Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 01:57:39 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 ... 116 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!  (Read 95989 times)
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 18, 2011, 03:53:24 PM
 #421

That example doesn't not apply but the general principle it illustrates does apply.  Read the whole page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

A nuclear explosion is a bad or inconvenient consequence.  We agree on that I assume?  Your position that everyone should have personal access to nuclear weapons will lead to explosions.  We also agree on that I assume?  Since that is a bad thing, you should change your position.  Or else admit you are being illogical.

All interventions have consequences in and of themselves. You can't say that the ownership of any nuclear weapon will lead to a nuclear explosion. To say that access nukes will lead to explosions is a non sequitur. The likelihood is higher, but not absolute. Just like owning a handgun will lead to dead children is a certainty, is also a logical fallacy. I'm not supposing no intervention is necessary, just a different form of intervention from the one your suggesting.

I have no problem "regulating" violent criminals, or individuals who are about to become criminals thru threatening acts. Those are all appropriate interventions. But to regulate the materials, if that's what you're suggesting, is wrongheaded in my opinion.

One could logically argue that a nuke could be regulated because it has a fuse, has purified uranium in it, and has the shape of a bomb. If we regulate the fuse, then the materials in the fuse become illicit materials. Likewise for the uranium and the spherical "bomb" shape. Working your way backwards, you arrive at the possibility that my back yard may have sufficient trace elements of uranium that could be refined into a super-critical mass of "bomb grade" explosives.

Now it seems were getting somewhere (sarcasm). At that point, you could decide to justify rooting around in my backyard. See how my liberties are slowly being eroded? It's only a matter of time before you apply it to just about everything. I'm tiring of all the "doogooders" deciding they have higher and loftier reasons for intruding on my life because they're so much more "divinely inspired" than the rest of us.

It appears to be the reason why we have so many laws against things and not persons who use things to cause crimes. It's very disarming, no pun intended. What you need to do is stop regulating the materials themselves, and determine the intent of the user. Is the user's intent to kill and maim or possess and defend. That may take more effort, but I think it's worth trying.

Fred, you say "You can't say that the ownership of any nuclear weapon will lead to a nuclear explosion." but actually I can say that.  People make mistakes, people get drunk, people get depressed and kill their families and then kill themselves, other people hate the wrong religion, some hate the wrong race, some believe that if they kill themselves killing heretics they go straight to heaven.  There are many circumstances where the presence of a thermonuclear device that can be detonated by one individual will result in a detonation.  If you make the weapons available to all and sundry, it is certain that some will get used.

And one nuclear explosion is too many.  Lets say it detonates in London.  Millions will die.  The properties will be destroyed.  The land itself will be poisoned.  

I think you can see this is a bad consequence.  Therefore, you need to frame your law in a way that prevents that consequence.  

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 04:17:46 PM
 #422

Fred, you say "You can't say that the ownership of any nuclear weapon will lead to a nuclear explosion." but actually I can say that.  People make mistakes, people get drunk, people get depressed and kill their families and then kill themselves, other people hate the wrong religion, some hate the wrong race, some believe that if they kill themselves killing heretics they go straight to heaven.  There are many circumstances where the presence of a thermonuclear device that can be detonated by one individual will result in a detonation.  If you make the weapons available to all and sundry, it is certain that some will get used.

And one nuclear explosion is too many.  Lets say it detonates in London.  Millions will die.  The properties will be destroyed.  The land itself will be poisoned.  

I think you can see this is a bad consequence.  Therefore, you need to frame your law in a way that prevents that consequence.  

Drinking too much water will kill you too. We better regulate water drinking activities, right? Whatever.

I do agree that laws need to be framed in such a way that they can prevent negative consequences. However, that's not the whole story. They should also not simultaneously cause negative consequences if possible. Example:

I could make a law that says if a person waves a gun in my face (we'll presume it to be threatening), that I, or an agent of mine (security detail), could disarm that person. That type of law has reasonable outcomes and consequences (my opinion). It doesn't prevent all crimes, or individuals from becoming criminals, but then again, nothing does that perfectly anyway.

On the other hand, if I regulate the type of gun a person can own by forcing people to enter their names in a national registry before they own one, say that they can't have extended clips, sawed of barrels, and auto fire capability, that would not be the approach I would take to prevent negative consequences, as there are more negative consequences from doing that than merely preventing crime. The unintentional consequence of that law is to potentially create more criminals than the former example. And besides we all know criminals don't always register their weapons or use them for self-defense.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 18, 2011, 04:25:20 PM
 #423

Fred, you say "You can't say that the ownership of any nuclear weapon will lead to a nuclear explosion." but actually I can say that.  People make mistakes, people get drunk, people get depressed and kill their families and then kill themselves, other people hate the wrong religion, some hate the wrong race, some believe that if they kill themselves killing heretics they go straight to heaven.  There are many circumstances where the presence of a thermonuclear device that can be detonated by one individual will result in a detonation.  If you make the weapons available to all and sundry, it is certain that some will get used.

And one nuclear explosion is too many.  Lets say it detonates in London.  Millions will die.  The properties will be destroyed.  The land itself will be poisoned.  

I think you can see this is a bad consequence.  Therefore, you need to frame your law in a way that prevents that consequence.  

Drinking too much water will kill you too. We better regulate water drinking activities, right? Whatever.

I do agree that laws need to be framed in such a way that they can prevent negative consequences. However, that's not the whole story. They should also not simultaneously cause negative consequences if possible. Example:

I could make a law that says if a person waves a gun in my face (we'll presume it to be threatening), that I, or an agent of mine (security detail), could disarm that person. That type of law has reasonable outcomes and consequences (my opinion). It doesn't prevent all crimes, or individuals from becoming criminals, but then again, nothing does that perfectly anyway.

On the other hand, if I regulate the type of gun a person can own by forcing people to enter their names in a national registry before they own one, say that they can't have extended clips, sawed of barrels, and auto fire capability, that would not be the approach I would take to prevent negative consequences, as there are more negative consequences from doing that than merely preventing crime. The unintentional consequence of that law is to potentially create more criminals than the former example. And besides we all know criminals don't always register their weapons or use them for self-defense.

You are making the fundamental mistake of comparing a nuke with an ordinary weapon.  I don't care how many people have unregistered guns in the Ukraine.  I very much care if there is an unregistered nuclear weapon in the Ukraine as it will poison the air in England where I live.  The law has to take that distinction into account.  If there is a loose nuclear weapon in the Ukraine, I expect the English government to take whatever steps are needed to make sure that its decommissioned.  Concepts like sovereignty and private property take second place to the concept of where I live being destroyed and the people in my community killed.

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 04:55:15 PM
 #424

You are making the fundamental mistake of comparing a nuke with an ordinary weapon.  I don't care how many people have unregistered guns in the Ukraine.  I very much care if there is an unregistered nuclear weapon in the Ukraine as it will poison the air in England where I live.  The law has to take that distinction into account.  If there is a loose nuclear weapon in the Ukraine, I expect the English government to take whatever steps are needed to make sure that its decommissioned.  Concepts like sovereignty and private property take second place to the concept of where I live being destroyed and the people in my community killed.

I know the difference between daffodils and nukes. There's nothing ordinary about either of them, of course. It's not about whether a nuke is registered so much as it is about threat with the intent to do harm.

What if I said I don't trust the Ukraine or the English Government, and I care nothing for their registration techniques (nukes, autos, guns or daffodils). Upon that dicta, were I a sovereign nation, I could invade you on the presumption that your possession of nukes is not in my best interests and you must let me investigate your lands for WMD or anything like unto it, and if you don't, there will be some "unintended consequences". To wit, if you resist my pleas, I will come "own you", and just for my trouble, I will conquer you and make you a part of my society.

Doesn't sound friendly does it? It isn't about registration, or else, you see. Can you measure intent, or are you just not able (it seems you're not willing)? Maybe you're just not up to the task. I know it's just easier to manipulate peoples lives and their things. There just happens to be too many destructive behaviors associated with that type of thinking. It leads to authoritarian dictatorial governments; and those type of people really don't care about you. They say they do, but it's mostly lies.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 18, 2011, 04:59:48 PM
 #425

You are making the fundamental mistake of comparing a nuke with an ordinary weapon.  I don't care how many people have unregistered guns in the Ukraine.  I very much care if there is an unregistered nuclear weapon in the Ukraine as it will poison the air in England where I live.  The law has to take that distinction into account.  If there is a loose nuclear weapon in the Ukraine, I expect the English government to take whatever steps are needed to make sure that its decommissioned.  Concepts like sovereignty and private property take second place to the concept of where I live being destroyed and the people in my community killed.

I know the difference between daffodils and nukes. There's nothing ordinary about either of them, of course. It's not about whether a nuke is registered so much as it is about threat with the intent to do harm.

What if I said I don't trust the Ukraine or the English Government, and I care nothing for their registration techniques (nukes, autos, guns or daffodils). Upon that dicta, were I a sovereign nation, I could invade you on the presumption that your possession of nukes is not in my best interests and you must let me investigate your lands for WMD or anything like unto it, and if you don't, there will be some "unintended consequences". To wit, if you resist my pleas, I will come "own you", and just for my trouble, I will conquer you and make you a part of my society.

Doesn't sound friendly does it? It isn't about registration, or else, you see. Can you measure intent, or are you just not able (it seems you're not willing)? Maybe you're just not up to the task. I know it's just easier to manipulate peoples lives and their things. There just happens to be too many destructive behaviors associated with that type of thinking. It leads to authoritarian dictatorial governments; and those type of people really don't care about you. They say they do, but it's mostly lies.

You are struggling with implementation details. 

Before we clarify implementation , can we agree that you now accept that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used?

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 05:09:38 PM
 #426

You are struggling with implementation details. 

Before we clarify implementation , can we agree that you now accept that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used?

Never, not in a million years. Lawfulness is all about implementation and it shouldn't be any which way you desire. Willy nilly arbitrariness is not acceptable (I know this sounds incisive) but it can't be stressed enough that law can be about anything and for any reason.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 18, 2011, 05:19:28 PM
 #427

You are struggling with implementation details.  

Before we clarify implementation , can we agree that you now accept that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used?

Never, not in a million years. Lawfulness is all about implementation and it shouldn't be any which way you desire. Willy nilly arbitrariness is not acceptable (I know this sounds incisive) but it can't be stressed enough that law can be about anything and for any reason.

No-one said "willy nilly".  I said "best."  Best means the way that has lowest probability of failure.  Surely you can agree that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used?  

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 05:28:56 PM
 #428

No-one said "willy nilly".  I said "best."  Best means the way that has lowest probability of failure.  Surely you can agree that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used?  

Yes you did. My mistake. May the "best" man win. An is-ought conundrum for a very tricky situation no doubt.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 18, 2011, 05:31:15 PM
 #429

No-one said "willy nilly".  I said "best."  Best means the way that has lowest probability of failure.  Surely you can agree that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used?  

Yes you did. My mistake. May the "best" man win. An is-ought conundrum for a very tricky situation no doubt.

so you are agreed that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used where best means the way that has lowest probability of failure?

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 05:39:41 PM
 #430

No-one said "willy nilly".  I said "best."  Best means the way that has lowest probability of failure.  Surely you can agree that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used?  

Yes you did. My mistake. May the "best" man win. An is-ought conundrum for a very tricky situation no doubt.

so you are agreed that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used where best means the way that has lowest probability of failure?

These conversations have ceased to be interesting. Like I said earlier, it's like arguing for whether the Easter Bunny should be required to carry a business license around with him.

I truly yearn for intelligent discussion with intelligent people about real issues that could stand to be solved. Not this crap about hypothetical societies advocated by fringe nutcases.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 05:46:23 PM
 #431

A nuclear explosion is a bad or inconvenient consequence.

It's not "inconvenient" which is the narrow scope that argument applies to. It's an argument for why we shouldn't make laws that are near impossible to comply with. You're making appeals to authority based on a misunderstanding of a Wikipedia entry. That's not going to work, sorry. According to your logic, if there is some situation where we need to kill a million people to save 6.7 billion people then it would be illogical not to kill them. Now that is absurd.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 05:55:29 PM
 #432

so you are agreed that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used -for unprovoked aggression and threats thereto- where best means the way that has lowest probability of failure?

Given that slight modification I'd entertain a few means. Depends on where you take it.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 18, 2011, 06:04:29 PM
 #433

so you are agreed that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used -for unprovoked aggression and threats thereto- where best means the way that has lowest probability of failure?

Given that slight modification I'd entertain a few means. Depends on where you take it.

You either accept that society can use the  way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used -for unprovoked aggression and threats thereto- where best means the way that has lowest probability of failure or you don't.  Yes or No?

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 06:11:26 PM
 #434

These conversations have ceased to be interesting. Like I said earlier, it's like arguing for whether the Easter Bunny should be required to carry a business license around with him.

I truly yearn for intelligent discussion with intelligent people about real issues that could stand to be solved. Not this crap about hypothetical societies advocated by fringe nutcases.

Ever considered the fact that your society might be considered by some to be fringe nutcase behavior? I'm all for solving problems, just not necessarily by following the status quo method, neither am I suggesting the whole "system" is broken.

Many people believe that if you sprinkle a little truth in with the lies, that it's still all truth, or we have to take the bad with the good and just go along to get along. Can we not agree that it's okay to root out all injustice wherever and whenever it rears it ugly head?

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 18, 2011, 06:14:50 PM
 #435

These conversations have ceased to be interesting. Like I said earlier, it's like arguing for whether the Easter Bunny should be required to carry a business license around with him.

I truly yearn for intelligent discussion with intelligent people about real issues that could stand to be solved. Not this crap about hypothetical societies advocated by fringe nutcases.

Ever considered the fact that your society might be considered by some to be fringe nutcase behavior? I'm all for solving problems, just not necessarily by following the status quo method, neither am I suggesting the whole "system" is broken.

Many people believe that if you sprinkle a little truth in with the lies, that it's still all truth, or we have to take the bad with the good and just go along to get along. Can we not agree that it's okay to root out all injustice wherever and whenever it rears it ugly head?

Being killed by a nuclear weapon detonated by someone committing suicide is an injustice.  And so far, you are all for that...

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 06:16:28 PM
 #436

These conversations have ceased to be interesting. Like I said earlier, it's like arguing for whether the Easter Bunny should be required to carry a business license around with him.

I truly yearn for intelligent discussion with intelligent people about real issues that could stand to be solved. Not this crap about hypothetical societies advocated by fringe nutcases.

Ever considered the fact that your society might be considered by some to be fringe nutcase behavior? I'm all for solving problems, just not necessarily by following the status quo method, neither am I suggesting the whole "system" is broken.

Many people believe that if you sprinkle a little truth in with the lies, that it's still all truth, or we have to take the bad with the good and just go along to get along. Can we not agree that it's okay to root out all injustice wherever and whenever it rears it ugly head?

There are lots of big problems with society and government. I'll be happy to discuss solutions to any of those problems with you, when you decide you wish to do that.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 06:19:50 PM
 #437

You either accept that society can use the way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used -for unprovoked aggression and threats thereto- where best means the way that has lowest probability of failure or you don't.  Yes or No?

Alright, I give, yes. Hit me.

P.S. I've got a feeling that some argumentum ad consequentiam or argumentum ad baculum is going to come back to bite me, but oh well. Here goes nothing.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 06:25:59 PM
 #438

Being killed by a nuclear weapon detonated by someone committing suicide is an injustice.  And so far, you are all for that...

Here I thought we were getting somewhere and you go throw that one at me. Why do I talk to you? What the hell...

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 06:28:31 PM
 #439

There are lots of big problems with society and government. I'll be happy to discuss solutions to any of those problems with you, when you decide you wish to do that.

Like all I've been doing here is frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog, right? As if.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 18, 2011, 06:32:32 PM
 #440

You either accept that society can use the way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used -for unprovoked aggression and threats thereto- where best means the way that has lowest probability of failure or you don't.  Yes or No?

Alright, I give, yes. Hit me.

P.S. I've got a feeling that some argumentum ad consequentiam or argumentum ad baculum is going to come back to bite me, but oh well. Here goes nothing.

Well its progress that you now accept society can use the best way to prevent itself being harmed.  We don't need to waste time on implementation as neither of us are nuclear engineers.  If it turns out that nuclear engineers say allowing anyone and everyone access to nukes is the safest way, I don't mind.  But as they don't we don't need to worry about it as the existing system works.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 ... 116 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!