Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

Back on topic, if your neighbor has a history of mental illness or a strong propensity towards violence; it is within the right of the community to collectively choose to restrict that neighbor's

Jared Laughner had no known history of mental illness though the poor man suffering from constant vivid hallucinations if his Youtube video about "conscious dreaming" is anything to go by.

Do you think Jared Laughner should have had access to a nuke?

Asked and answered.  Did you not bother to read what I wrote.  Classic troll behavior, simply not interested in what I write, only interested in responding to what you think that I might write and burning straw.

Forgive me - its a big thread.

What is your answer?  Do you think Jared Laughner should have had access to a nuke?

Short answer; no, of course not.

Longer answer, not unless he had the skills to build it himself and the trust of his neighbors in his abilities to contain the risks.  If he had the skills, even the current model doesn't prevent such an event anyway.  The materials required to build such a device are expensive, difficult to handle, and require much expertise to utilize; but have legitimate civil uses.  Thus the materials should be available to anyone without a need to seek community permission to anyone without a history of misbehavior.

The current model assumes everyone has the skills as the designs are freely available.  What is missing is the materials.  That's why non-proliferation treaties focus on the uranium/plutonium side of things.

Let me check I have 100% understood you.  Is it your position is that someone with a clean record, for example Jared Laughner, should be free to get the materials to make a nuclear weapon? 

[1714288685]

1714288685

[1714288685]

1714288685

[1714288685]

1714288685

[1714288685]

1714288685

[1714288685]

1714288685

[1714288685]

1714288685

[Rassah]

Let me check I have 100% understood you.  Is it your position is that someone with a clean record, for example Jared Laughner, should be free to get the materials to make a nuclear weapon? 

Yes, yes, one thousand times yes. Even if it's totally irrelevant.

Let me check if I have 100% understood you. Is it your position that someone with a clean record who is living in a free market libertarian society will be able to easily obtain those materials in secret, no questions asked, without anyone knowing about it?

[Hawker]

Let me check I have 100% understood you.  Is it your position is that someone with a clean record, for example Jared Laughner, should be free to get the materials to make a nuclear weapon? 

Yes, yes, one thousand times yes. Even if it's totally irrelevant.

Let me check if I have 100% understood you. Is it your position that someone with a clean record who is living in a free market libertarian society will be able to easily obtain those materials in secret, no questions asked, without anyone knowing about it?

Do remember that if you have the materials and an internet connection, you have all you need for a bomb.  Incidentally, Jared Laughner had an internet connection.  Have you now moved to the position that he was entitled to a nuke?

[NghtRppr]

Let me check I have 100% understood you.  Is it your position is that someone with a clean record, for example Jared Laughner, should be free to get the materials to make a nuclear weapon? 

Yes, yes, one thousand times yes. Even if it's totally irrelevant.

Let me check if I have 100% understood you. Is it your position that someone with a clean record who is living in a free market libertarian society will be able to easily obtain those materials in secret, no questions asked, without anyone knowing about it?

Do remember that if you have the materials and an internet connection, you have all you need for a bomb.  Incidentally, Jared Laughner had an internet connection.  Have you now moved to the position that he was entitled to a nuke?

Yet billionaire Osama couldn't get one? First it's hard. Then it's easy. Make up your minds.

[Hawker]

Let me check I have 100% understood you.  Is it your position is that someone with a clean record, for example Jared Laughner, should be free to get the materials to make a nuclear weapon? 

Yes, yes, one thousand times yes. Even if it's totally irrelevant.

Let me check if I have 100% understood you. Is it your position that someone with a clean record who is living in a free market libertarian society will be able to easily obtain those materials in secret, no questions asked, without anyone knowing about it?

Do remember that if you have the materials and an internet connection, you have all you need for a bomb.  Incidentally, Jared Laughner had an internet connection.  Have you now moved to the position that he was entitled to a nuke?

Yet billionaire Osama couldn't get one? First it's hard. Then it's easy. Make up your minds.

Correct.  The present system works.  Thanks for the reminder of why we have the system.

[MoonShadow]

The current model assumes everyone has the skills as the designs are freely available.  What is missing is the materials.  That's why non-proliferation treaties focus on the uranium/plutonium side of things.

The current model assumes incorrectly, at least with regard to the specific question of the nuke.  I couldn't do it, even if I had the resources, but if I could, I wouldn't live long enough to finish even if my neighbors didn't kill me first.  If you think that the data on the Interent is enough, I'd like to see you try it.  Only a few people alive today have been able to even sustain a chain reaction entirely based upon what data they could aquire outside of a nuclear physics program, and all of them are exceptional.  Search for the "nuclear boy scout" as an example, and he couldn't have made an actual nuclear bomb.  A dirty bomb, maybe.  But he wasn't crazy, and he exceeded his lifetime exposure limit despite his precausions.  A catastrophic, super-critical chain reaction is incrediblely difficult to produce, requiring the purest of materials, and nearly impossible to reproduce on a small scale without significant tale-tell emissions detectable from orbit.  Iran is a nation state with dozens of nuclear engineers on payroll, and they can't even manage to refine the materials given a decade.  How much success do you expect a single nutter to have?

Let me check I have 100% understood you.  Is it your position is that someone with a clean record, for example Jared Laughner, should be free to get the materials to make a nuclear weapon? 

Yes.

[MoonShadow]

Let me check I have 100% understood you.  Is it your position is that someone with a clean record, for example Jared Laughner, should be free to get the materials to make a nuclear weapon? 

Yes, yes, one thousand times yes. Even if it's totally irrelevant.

Let me check if I have 100% understood you. Is it your position that someone with a clean record who is living in a free market libertarian society will be able to easily obtain those materials in secret, no questions asked, without anyone knowing about it?

Do remember that if you have the materials and an internet connection, you have all you need for a bomb.  Incidentally, Jared Laughner had an internet connection.  Have you now moved to the position that he was entitled to a nuke?

Yet billionaire Osama couldn't get one? First it's hard. Then it's easy. Make up your minds.

Correct.  The present system works.  Thanks for the reminder of why we have the system.

The present system that you speak of is simply the laws of nature.  Osama was not limited by Western governments' intent.

[MoonShadow]

How does it make you feel when your posts disappear?  Most of that is me, BTW.

Claims of Constitutional rights to free speech being infringed on in 3... 2... 1...

I'm not infringing upon his free speech by censoring him within this forum.  He is free to leave and start any forum he likes.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, a forum is not a public place. The server and its energy is private property as far as I'm concerned.

[Hawker]

Correct.  The present system works.  Thanks for the reminder of why we have the system.

The present system that you speak of is simply the laws of nature.  Osama was not limited by Western governments' intent.

The present system is the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the various treaties that prevent unauthorised access to uranium. You are proposing removing these regulations.

If the consequence of removing the regulation of nuclear materials is that the likes of Osama bin Ladin can make their own nukes, are you still in favour of that policy?

[MoonShadow]

Correct.  The present system works.  Thanks for the reminder of why we have the system.

The present system that you speak of is simply the laws of nature.  Osama was not limited by Western governments' intent.

The present system is the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the various treaties that prevent unauthorised access to uranium. You are proposing removing these regulations.

If the consequence of removing the regulation of nuclear materials is that the likes of Osama bin Ladin can make their own nukes, are you still in favour of that policy?

I'm proposing no such thing.  Treaties are simply agreements between actors within an anarchy, they have no direct force upon Osama or his fellow travelers.  They could have mined and refined their own U235, but they didn't.  Why?  Because it was beyond their expertise and resources.  I did not propose that those who can refine U235 (mostly major corporations in Western nations, and a few Western governments) sell Osama weapons grade materials.  But if they did, they would be accountable to their treaty peers (anarchist rules, remember?).  Any government agency or corporate entity would be liable for the results of selling finished products to customers that they do not know.  This is the very reason that fuel grade U235 isn't refined to greater than 20% by mass, as a rule (but not an absolute); because there are few reactor designs that require greater than that level of refinement while there are zero nuclear weapons designs that could even theoretically work at less than 50%, most require 95% or greater.  Thus, as I mentioned, weapons grade u235 has no established legitimate civil use; and persuit of it is thus a rational reason for society to be suspect without your explaination.  If a legitmate civil use of 50%+ U235 fuel assemblies were to be established, then you might have a point.  But that isn't the case now, so you don't.

[Hawker]

Correct.  The present system works.  Thanks for the reminder of why we have the system.

The present system that you speak of is simply the laws of nature.  Osama was not limited by Western governments' intent.

The present system is the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the various treaties that prevent unauthorised access to uranium. You are proposing removing these regulations.

If the consequence of removing the regulation of nuclear materials is that the likes of Osama bin Ladin can make their own nukes, are you still in favour of that policy?

I'm proposing no such thing. Treaties are simply agreements between actors within an anarchy, they have no direct force upon Osama or his fellow travelers.  They could have mined and refined their own U235, but they didn't.  Why?  Because it was beyond their expertise and resources.  I did not propose that those who can refine U235 (mostly major corporations in Western nations, and a few Western governments) sell Osama weapons grade materials.  But if they did, they would be accountable to their treaty peers (anarchist rules, remember?).  Any government agency or corporate entity would be liable for the results of selling finished products to customers that they do not know.  This is the very reason that fuel grade U235 isn't refined to greater than 20% by mass, as a rule (but not an absolute); because there are few reactor designs that require greater than that level of refinement while there are zero nuclear weapons designs that could even theoretically work at less than 50%, most require 95% or greater.  Thus, as I mentioned, weapons grade u235 has no established legitimate civil use; and persuit of it is thus a rational reason for society to be suspect without your explaination.  If a legitmate civil use of 50%+ U235 fuel assemblies were to be established, then you might have a point.  But that isn't the case now, so you don't.

In point of fact, they tried and failed to get uranium.  But the issue here is not what is possible - its what is fair and just in society.

You accept that a legal system that prevents the materials for a nuke falling into the hands of a Jared Laughner or an Osama bin Ladin is needed.  I assume you agree that we need a legal system to monitor all purchasers of uranium and centrifuges so we know what they are up to.  And if we are not happy that the use if legitimate, you'd agree that we have to intervene before the bomb is made.

OK - then we are in agreement.  It sounds like you'd like to reproduce all the present systems regulation but use some new libertarian framework.  But as long as the regulation prevents things like nukes, smallpox virus, the huge amounts of fertiliser needed for bombs and the like falling into the hands or the mad and the bad, all is good.

[AyeYo]

They acknowledge it all, sometimes even acknowledging the need for regulation. All seems well. Then that little word "voluntary" creeps back out of the shadows and everything falls apart.

[Hawker]

They acknowledge it all, sometimes even acknowledging the need for regulation. All seems well. Then that little word "voluntary" creeps back out of the shadows and everything falls apart.

Lets see...I really can't see anyone saying that Osama bin Ladin or Jared Laughner would have volunteered to be a good boy

[NghtRppr]

They acknowledge it all, sometimes even acknowledging the need for regulation. All seems well. Then that little word "voluntary" creeps back out of the shadows and everything falls apart.

Lets see...I really can't see anyone saying that Osama bin Ladin or Jared Laughner would have volunteered to be a good boy

First of all, a known terrorist can be assumed to be an ongoing threat. If he's already wanted for murder, he doesn't get to own a nuclear bomb.

[FredericBastiat]

In point of fact, they tried and failed to get uranium.  But the issue here is not what is possible - its what is fair and just in society.

You accept that a legal system that prevents the materials for a nuke falling into the hands of a Jared Laughner or an Osama bin Ladin is needed.  I assume you agree that we need a legal system to monitor all purchasers of uranium and centrifuges so we know what they are up to.  And if we are not happy that the use if legitimate, you'd agree that we have to intervene before the bomb is made.

OK - then we are in agreement.  It sounds like you'd like to reproduce all the present systems regulation but use some new libertarian framework.  But as long as the regulation prevents things like nukes, smallpox virus, the huge amounts of fertiliser needed for bombs and the like falling into the hands or the mad and the bad, all is good.

Wrong. It's about justice. Fairness may or may not happen, and anything is possible. He wasn't agreeing to regulations and never used the term in the context you use it.

[AyeYo]

They acknowledge it all, sometimes even acknowledging the need for regulation. All seems well. Then that little word "voluntary" creeps back out of the shadows and everything falls apart.

Lets see...I really can't see anyone saying that Osama bin Ladin or Jared Laughner would have volunteered to be a good boy

The very pillars off their belief system do not allow them to force anyone to do our comply with anything including their belief system. It's a paradox.

[FredericBastiat]

They acknowledge it all, sometimes even acknowledging the need for regulation. All seems well. Then that little word "voluntary" creeps back out of the shadows and everything falls apart.

Voluntarism and regulations stand in opposition to each other with respect to their implementations.

[Hawker]

They acknowledge it all, sometimes even acknowledging the need for regulation. All seems well. Then that little word "voluntary" creeps back out of the shadows and everything falls apart.

Voluntarism and regulations stand in opposition to each other with respect to their implementations.

Fred, your position is clear.  You are not OK with any regulation that prevents the likes of Osama bin Ladin or Jared Laughner getting nukes and access to the smallpox virus.  Having told us that already, you don't need to repeat it.

[FredericBastiat]

Fred, your position is clear.  You are not OK with any regulation that prevents the likes of Osama bin Ladin or Jared Laughner getting nukes and access to the smallpox virus.  Having told us that already, you don't need to repeat it.

Actually, in the very short response to my comment, you misinterpret what I've said. I do agree that it is just to prevent the likes of Osama and Jared from acquiring said weaponry. They have already demonstrated their unwillingness to participate in society in a non-aggressive way. They have already violated the NAP, and could be regulated in that sense. You shouldn't regulate unless there is a threat to commit violence or after the fact.