Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FredericBastiat]

You seem to be missing the basics here.  Its a weapon of mass destruction.  Once someone has it, you have no say where they use it.    You can't send them a fine can you?

The upshot of your post is that if Jared Laughner is sane, then he should have had a nuke instead of a gun.  And instead of killing a few people, he could have killed a million or so.

You know what Hawker? You've got a real catch-22 problem. We already know that the technology for Nukes exists. If you were to regulate the dissemination of nuclear technology, it's production, and sales, you have to assume you have put it into the hands of those who you trust. If nukes are devastating, and I'm not disputing that they aren't, why should I entrust you (or your trusted agents the gov'mint) to do it any better than anybody else?

What's interesting about your theory of nuclear regulation is that the only people that I'm aware of that have actually used it as a weapon have actually been governments. They, whoever 'they' may be, have done more 'nuke' killing than everybody else combined. I'm not sure your theories are as sound as you make them out to be.

Besides, if you do a little research, it takes a lot of energy and talented individuals to actually produce nuclear materials and weaponry. I'd be willing to wager a bet, that if they were as intelligent as I think they are, and they knew the devastation it was capable of, they aren't likely to just hand it over to just anybody. Just saying.

[1714301427]

1714301427

[1714301427]

1714301427

[1714301427]

1714301427

[1714301427]

1714301427

[1714301427]

1714301427

[Hawker]

You seem to be missing the basics here.  Its a weapon of mass destruction.  Once someone has it, you have no say where they use it.    You can't send them a fine can you?

The upshot of your post is that if Jared Laughner is sane, then he should have had a nuke instead of a gun.  And instead of killing a few people, he could have killed a million or so.

You know what Hawker? You've got a real catch-22 problem. We already know that the technology for Nukes exists. If you were to regulate the dissemination of nuclear technology, it's production, and sales, you have to assume you have put it into the hands of those who you trust. If nukes are devastating, and I'm not disputing that they aren't, why should I entrust you (or your trusted agents the gov'mint) to do it any better than anybody else?

What's interesting about your theory of nuclear regulation is that the only people that I'm aware of that have actually used it as a weapon have actually been governments. They, whoever 'they' may be, have done more 'nuke' killing than everybody else combined. I'm not sure your theories are as sound as you make them out to be.

Besides, if you do a little research, it takes a lot of energy and talented individuals to actually produce nuclear materials and weaponry. I'd be willing to wager a bet, that if they were as intelligent as I think they are, and they knew the devastation it was capable of, they aren't likely to just hand it over to just anybody. Just saying.

Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty.  The design of the original abombs is widely available.

Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

[FredericBastiat]

Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty.  The design of the original abombs is widely available.

Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Really, the non-proliferation treaty makes producing materials difficult does it? Right... Go read a wikipedia article on how much energy it takes to purify Uranium coke (gas centrifuges being the prime reason). It ain't easy. Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it. That would be true of any endeavor government wants to intervene in. Look at the war on drugs as a obvious example.

[Hawker]

Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty.  The design of the original abombs is widely available.

Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Really, the non-proliferation treaty makes producing materials difficult does it? Right... Go read a wikipedia article on how much energy it takes to purify Uranium coke (gas centrifuges being the prime reason). It ain't easy. Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it. That would be true of any endeavor government wants to intervene in. Look at the war on drugs as a obvious example.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

[FirstAscent]

Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it.

That's kind of the point, eh?

[FredericBastiat]

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Nope.

[FirstAscent]

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Nope.

So you accept the fact that society will in general view you as a fringe nutcase, and won't give any credence to your views?

[FredericBastiat]

Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it.

That's kind of the point, eh?

I know what the point of it was. I don't agree with the method. It's destructive behavior, and it leads to some people having a "God Complex". You're not my nanny, my mommy, or my supreme being. Don't assume.

[Hawker]

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Nope.

Then you are being odd.  You agree that rights are social constructs, you have invented a right to nuclear weapons and you want us to fall in with your new right.

Perhaps "odd" is being charitable.  Even within your own dream logic, asserting that people have a duty to wait for the mushroom clouds of nuclear explosions does not make sense.  Its a very short step from endless nuclear explosions to total extinction of humanity.

[deuxmill]

Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty.  The design of the original abombs is widely available.

Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Really, the non-proliferation treaty makes producing materials difficult does it? Right... Go read a wikipedia article on how much energy it takes to purify Uranium coke (gas centrifuges being the prime reason). It ain't easy. Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it. That would be true of any endeavor government wants to intervene in. Look at the war on drugs as a obvious example.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Yes . If regulation says no one can have them. If it says dangerous/peaceful can/can't have them then i'l treat it as if it doesn't exist.

[FredericBastiat]

So you accept the fact that society will in general view you as a fringe nutcase, and won't give any credence to your views?

So I have to comply with the status quo? I guess if I play the middle ground, that makes it so much better, right? I would like to think if I were to acquire a nuke and were to make threatening gestures with it, you could then label me a fringe nutcase. Sure, fair enough.

I don't like nukes. I don't they serve a useful purpose, per se. I don't think Monday night football does either, or for that matter, cubist art and speed eating. But that's just me. I'm a bit fringe I guess.

[FirstAscent]

Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty.  The design of the original abombs is widely available.

Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Really, the non-proliferation treaty makes producing materials difficult does it? Right... Go read a wikipedia article on how much energy it takes to purify Uranium coke (gas centrifuges being the prime reason). It ain't easy. Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it. That would be true of any endeavor government wants to intervene in. Look at the war on drugs as a obvious example.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Yes . If regulation says no one can have them. If it says dangerous/peaceful can/can't have them then i'l treat it as if it doesn't exist.

Consider why some nations have them and others don't. Consider why the world can't seem to get this right. It's because the world doesn't run the world. The world is actually like the libertarians want a community to be. The world, in its current state is an example of how messed up a libertarian community is. Self regulation (the world model) doesn't work. But regulation within a nation does work. The key is to choose the proper country to live in.

[FirstAscent]

So you accept the fact that society will in general view you as a fringe nutcase, and won't give any credence to your views?

So I have to comply with the status quo?

No, you don't. You're welcome to your views. I'm only indicating to you that such silly and absurd views will get you nowhere. But I think an individual should take a stand, instead of going with the flow. I agree with your right to believe in what you think is sensible. But there are two things to consider:

1) Do you know enough that your views are sensible and worthwhile?
2) Do you know that your views will reflect on your character as a whole and be used against you?

[FredericBastiat]

Then you are being odd.  You agree that rights are social constructs, you have invented a right to nuclear weapons and you want us to fall in with your new right.

Perhaps "odd" is being charitable.  Even within your own dream logic, asserting that people have a duty to wait for the mushroom clouds of nuclear explosions does not make sense.  Its a very short step from endless nuclear explosions to total extinction of humanity.

If I recall somewhere in this OP thread somebody said that you don't have to wait for a "bullet to rip thru your chest" before you defend yourself. You don't have to wait for the nuclear clouds, just follow the threatening bread crumbs and do something about that.

Admittedly, it was a little sad man had to create such a destructive object for us to worry about so incessantly.

[Hawker]

Then you are being odd.  You agree that rights are social constructs, you have invented a right to nuclear weapons and you want us to fall in with your new right.

Perhaps "odd" is being charitable.  Even within your own dream logic, asserting that people have a duty to wait for the mushroom clouds of nuclear explosions does not make sense.  Its a very short step from endless nuclear explosions to total extinction of humanity.

If I recall somewhere in this OP thread somebody said that you don't have to wait for a "bullet to rip thru your chest" before you defend yourself. You don't have to wait for the nuclear clouds, just follow the threatening bread crumbs and do something about that.

Admittedly, it was a little sad man had to create such a destructive object for us to worry about so incessantly.

So you would go onto someone's private property, tell them that you think its unsafe for them to have a nuke and hope they hand it over?

That doesn't sound realistic.  How do you tell who is going to get drunk and press the red button?  How do you deal with guys who get upset and say no?  How do you deal with people who use their nuke to commit suicide before you get around to asking them to hand it over?

[FredericBastiat]

No, you don't. You're welcome to your views. I'm only indicating to you that such silly and absurd views will get you nowhere. But I think an individual should take a stand, instead of going with the flow. I agree with your right to believe in what you think is sensible. But there are two things to consider:

1) Do you know enough that your views are sensible and worthwhile?
2) Do you know that your views will reflect on your character as a whole and be used against you?

I tell you what. I want to be practical here. Can you give me an example of a precise method of regulating nukes so I can review it? Please don't just say, we just need nuclear regulations generally. I loathe generalities. I can regulate every single human activity possible, if I think it has some illegitimate use.

I could regulate forks if I can poke you in the eye; as an example. Give me a specific example. Don't just say, "well geez there ought a be a law...". I've about heard enough of that to go around for a lifetime. I'm getting sick of it, to be perfectly honest.

Don't just make a law that automatically makes me a criminal. If I wasn't a criminal yesterday, and I acquired some "material matter" today, and now I am a criminal, I'm probably going to have a problem with it.

[Hawker]

No, you don't. You're welcome to your views. I'm only indicating to you that such silly and absurd views will get you nowhere. But I think an individual should take a stand, instead of going with the flow. I agree with your right to believe in what you think is sensible. But there are two things to consider:

1) Do you know enough that your views are sensible and worthwhile?
2) Do you know that your views will reflect on your character as a whole and be used against you?

I tell you what. I want to be practical here. Can you give me an example of a precise method of regulating nukes so I can review it? Please don't just say, we just need nuclear regulations generally. I loathe generalities. I can regulate every single human activity possible, if I think it has some illegitimate use.

I could regulate forks if I can poke you in the eye; as an example. Give me a specific example. Don't just say, "well geez there ought a be a law...". I've about heard enough of that to go around for a lifetime. I'm getting sick of it, to be perfectly honest.

Don't just make a law that automatically makes me a criminal. If I wasn't a criminal yesterday, and I acquired some "material matter" today, and now I am a criminal, I'm probably going to have a problem with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

That works well.  No problems at all since it was created.

[AyeYo]

Then you are being odd.  You agree that rights are social constructs, you have invented a right to nuclear weapons and you want us to fall in with your new right.

Perhaps "odd" is being charitable.  Even within your own dream logic, asserting that people have a duty to wait for the mushroom clouds of nuclear explosions does not make sense.  Its a very short step from endless nuclear explosions to total extinction of humanity.

If I recall somewhere in this OP thread somebody said that you don't have to wait for a "bullet to rip thru your chest" before you defend yourself. You don't have to wait for the nuclear clouds, just follow the threatening bread crumbs and do something about that.

Admittedly, it was a little sad man had to create such a destructive object for us to worry about so incessantly.

So you would go onto someone's private property, tell them that you think its unsafe for them to have a nuke and hope they hand it over?

That doesn't sound realistic.  How do you tell who is going to get drunk and press the red button?  How do you deal with guys who get upset and say no?  How do you deal with people who use their nuke to commit suicide before you get around to asking them to hand it over?

Very interested in the answers to these.

[deuxmill]

Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty.  The design of the original abombs is widely available.

Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Really, the non-proliferation treaty makes producing materials difficult does it? Right... Go read a wikipedia article on how much energy it takes to purify Uranium coke (gas centrifuges being the prime reason). It ain't easy. Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it. That would be true of any endeavor government wants to intervene in. Look at the war on drugs as a obvious example.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Yes . If regulation says no one can have them. If it says dangerous/peaceful can/can't have them then i'l treat it as if it doesn't exist.

Consider why some nations have them and others don't. Consider why the world can't seem to get this right. It's because the world doesn't run the world. The world is actually like the libertarians want a community to be. The world, in its current state is an example of how messed up a libertarian community is. Self regulation (the world model) doesn't work. But regulation within a nation does work. The key is to choose the proper country to live in.

Ok bro. If you can't kill because there is a law that says you can't then you are the only person that should ever reproduce, if a law (some words on a paper) has a disabling effect on you.

[NghtRppr]

Most can't govern themselves but they can all govern others? No, if few can govern themselves then even fewer can govern others.