Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

Of course!  Regulation is a pain in the butt - if you have a better way it would be adopted immediately.

I believe in magic...

The more principled way takes more effort and introspection. Tyranny and slavery requires neither.

The question I asked you was " If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?"

Still waiting for your answer. 

[1714289658]

1714289658

[1714289658]

1714289658

[MoonShadow]

You have cited this before, but corrolation still isn't causation, even in Ireland.  The subject is too complex to attribute to a single regulation, and without even checking, I'm pretty sure that the political issues that motivated much of the IRA were resolved around that same time, were they not?

Regulation of fertiliser sales was 1975.  Car bombings became rare within a month.  The IRA reached a political settlement in 1997, 22 years later.

Rather than worry about Irish history, how about answering the question; if I can demonstrate that using government agencies to regulate fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow government regulation of fertiliser sales?

A simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that's needed.

I've already answered it three times.  The answer is a qualified no.  For many of the principled and practical reasons that have been presented to you, that apparently you have failed or willfully refused to consider.  For some it would be an unqualified no, but I'm not willing to undermine the 'good' in pursuit of the 'perfect'.  But I'm also openly stating that, by compromising my own priciples for a pragmatic victory, I'm still compromising my principles.

On the other hand, statists don't really have any principles to compromise as far as I can tell, so I'm not willing to meet in the middle either.  You're going to have to come a lot farther to my side with checks and balances against government abuse before I am willing to concede that the benefits to public safety outweigh the risks of future government "mission creep" or deliberate government corruption.

If I read correctly, that's actually a 'yes.'

As I said earlier, if a way can be found to keep car bombs from being assembled that doesn't involve regulation, of course I would prefer that.  No-one wants regulation.  If it does exist, you have to worry about things like regulatory capture and raw incompetence.  So of course safeguards are needed.  But the key issue here is whether you accept that people who already are regulating fertiliser sales to prevent themselves being killed have a right to do so.  It seems to me that you think they do so we are in agreement.

It's still a 'no' because your default position, and the default position of most every statist on Earth, is that if regulations (enforced by government agents) are possible, we will try that first.  If it works okay, we aren't going to "fix what ain't broken" in order to consider any other alternative; whether it would increase freedom or not, or whether it could increase effectiveness or not.  Do the Irish people have a right to regulate themselves?  Yes.  Does the Irish parliment have the right to regulate the Irish people on their behalf?  Not necessarily.  Do the Irish people have the right to regulate my business relationships with an Irish importer?  An unqualified no. 

[Hawker]

It's still a 'no' because your default position, and the default position of most every statist on Earth, is that if regulations (enforced by government agents) are possible, we will try that first.  If it works okay, we aren't going to "fix what ain't broken" in order to consider any other alternative; whether it would increase freedom or not, or whether it could increase effectiveness or not.  Do the Irish people have a right to regulate themselves?  Yes.  Does the Irish parliment have the right to regulate the Irish people on their behalf?  Not necessarily.  Do the Irish people have the right to regulate my business relationships with an Irish importer?  An unqualified no.  

Now you are being irrational.  What you are saying is that yes regulation is OK if its the best option but no you won't allow it because you think I am a statist.  Even if I was, the fact that lives are saved is nothing to do with my motivation and presumably saving lives is what we both want.

[MoonShadow]

It's still a 'no' because your default position, and the default position of most every statist on Earth, is that if regulations (enforced by government agents) are possible, we will try that first.  If it works okay, we aren't going to "fix what ain't broken" in order to consider any other alternative; whether it would increase freedom or not, or whether it could increase effectiveness or not.  Do the Irish people have a right to regulate themselves?  Yes.  Does the Irish parliment have the right to regulate the Irish people on their behalf?  Not necessarily.  Do the Irish people have the right to regulate my business relationships with an Irish importer?  An unqualified no.  

Now you are being irrational.  What you are saying is that yes regulation is OK if its the best option but no you won't allow it because you think I am a statist.  Even if I was, teh fact that lives are saved is nothing to do with my motivation and presumably saving lives is what we both want.

I'm not being irrational.  Irrational would be to assume that regulation is the best option, without due consideration of other avenues.  Irrational would be to assume that seeking a middle ground compromise with a statist is going to result in an improvement in individual liberties, when it never has before.  You don't have to be a statist yourself in order to advocate for statist goals.  It's the default position in the modern world, perhaps throughout history.  It takes a lot of work to convince a single, rational and educated individual that libertarian social theories are even possible, much less the better method, as you are an example.  This is partly due to the fact that many of the libertarian social theories seem counter-intuitive at a casual overview, and partly due to the fact that the modern adult citizen has been educated within a government institution for at least tweleve years, and has a lot of cognative programming to overcome.

It is my experience that, given time to consider the arguments, and a real willingness to consider the arguments, almost everyone is a libertarian in most areas of their life.  They just don't know it.  Most have their little 'core issues' that they believe cannot be handled effectively without a government monopoly on force, despite eventually accepting that it their issue is not logically different than any other.  Your's seems to be the prevention of low-tech terroristic bombings.  I've seen others argue that only a government can regulate air traffic to prevent collisions, or that only governments can regulate drug or medical safety standards, or the electromagnetic spectrum as a commons, or scientific inquiry of various forms, usually outer space.  None of these almost-libs can ever quite get past the idea that these very pet issues of theirs are already regulated by organizations other than governments in many direct or indirect ways.  They are just set in their viewpoints on these particular issues. 

[Hawker]

It's still a 'no' because your default position, and the default position of most every statist on Earth, is that if regulations (enforced by government agents) are possible, we will try that first.  If it works okay, we aren't going to "fix what ain't broken" in order to consider any other alternative; whether it would increase freedom or not, or whether it could increase effectiveness or not.  Do the Irish people have a right to regulate themselves?  Yes.  Does the Irish parliment have the right to regulate the Irish people on their behalf?  Not necessarily.  Do the Irish people have the right to regulate my business relationships with an Irish importer?  An unqualified no.  

Now you are being irrational.  What you are saying is that yes regulation is OK if its the best option but no you won't allow it because you think I am a statist.  Even if I was, teh fact that lives are saved is nothing to do with my motivation and presumably saving lives is what we both want.

I'm not being irrational

...snip...

What you are saying is that yes regulation is OK if its the best option but no you won't allow it because you think I am a statist.

That is irrational.  Sorry.

[MoonShadow]

It's still a 'no' because your default position, and the default position of most every statist on Earth, is that if regulations (enforced by government agents) are possible, we will try that first.  If it works okay, we aren't going to "fix what ain't broken" in order to consider any other alternative; whether it would increase freedom or not, or whether it could increase effectiveness or not.  Do the Irish people have a right to regulate themselves?  Yes.  Does the Irish parliment have the right to regulate the Irish people on their behalf?  Not necessarily.  Do the Irish people have the right to regulate my business relationships with an Irish importer?  An unqualified no.  

Now you are being irrational.  What you are saying is that yes regulation is OK if its the best option but no you won't allow it because you think I am a statist.  Even if I was, teh fact that lives are saved is nothing to do with my motivation and presumably saving lives is what we both want.

I'm not being irrational

...snip...

What you are saying is that yes regulation is OK if its the best option but no you won't allow it because you think I am a statist.

That is irrational.  Sorry.

That's not what I'm saying, either.  I'm saying that regulation is okay if it actually is the best option, but that you have no way of knowing that because you are unwilling to consider alternatives.

[Rassah]

I've seen others argue that only a government can regulate air traffic to prevent collisions, or that only governments can regulate drug or medical safety standards, or the electromagnetic spectrum as a commons, or scientific inquiry of various forms, usually outer space.  None of these almost-libs can ever quite get past the idea that these very pet issues of theirs are already regulated by organizations other than governments in many direct or indirect ways.  They are just set in their viewpoints on these particular issues. 

Damn. Spanked my arguments down well. Thanks for pointing me in the direction to figure these things out (though they seem like no-brainers to you, the idea of "Oh yeah, the FAA could just as easqilly be a privately provided pay-for-use service!" is hard to get to when you are, as you say, congitively programmed.)

[MoonShadow]

I've seen others argue that only a government can regulate air traffic to prevent collisions, or that only governments can regulate drug or medical safety standards, or the electromagnetic spectrum as a commons, or scientific inquiry of various forms, usually outer space.  None of these almost-libs can ever quite get past the idea that these very pet issues of theirs are already regulated by organizations other than governments in many direct or indirect ways.  They are just set in their viewpoints on these particular issues. 

Damn. Spanked my arguments down well. Thanks for pointing me in the direction to figure these things out

That's a lot of work, and I gain nothing by the efforts.  We have Google and Wikipedia now, use the modern technology.

(though they seem like no-brainers to you, the idea of "Oh yeah, the FAA could just as easqilly be a privately provided pay-for-use service!" is hard to get to when you are, as you say, congitively programmed.)

The FAA could just as easily be a privately provided pay-for-use service, because it largely is.  The federal government pays for federal burecrats in Washington that private airports have to respond to, but the federal government does not pay for the wages of the air traffic controllers.  Those wages are, generally speaking, provided for via the per-seat airport fees that the airports charge the airlines; not via taxation.  The rules of air traffic were largely settled by hobbyist pilots back in the early 'barnstormer' days, as a matter of self preservation; so there is plenty of evidence that a federal agency isn't necessary for the development of new public safety rules.  The pilots and airlines can work out those issues effectively enough amongst themselves.  BTW, my aunt was the first female flight instructor in the city of Louisville, Kentucky.  Photos of her in her mid 20's hang in the lobby of Bowman Field.  If the same rules existed back then for the qualification of pilots as exist today, she would likely never have been able to get a pilot's license.  Most of those rules don't make you safer, most just create an artificial scarcity of experienced pilots, supporting wages.  This may or may not be in the best interests of public safety, but generally speaking they are only in the best interests of the pilots' union.

The same artificial scarcity of skilled labor exists in the medical field as well, but in that case government is more of a tool, not an active co-conspiritor.  The AMA sets the standards for medical practitioners, and states merely back them up with force of law.

[FredericBastiat]

The question I asked you was " If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?"

Still waiting for your answer. 

Is gravity the best way to keep me from floating off into space? I don't know. I can't know. I haven't been given any other option to find out.

Yeah, I know, it doesn't answer your question. I can't answer the question. It's like asking if you still enjoy beating your wife. It's a loaded question.

[Hawker]

That's not what I'm saying, either.  I'm saying that regulation is okay if it actually is the best option, but that you have no way of knowing that because you are unwilling to consider alternatives.

Then we are in agreement.  I don't want regulation.  You don't want regulation.  But if its the best option, we both agree that its right to regulate.

[Hawker]

The question I asked you was " If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?"

Still waiting for your answer. 

Is gravity the best way to keep me from floating off into space? I don't know. I can't know. I haven't been given any other option to find out.

Yeah, I know, it doesn't answer your question. I can't answer the question. It's like asking if you still enjoy beating your wife. It's a loaded question.

You can answer but you won't because the fragile edifice of your argument that we have no right to enforce regulation for the greater good fails at that point.

[FirstAscent]

Is gravity the best way to keep me from floating off into space? I don't know. I can't know. I haven't been given any other option to find out.

Why haven't you been given a better option?

[Hawker]

Is gravity the best way to keep me from floating off into space? I don't know. I can't know. I haven't been given any other option to find out.

Why haven't you been given a better option?

He hasn't been given a better option because we lack imagination and faith.  Or so he thinks

[NghtRppr]

The question I asked you was "If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?"

If I can demonstrate that forced slavery saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow forced enslavement?

[Hawker]

The question I asked you was "If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?"

If I can demonstrate that forced slavery saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow forced enslavement?

You make the same fallacy all the time.  Compare every minor inconvenience with slavery.

Since we already know your answer and you are comfortable with your position, I don't mind.  You view is that the real world deaths of people as a consequence of failing to regulate would not justify the breach of your principles.  Fred believes the same but for some reason he can't bring himself to admit it.

[NghtRppr]

The question I asked you was "If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?"

If I can demonstrate that forced slavery saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow forced enslavement?

You make the same fallacy all the time.  Compare every minor inconvenience with slavery.

Since we already know your answer and you are comfortable with your position, I don't mind.  You view is that the real world deaths of people as a consequence of failing to regulate would not justify the breach of your principles.  Fred believes the same but for some reason he can't bring himself to admit it.

Still waiting for your answer.

[Hawker]

The question I asked you was "If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?"

If I can demonstrate that forced slavery saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow forced enslavement?

You make the same fallacy all the time.  Compare every minor inconvenience with slavery.

Since we already know your answer and you are comfortable with your position, I don't mind.  You view is that the real world deaths of people as a consequence of failing to regulate would not justify the breach of your principles.  Fred believes the same but for some reason he can't bring himself to admit it.

Still waiting for your answer.

The answer is no.  The damage done exceeds the damage avoided.

[NghtRppr]

The question I asked you was "If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?"

If I can demonstrate that forced slavery saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow forced enslavement?

You make the same fallacy all the time.  Compare every minor inconvenience with slavery.

Since we already know your answer and you are comfortable with your position, I don't mind.  You view is that the real world deaths of people as a consequence of failing to regulate would not justify the breach of your principles.  Fred believes the same but for some reason he can't bring himself to admit it.

Still waiting for your answer.

The answer is no.  The damage done exceeds the damage avoided.

No, you can't change the parameters of the question. I specifically said that, "If I can demonstrate that forced slavery saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow forced enslavement?" See the part in bold? I'm stipulating that the damage done doesn't exceed the damage avoided. Does that change your answer? Are you then ready to endorse forced enslavement?

[Hawker]

The question I asked you was "If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?"

If I can demonstrate that forced slavery saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow forced enslavement?

You make the same fallacy all the time.  Compare every minor inconvenience with slavery.

Since we already know your answer and you are comfortable with your position, I don't mind.  You view is that the real world deaths of people as a consequence of failing to regulate would not justify the breach of your principles.  Fred believes the same but for some reason he can't bring himself to admit it.

Still waiting for your answer.

The answer is no.  The damage done exceeds the damage avoided.

No, you can't change the parameters of the question. I specifically said that, "If I can demonstrate that forced slavery saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow forced enslavement?" See the part in bold? I'm stipulating that the damage done doesn't exceed the damage avoided. Does that change your answer? Are you then ready to endorse forced enslavement?

By slavery you mean that the children of those imprisoned are available for sale?  Or simple imprisonment as we use for potentially dangerous people?

Assuming its the former, the damage done exceeds the damage avoided. 

[BitterTea]

Assuming its the former, the damage done exceeds the damage avoided. 

When you/he says "if I can demonstrate that X is beneficial, would you support it", the question must be answered as if X can be beneficial. Would you accept your non-answer in response to your question?