Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Rassah]

There is no invitation to join - you inherited the citizenship.  You may not agree with where the money goes but its up to you to change the system.  There isn't really a way to opt out/move away but that's the limit of the analogy rather than of the logic.

Isn't that the problem libertarians are trying to find a solution for? Is your agrument now "there are no libertarian places out there, you live in a Democratic government society, so just buck up and deal with it?"

[1714321784]

1714321784

[1714321784]

1714321784

[AyeYo]

There is no invitation to join - you inherited the citizenship.  You may not agree with where the money goes but its up to you to change the system.  There isn't really a way to opt out/move away but that's the limit of the analogy rather than of the logic.

Isn't that the problem libertarians are trying to find a solution for? Is your agrument now "there are no libertarian places out there, you live in a Democratic government society, so just buck up and deal with it?"

No one said just deal with it.  If you don't like it, change it.  Currently, the vast majority of society has VOLUNTARILY decided that it does NOT want what you're selling, which brings us back to my question that no one wants to answer.  

HOW do you plan on changing it without being a hypocrite at the same time?

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't make EVERYONE happy ALL the time, thus you will ALWAYS have to suppress at least some people via threat of violence)?

[Hawker]

There is no invitation to join - you inherited the citizenship.  You may not agree with where the money goes but its up to you to change the system.  There isn't really a way to opt out/move away but that's the limit of the analogy rather than of the logic.

Isn't that the problem libertarians are trying to find a solution for? Is your agrument now "there are no libertarian places out there, you live in a Democratic government society, so just buck up and deal with it?"

I hope you do live in a democratic society.   Its a pleasant alternative to dictatorship.

A lot of the arguments here seem to assume that there is some way to have a revolution, start from scratch and create a new society.  Since we can't do that, it would make more sense to work on how you want the existing one to work better.

[FredericBastiat]

I hope you do live in a democratic society.   Its a pleasant alternative to dictatorship.

A lot of the arguments here seem to assume that there is some way to have a revolution, start from scratch and create a new society.  Since we can't do that, it would make more sense to work on how you want the existing one to work better.

Same wolf in sheep's clothing, perhaps slightly less lethal.

[Hawker]

I hope you do live in a democratic society.   Its a pleasant alternative to dictatorship.

A lot of the arguments here seem to assume that there is some way to have a revolution, start from scratch and create a new society.  Since we can't do that, it would make more sense to work on how you want the existing one to work better.

Same wolf in sheep's clothing, perhaps slightly less lethal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/world/middleeast/bahrain-court-hands-down-harsh-sentences-to-doctors-and-protesters.html?ref=middleeast&pagewanted=print

Exactly the same apart from the oppression, torture, disappearance of opposition activists, killing of peaceful demonstrators and imprisonment of medics for treating injured civilians.

Really, grow up.  Where do you live that compares to that?

[FredericBastiat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/world/middleeast/bahrain-court-hands-down-harsh-sentences-to-doctors-and-protesters.html?ref=middleeast&pagewanted=print

Exactly the same apart from the oppression, torture, disappearance of opposition activists, killing of peaceful demonstrators and imprisonment of medics for treating injured civilians.

Really, grow up.  Where do you live that compares to that?

Oppression: check (how many US laws can make us criminals, as opposed to before?). Torture: check (Guantanamo). Disappearance of opposition activists: check (kept on the low-down). Killing of peaceful demonstrators: check (oops, it was just an accident, righhhht...). Imprisonment of medics: check (FDA going after alternative medicine doctors)

Now I know the above isn't as blatant as dictatorial regimes but pain is still pain, dead is still dead, despite the delivery method. It's always a means to an end. The only thing the US cares about is it's reputation, whereas other dictatorships only care about maintaining their position of power for as long as possible before the next coup d'etat.

[MoonShadow]

Sorry I don't get where you get from a stolen video player to people owning you, your spouse or your children.  And as I said, comparing society, which is inherited by and large, with a group of friends playing a video game, which is voluntary by and large, doesn't make sense to me.  You can leave the group and it hurts no-one. Refuse to pay taxes and it does affect other people.

We'll get there, but we have to start somewhere.  Do you own your own person?  Is your life wholely your own?  If so, can you give it away, like you can a physical object that you rightly own?  Can someone else rightly take it from you against your will, if you have caused neither them, nor anyone that they might represent, any real harm?

[AyeYo]

Anybody interested in responding to my question yet?  It was first asked 30+ pages ago.

[AyeYo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/world/middleeast/bahrain-court-hands-down-harsh-sentences-to-doctors-and-protesters.html?ref=middleeast&pagewanted=print

Exactly the same apart from the oppression, torture, disappearance of opposition activists, killing of peaceful demonstrators and imprisonment of medics for treating injured civilians.

Really, grow up.  Where do you live that compares to that?

Oppression: check (how many US laws can make us criminals, as opposed to before?). Torture: check (Guantanamo). Disappearance of opposition activists: check (kept on the low-down). Killing of peaceful demonstrators: check (oops, it was just an accident, righhhht...). Imprisonment of medics: check (FDA going after alternative medicine doctors)

Now I know the above isn't as blatant as dictatorial regimes but pain is still pain, dead is still dead, despite the delivery method. It's always a means to an end. The only thing the US cares about is it's reputation, whereas other dictatorships only care about maintaining their position of power for as long as possible before the next coup d'etat.

If you ever open your eyes and we're able to move off of these ridiuclous topics like you handing out nukes to terrorists, you'll realize that most of us are very against the exact actions you've just described.

But in the world of color (not your black/white alternative universe), the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out.  The fact that current first-world government is mostly corrupt, doesn't mean that government in and of itself is an inherently bad concept.

[Hawker]

Sorry I don't get where you get from a stolen video player to people owning you, your spouse or your children.  And as I said, comparing society, which is inherited by and large, with a group of friends playing a video game, which is voluntary by and large, doesn't make sense to me.  You can leave the group and it hurts no-one. Refuse to pay taxes and it does affect other people.

We'll get there, but we have to start somewhere.  Do you own your own person?  Is your life wholely your own?  If so, can you give it away, like you can a physical object that you rightly own?  Can someone else rightly take it from you against your will, if you have caused neither them, nor anyone that they might represent, any real harm?

Google Definition for ownership: the relation of an owner to the thing possessed; possession with the right to transfer possession to others

Do you own your own person? Your person is not a thing you can possess and it can't be transferred.  Therefore it can't be owned.

Is your life wholly your own?  You may decide to end your life.  Society may decide you are depressed and stop you.  So that makes the answer No.  

Can someone else rightly take your life from you against your will?  Yes.  Should they ? In my opinion, only to prevent future harm.  If you represent a future danger and death is what it takes to stop you, then even if you have done no harm, bring on the sword of death.

[Hawker]

...snip...

If you ever open your eyes and we're able to move off of these ridiuclous topics like you handing out nukes to terrorists, you'll realize that most of us are very against the exact actions you've just described.

But in the world of color (not your black/white alternative universe), the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out.  The fact that current first-world government is mostly corrupt, doesn't mean that government in and of itself is an inherently bad concept.

Fred is trolling or he has lost all grip on reality.  Either way, you won't get anywhere feeding his delusional posts.

[NghtRppr]

the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out

You mean like your fantasy objections to libertarianism?

[FredericBastiat]

If you ever open your eyes and we're able to move off of these ridiuclous topics like you handing out nukes to terrorists, you'll realize that most of us are very against the exact actions you've just described.

But in the world of color (not your black/white alternative universe), the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out.  The fact that current first-world government is mostly corrupt, doesn't mean that government in and of itself is an inherently bad concept.

I never started the nuke topic. The world is very colorful, no doubt. I just believe that libertarianism can handle more problems, more eloquently and more equitably than the state who has a monopoly on force can.

How do you think the government got where it is now? It was given(extirpated) a privilege no one else had the right to delegate. They took away the consent to be governed.

[AyeYo]

the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out

You mean like your fantasy objections to libertarianism?

There's a difference between fixable flaws cropping up in implimentation (due to human nature) and inherent, systemic flaws in the idealogy itself.

[FredericBastiat]

If you ever open your eyes and we're able to move off of these ridiuclous topics like you handing out nukes to terrorists, you'll realize that most of us are very against the exact actions you've just described.

But in the world of color (not your black/white alternative universe), the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out.  The fact that current first-world government is mostly corrupt, doesn't mean that government in and of itself is an inherently bad concept.

Fred is trolling or he has lost all grip on reality.  Either way, you won't get anywhere feeding his delusional posts.

I may have said some things that were out of line. I can redact some of those. I probably wouldn't have erred as much if it hadn't been for me answering some of the crazy illogical and nonsensical fallacies you put forth. So I apologize for stepping on some of your "land mines". I should be more careful where I step.

[FredericBastiat]

There's a difference between fixable flaws cropping up in implimentation (due to human nature) and inherent, systemic flaws in the idealogy itself.

And you even have a system? Oh wait, it's whatever you can convince society to sign off on. Flaws? Of course not, every things going perfectly as planned, I just need more tax revenue.

[MoonShadow]

Anybody interested in responding to my question yet?  It was first asked 30+ pages ago.

Haven't seen it.  It was probably trolling anyway.

[NghtRppr]

the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out

You mean like your fantasy objections to libertarianism?

There's a difference between fixable flaws cropping up in implimentation (due to human nature) and inherent, systemic flaws in the idealogy itself.

You mean like concentrating power in the hands of a few people and hoping the bad guys won't make a grab for it and abuse it?

[AyeYo]

Anybody interested in responding to my question yet?  It was first asked 30+ pages ago.

Haven't seen it.  It was probably trolling anyway.

Must be blind, because I quoted it right on this page.

[MoonShadow]

Sorry I don't get where you get from a stolen video player to people owning you, your spouse or your children.  And as I said, comparing society, which is inherited by and large, with a group of friends playing a video game, which is voluntary by and large, doesn't make sense to me.  You can leave the group and it hurts no-one. Refuse to pay taxes and it does affect other people.

We'll get there, but we have to start somewhere.  Do you own your own person?  Is your life wholely your own?  If so, can you give it away, like you can a physical object that you rightly own?  Can someone else rightly take it from you against your will, if you have caused neither them, nor anyone that they might represent, any real harm?

Google Definition for ownership: the relation of an owner to the thing possessed; possession with the right to transfer possession to others

Do you own your own person? Your person is not a thing you can possess and it can't be transferred.  Therefore it can't be owned.

You are most certainly a physical object.  Human history suggests that the concept of ownership of particular humans is deeply ingrained in humanity, for good or bad.

Is your life wholly your own?  You may decide to end your life.  Society may decide you are depressed and stop you.  So that makes the answer No.  

Can someone else rightly take your life from you against your will?  Yes.  Should they ? In my opinion, only to prevent future harm.  If you represent a future danger and death is what it takes to stop you, then even if you have done no harm, bring on the sword of death.

So you don't own you, then.  So who does?  As noted above, someone owns you.  Either you own you, or society does; so which is it?  Are you your own, or are you slave to the collective?  It pretty much answers itself, because there can be no middle ground.