Provided I keep my address secret, I win.

Cool story, bro. Got anything else aside from rambling fantasies?

There must be some benefit - or why are you advocating it?

Justice.

I don't accept your idea of justice.  Nor will people getting nuked or smallpox as a result of your generous distribution of access to nukes and the smallpox virus. 

I think you meant "Justice for you and the sword of death for everyone else - assuming you don't get nuked as well."

That's not a benefit.

Everyone gets the same justice as me.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 09:22:38 PM
 #1189

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

I have a nuke.  Unless you want to die, you will leave the country.  Once I find your address, I'll have a nuke in a truck parked a mile from your house and you'll be dead in less than 10 seconds.

I know your estate will sue me but I can nuke them too.  Provided I keep my address secret, I win.

Cool story, bro. Got anything else aside from rambling fantasies?

There must be some benefit - or why are you advocating it?

Justice.

I don't accept your idea of justice.  Nor will people getting nuked or smallpox as a result of your generous distribution of access to nukes and the smallpox virus.  

I think you meant "Justice for you and the sword of death for everyone else - assuming you don't get nuked as well."

That's not a benefit.

Everyone gets the same justice as me.

"Cool story, bro. Got anything else aside from rambling fantasies?"

You are fantasising about being able to use aggression on someone who has a nuke.  It won't happen.  The guy with a nuke who is willing to strike first will win every time.  so there is no need for courts or private police.  Get a nuke and you win.  

Now please stop avoiding the logic of your position.  Explain how your NAP protects people from bad guys with nukes.  Or else admit what you mean is that there is going to be no justice for anyone.



NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 09:28:28 PM
 #1190

Explain how your NAP protects people from bad guys with nukes.

I've explained it once before. It's pretty simple. Every landowner in an entire geographical area forms an organization. They all sign a contract that delegates all regulation of nuclear weapons on their respective private properties to said organization. Anyone making, or transporting nuclear weapons in those areas is subject to those voluntary regulations. In other words, the same laws that exist now will exist under libertarianism, the only difference is that people will voluntarily agree to them.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 09:34:44 PM
 #1191

Explain how your NAP protects people from bad guys with nukes.

I've explained it once before. It's pretty simple. Every landowner in an entire geographical area forms an organization. They all sign a contract that delegates all regulation of nuclear weapons on their respective private properties to said organization. Anyone making, or transporting nuclear weapons in those areas is subject to those voluntary regulations. In other words, the same laws that exist now will exist under libertarianism, the only difference is that people will voluntarily agree to them.

Voluntary.  And if someone disagrees, or has stolen his Dad's nuke or simply has changed his mind, how do you stop them?  For example, if Jared Laughner had a nuke in his car instead of a gun, how would you protect the people in the within 25 miles of his car?

AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 09:48:53 PM
 #1192

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

And if you don't accept the rules, regulations, and taxation of current society, the state is free to use aggression on you too!  But yet you call that extortion!  hahahahahah

Double standards FTMFW.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 09:56:34 PM
 #1193

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

And there it is, folks.  The ultimate double standard.

Reminds me of a couple of recent wars supposedly aimed at liberating oppressed peoples - bringing them 'democracy' on the point of a gun, and stuffing it down their throats.  And that's just in recent times.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 09:59:24 PM
 #1194


Then, if i am still alive, I go after whoever sold him that nuke, and/or whoever helped him to raise the money to buy it. Why, what would your government do if a nuke was detonated, if its regulations that failed to stop fertilizer bombs and terrorism fail to prevent a nuke too?

What a stupid argument.  Millions die and you say you will sue someone?

Millions will die and your government will... what? Go to war with a neighboring country that had nothing to do with it?

BTW, my government would not allow a terrorist access to nukes.  Unlike you.  

BTW, neither will any other government where its citizens value their own lives. Even a libertarian one. Yours we have yet to see, but it sure is pissing off enough people to make them want to use nukes.

Please, tell me that you have something to offer to balance the lives of the millions that die as a result of your deciding to give everyone nukes.  There must be some benefit - or why are you advocating it?

Everyone getting nukes is your premise, not mine. Please tell me that you have something to offer to balance the lives of the millions that die as a result of the government increasingly cracking down on everyone it deems a terrorist, then anyone it deems a treat, then anyone in possession of anything it deems a threat, or not following the rules designed to limit threats to everyone else, and eradicate anyone who is a threat.
My scenario is exactly as likely as yours, if taken to ridiculous extremes.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:03:24 PM
 #1195


Everyone getting nukes is your premise, not mine. Please tell me that you have something to offer to balance the lives of the millions that die as a result of the government increasingly cracking down on everyone it deems a terrorist, then anyone it deems a treat, then anyone in possession of anything it deems a threat, or not following the rules designed to limit threats to everyone else, and eradicate anyone who is a threat.
My scenario is exactly as likely as yours, if taken to ridiculous extremes.

Oh - my apologies.

If you are a small state Libertarian, then we are broadly in agreement.  There are things that the State should do and then it should do no more unless people vote for it.

Most of the "libertarians" here do not accept that there is any role for the state or any legal system based on enforcement at all.  They believe that nukes should be available to all and that its a restriction of basic human rights that they are restricted.  




NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:03:40 PM
 #1196

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

And there it is, folks.  The ultimate double standard.


Wrong. It would be a double standard to say "I can use aggression but don't force me not to". If you say I can use aggression on you then why wouldn't I? That's what you're doing by saying you reject the NAP.

Explain how your NAP protects people from bad guys with nukes.

I've explained it once before. It's pretty simple. Every landowner in an entire geographical area forms an organization. They all sign a contract that delegates all regulation of nuclear weapons on their respective private properties to said organization. Anyone making, or transporting nuclear weapons in those areas is subject to those voluntary regulations. In other words, the same laws that exist now will exist under libertarianism, the only difference is that people will voluntarily agree to them.

Voluntary.  And if someone disagrees, or has stolen his Dad's nuke or simply has changed his mind, how do you stop them?  For example, if Jared Laughner had a nuke in his car instead of a gun, how would you protect the people in the within 25 miles of his car?

What are you talking about? The regulations would most likely disallow the private owning of nuclear weapons. It would be reserved for large private security firms with measures in place to prevent that from happening.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:09:31 PM
 #1197

If I have my own court, It won't find me guilty.  For example, I you are a woman and I choose a Sharia court, I get a better divorce deal that you. 

If you have your own court, that's fine. My friends and I will simply refuse to sell you anything, buy anything from you,hire you, or work for you. Feel free to bleed money till you starve.
If the dispute is dire enough, you can chose between a court or a gun.
If i am a woman, and you insist on Shari a court, I'll refuse, and stay with you while making your life miserable. Or steal all your stuff and take it to escrow that will release it after settlement by a court we both agree on.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:10:20 PM
 #1198

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

And there it is, folks.  The ultimate double standard.


Wrong. It would be a double standard to say "I can use aggression but don't force me not to". If you say I can use aggression on you then why wouldn't I? That's what you're doing by saying you reject the NAP.

Explain how your NAP protects people from bad guys with nukes.

I've explained it once before. It's pretty simple. Every landowner in an entire geographical area forms an organization. They all sign a contract that delegates all regulation of nuclear weapons on their respective private properties to said organization. Anyone making, or transporting nuclear weapons in those areas is subject to those voluntary regulations. In other words, the same laws that exist now will exist under libertarianism, the only difference is that people will voluntarily agree to them.

Voluntary.  And if someone disagrees, or has stolen his Dad's nuke or simply has changed his mind, how do you stop them?  For example, if Jared Laughner had a nuke in his car instead of a gun, how would you protect the people in the within 25 miles of his car?

What are you talking about? The regulations would most likely disallow the private owning of nuclear weapons. It would be reserved for large private security firms with measures in place to prevent that from happening.

Voluntary regulations.  And if someone disagrees, or has stolen his Dad's nuke or simply has changed his mind, how do you stop them?  There will still be bad people wont' there?  

For example, if Jared Laughner had a nuke in his car instead of a gun, how would you protect the people in the within 25 miles of his car?

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:11:07 PM
 #1199

If you have your own court, that's fine. My friends and I will simply refuse to sell you anything, buy anything from you,hire you, or work for you. Feel free to bleed money till you starve.

Exactly. The key thing these people are missing is that if you refuse to abide by a respectable court, nobody will do business with you.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:11:54 PM
 #1200

If I have my own court, It won't find me guilty.  For example, I you are a woman and I choose a Sharia court, I get a better divorce deal that you. 

If you have your own court, that's fine. My friends and I will simply refuse to sell you anything, buy anything from you,hire you, or work for you. Feel free to bleed money till you starve.
If the dispute is dire enough, you can chose between a court or a gun.
If i am a woman, and you insist on Shari a court, I'll refuse, and stay with you while making your life miserable. Or steal all your stuff and take it to escrow that will release it after settlement by a court we both agree on.

Come on.  I have friends too and I could care less about you and your friends.  If I have money, I will never lack for people selling me stuff.

Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 ... 116 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!