Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

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.

Jared Laughner had never given an indication of violence prior to his shooting spree.

Most terrorists don't telegraph their intentions either.

In both cases, you'd be OK with them getting nukes before they make threats.  You value your idea of the NAP over the lives of the people who would get killed if you have your way.

As I said, your position is clear.

[1714256778]

1714256778

[1714256778]

1714256778

[MoonShadow]

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.  

No, I don't.  You really don't understand what's going on here, do you?

[MoonShadow]

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.

Jared Laughner had never given an indication of violence prior to his shooting spree.
 

And he didn't have any more ability to assemble or deploy a nuclear weapon than you do, and the government regulations on such materials has nearly zero to do with either of you.

[Hawker]

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.  

No, I don't.  You really don't understand what's going on here, do you?

I do.  You are avoiding admitting the consequences of your ideas.  

Lets get back to clarifying your position.  Do you have any ideas on how the mad and the bad would be prevented from access to nuclear bomb-making materials, the smallpox virus and the type of fertiliser without regulation?  

[FredericBastiat]

I think it's really tiring to try to argue the nuke subject. It goes round and round, and nothing specific can be proven about it except to say that it's being handled in a specific way now. We can all say that the current way works because it affects persons via direct force. Apply enough chains and shackles and you will eventually prevent all crime. Of course, you might not get as much productivity either, but that's the risk that the aggressor takes. Incentive definitely takes a back seat if I'm forced to do someone else's bidding.

All enforced laws, and ones that threaten injury, have that tendency. I merely question the validity of the law. What is justice? Can it be defined in a consistent and logical way? If we all agree that not initiating aggression as an axiom of law and we break that premise, then the consistency and logicality built upon that principle are broken. Are laws that are illogical and inconsistent actually laws?

If on the other hand you decide that the NAP is not the cornerstone axiom of law, and you do whatever you think is necessary to "get the job done", then law can be anything that you want. You could have a dictatorship, oligarchy, socialism, fascism, republic, anarchy and so forth. If you are well heeled and well armed, you survive the best, if you aren't, you may be serfs or subjects of the "king". You may live, you may not. It is entirely dependent on the survival of the fittest.

I for one would rather not be treated as a beast of the field.

[Hawker]

I think it's really tiring to try to argue the nuke subject. It goes round and round, and nothing specific can be proven about it except to say that it's being handled in a specific way now. We can all say that the current way works because it affects persons via direct force. Apply enough chains and shackles and you will eventually prevent all crime. Of course, you might not get as much productivity either, but that's the risk that the aggressor takes. Incentive definitely takes a back seat if I'm forced to do someone else's bidding.

All enforced laws, and ones that threaten injury, have that tendency. I merely question the validity of the law. What is justice? Can it be defined in a consistent and logical way? If we all agree that not initiating aggression as an axiom of law and we break that premise, then the consistency and logicality built upon that principle are broken. Are laws that are illogical and inconsistent actually laws?

If on the other hand you decide that the NAP is not the cornerstone axiom of law, and you do whatever you think is necessary to "get the job done", then law can be anything that you want. You could have a dictatorship, oligarchy, socialism, fascism, republic, anarchy and so forth. If you are well heeled and well armed, you survive the best, if you aren't, you may be serfs or subjects of the "king". You may live, you may not. It is entirely dependent on the survival of the fittest.

I for one would rather not be treated as a beast of the field.

You've said that it doesn't matter if people die for your beliefs that regulating materials is some kind of moral offence.  So your position is clear.  In your society we will have an admirable degree of freedom, smallpox and bombs going off a lot.  Some will be nukes because if the bomber hasn't announced his intention in advance, then it would breach the NAP to take his explosives off him.

You never did answer the question about where your NAP comes from.  If you think in "is/ought" terms, the existing order is what "is" and your proposal is what you think "ought" to happen.  What basis does it have?  God, natural law or something?

[MoonShadow]

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.  

No, I don't.  You really don't understand what's going on here, do you?

I do.  You are avoiding admitting the consequences of your ideas.  

No, you don't.

This fact becomes more apparent the more of your posts that I read.  Perhaps you should enrich yourself by extending your breadth of understanding concerning libertarian thought by reading a few articles by better philosophers than can be found on an open Internet forum.

Lets get back to clarifying your position.  Do you have any ideas on how the mad and the bad would be prevented from access to nuclear bomb-making materials, the smallpox virus and the type of fertiliser without regulation?  

Yes, and I have repeatedly referred to those forms of prevention.  You just don't understand or accept them.  I'm not interested in a circle jerk. 

[MoonShadow]

You never did answer the question about where your NAP comes from.  If you think in "is/ought" terms, the existing order is what "is" and your proposal is what you think "ought" to happen.  What basis does it have?  God, natural law or something?

Yes, something.  Come back when you have figured out where the NAP is derived from.  Here's a small clue to get you started, where do I get my signature quote from?

[Hawker]

Lets get back to clarifying your position.  Do you have any ideas on how the mad and the bad would be prevented from access to nuclear bomb-making materials, the smallpox virus and the type of fertiliser without regulation?  

Yes, and I have repeatedly referred to those forms of prevention.  You just don't understand or accept them.  I'm not interested in a circle jerk.  

Forgive me.  Its a long thread.

Where have you said how people will be prevented from access to nuclear materials and centrifuges?

[Rassah]

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.

I meant I was expecting them to do that. I know it's ridiculous.

[Rassah]

At the extreme risk of opening up a huge can of worms, I'm going to flip this regulation thing into the other extreme:

In order to protect a certain class of people, the government passed some laws to make certain types of information illegal to poses. As time progressed, the regulation of this information expanded, the punishments became more and more severe, and the restrictions became more and more limited. At present, this information is considered so dangerous that it can not even be presented in court as evidence, since the very act of owning it or looking at it is illegal. The end result of this regulation is that people can be accused of being in posession of this material, or something that may just resemble it, be charged by the state for it, and tried without any evidence being presented against them. Usually the people still get convicted, and if a jurry is involved in a trial, these people are pretty much guaranteed to be convicted. The sentence is usually at least 5 years in prison, sometimes more. If you are lucky, you are allowed to stay home, but get regular checkups by the FBI, and are required to notify your government handlers if you wish to travel or leave the state. You are also severely restricted in where you are allowed to go. Likewise, your internet and phone conversations are monitored, and you can pretty much assume a total lack of privacy. The crime of possessing these materials is considered so great that it becomes difficult to get a job if you have the charge on your record. And, again, thanks to the strict regulations, you do not actually have to be guilty. Simply being accused and charged with it is enough, since, with the evidence not being admissible in court, it's your word against the police/FBI, and thus you'll very likely lose.

Do you agree with this type of government regulation? Do you believe that it's perfectly fine for regulation to progress to that level, if enough people believe there is a need for it? Why do you believe this regulation is justice, just because it was passed by the government with the people's consent?

[MoonShadow]

Lets get back to clarifying your position.  Do you have any ideas on how the mad and the bad would be prevented from access to nuclear bomb-making materials, the smallpox virus and the type of fertiliser without regulation?  

Yes, and I have repeatedly referred to those forms of prevention.  You just don't understand or accept them.  I'm not interested in a circle jerk.  

Forgive me.  Its a long thread.

Where have you said how people will be prevented from access to nuclear materials and centrifuges?

Wow, that was quick!  So, in your own words, how would you sum up your new understanding of where libs get the NAP from?

[NghtRppr]

Do you agree with this type of government regulation? Do you believe that it's perfectly fine for regulation to progress to that level, if enough people believe there is a need for it? Why do you believe this regulation is justice, just because it was passed by the government with the people's consent?

I'd also like to ask some additional questions. If there is a line drawn where there is "too strict regulation", by what guiding principle is that line drawn? Also, where does that principle come from?

[MoonShadow]

Do you agree with this type of government regulation? Do you believe that it's perfectly fine for regulation to progress to that level, if enough people believe there is a need for it? Why do you believe this regulation is justice, just because it was passed by the government with the people's consent?

I'd also like to ask some additional questions. If there is a line drawn where there is "too strict regulation", by what guiding principle is that line drawn? Also, where does that principle come from?

I'll even make it simplier.  What principles are your politcal ideologies based upon, if any?  Among that set of principles, which are in conflict with libertarian principles and how?

[FredericBastiat]

Forgive me.  Its a long thread.

Where have you said how people will be prevented from access to nuclear materials and centrifuges?

You can't because it's already been done. It's impossible to be perfect. You can be induced and influenced to not want something. You can never prevent it, unless the laws of physics says it's not possible, and even then I wouldn't hold my breath.

[AyeYo]

Do you agree with this type of government regulation? Do you believe that it's perfectly fine for regulation to progress to that level, if enough people believe there is a need for it? Why do you believe this regulation is justice, just because it was passed by the government with the people's consent?

I'd also like to ask some additional questions. If there is a line drawn where there is "too strict regulation", by what guiding principle is that line drawn? Also, where does that principle come from?

I'll even make it simplier.  What principles are your politcal ideologies based upon, if any?  Among that set of principles, which are in conflict with libertarian principles and how?

Off the top of my head, I'd have to say that one of the primary conflicts (especially in this thread) is that we (REDACTED INDIRECT INSULT) value the right to life over trivial, admittedly pull-from-ass rights like the right to own a nuke, the right to juggle small pox vials, the right to manufacture biological weapons in your basement, the right to store an armed bomb in your shed that's ten feet from my house, etc.

I think that's one of the main disagreements.

[Hawker]

At the extreme risk of opening up a huge can of worms, I'm going to flip this regulation thing into the other extreme:

In order to protect a certain class of people, the government passed some laws to make certain types of information illegal to poses. As time progressed, the regulation of this information expanded, the punishments became more and more severe, and the restrictions became more and more limited. At present, this information is considered so dangerous that it can not even be presented in court as evidence, since the very act of owning it or looking at it is illegal. The end result of this regulation is that people can be accused of being in posession of this material, or something that may just resemble it, be charged by the state for it, and tried without any evidence being presented against them. Usually the people still get convicted, and if a jurry is involved in a trial, these people are pretty much guaranteed to be convicted. The sentence is usually at least 5 years in prison, sometimes more. If you are lucky, you are allowed to stay home, but get regular checkups by the FBI, and are required to notify your government handlers if you wish to travel or leave the state. You are also severely restricted in where you are allowed to go. Likewise, your internet and phone conversations are monitored, and you can pretty much assume a total lack of privacy. The crime of possessing these materials is considered so great that it becomes difficult to get a job if you have the charge on your record. And, again, thanks to the strict regulations, you do not actually have to be guilty. Simply being accused and charged with it is enough, since, with the evidence not being admissible in court, it's your word against the police/FBI, and thus you'll very likely lose.

Do you agree with this type of government regulation? Do you believe that it's perfectly fine for regulation to progress to that level, if enough people believe there is a need for it? Why do you believe this regulation is justice, just because it was passed by the government with the people's consent?

I assume by "certain types of information illegal to possess" you mean child porn?  The places you are severely restricted from going to are schools?  

There is an interesting discussion to be had on how much of attraction to kids is learnt and how much is a case of being born that way.  There is also an interesting discussion to be had about what the age of consent should be.  In some countries its as low as 9.  Then there are lots of teenagers who have "sexted" images that are technically child porn to their friends. But I'm not sure where you want to go with this.

 

[AyeYo]

Forgive me.  Its a long thread.

Where have you said how people will be prevented from access to nuclear materials and centrifuges?

You can't because it's already been done. It's impossible to be perfect. You can be induced and influenced to not want something. You can never prevent it, unless the laws of physics says it's not possible, and even then I wouldn't hold my breath.

But there are these things called probabilities, you see.

If we can REDUCE (not prevent) the possibility of a terrorist getting his hands on a nuke from 1:100 to 1:1,000,000,000... that's a worthwhile change.

The fact that something isn't PERFECT is not reason to discard it, because NOTHING is perfect.


Obviously this whole deal requires an ability to see in colors other than black and white, as well an ability to understand cost/benefit analysis - things most folks on this forum do not possess.

[MoonShadow]

Do you agree with this type of government regulation? Do you believe that it's perfectly fine for regulation to progress to that level, if enough people believe there is a need for it? Why do you believe this regulation is justice, just because it was passed by the government with the people's consent?

I'd also like to ask some additional questions. If there is a line drawn where there is "too strict regulation", by what guiding principle is that line drawn? Also, where does that principle come from?

I'll even make it simplier.  What principles are your politcal ideologies based upon, if any?  Among that set of principles, which are in conflict with libertarian principles and how?

Off the top of my head, I'd have to say that one of the primary conflicts (especially in this thread) is that we (REDACTED INDIRECT INSULT) value the right to life over trivial, admittedly pull-from-ass rights like the right to own a nuke, the right to juggle small pox vials, the right to manufacture biological weapons in your basement, the right to store an armed bomb in your shed that's ten feet from my house, etc.

I think that's one of the main disagreements.

And that is one of the main errors.  I don't even expect you to make any effort, AyeYo, because you're just here for the entertainment value.

[Hawker]

Forgive me.  Its a long thread.

Where have you said how people will be prevented from access to nuclear materials and centrifuges?

You can't because it's already been done. It's impossible to be perfect. You can be induced and influenced to not want something. You can never prevent it, unless the laws of physics says it's not possible, and even then I wouldn't hold my breath.

Fred you already made clear that, in your ideal world, the nukes going off is just part of what we have to put up with.  And under the present system, its not an issue because as you said, regulation works in preventing nukes but it restricts your freedom.

I asked Moonshadow his position.