Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

I am treating you as an adult capable of reasoned discussion.  There is no comparison between someone committing suicide with a gun and someone committing suicide with a nuclear weapon.  One is a private tragedy and the other kills everyone for miles about.  You know this; so why are you making arguments you don't believe yourself?

I wasn't referring to suicide. I was referring to the fact that people go on shooting rampages all the time. I figured that much was obvious but for some reason it wasn't...

Again you are comparing a shooting rampage, which is sad but inevitable, with a nuclear explosion.  Its a false comparison.  Shooting only kills a few people.  It stops when someone else with a gun arrives.  A nuclear explosion kills millions if done in a city (I live in a city).  It doesn't stop if someone else comes along with a nuke; that may double the effect.  And the land itself is poisoned.  

You already know all this.  Why are you asking me to repeat it?  Surely repeating what we both know to be true is wasting time.  Make an argument for your position please.

[1714323628]

1714323628

[NghtRppr]

I am treating you as an adult capable of reasoned discussion.  There is no comparison between someone committing suicide with a gun and someone committing suicide with a nuclear weapon.  One is a private tragedy and the other kills everyone for miles about.  You know this; so why are you making arguments you don't believe yourself?

I wasn't referring to suicide. I was referring to the fact that people go on shooting rampages all the time. I figured that much was obvious but for some reason it wasn't...

Again you are comparing a shooting rampage, which is sad but inevitable, with a nuclear explosion.  Its a false comparison.  Shooting only kills a few people.  It stops when someone else with a gun arrives.  A nuclear explosion kills millions if done in a city (I live in a city).  It doesn't stop if someone else comes along with a nuke; that may double the effect.  And the land itself is poisoned.  

You already know all this.  Why are you asking me to repeat it?  Surely repeating what we both know to be true is wasting time.  Make an argument for your position please.

So you don't care that people will die, you just care if it's a lot of people? That goes against what you said earlier about having a right to live. Unless you are Superman, I'm pretty sure bullets kill you just as much as explosions do.

[FirstAscent]

Funny thing is, he justifies possession of a nuke in a shed because we all have knives in our kitchen drawers. Then he goes on to say that you would sign a contract if you wanted to keep a nuke.

So does that mean we all sign a contract to keep a knife in our kitchen drawer? I suspect not - which clearly shows that he is aware that their is a difference between the two - which renders his comparison null.

[Hawker]

I am treating you as an adult capable of reasoned discussion.  There is no comparison between someone committing suicide with a gun and someone committing suicide with a nuclear weapon.  One is a private tragedy and the other kills everyone for miles about.  You know this; so why are you making arguments you don't believe yourself?

I wasn't referring to suicide. I was referring to the fact that people go on shooting rampages all the time. I figured that much was obvious but for some reason it wasn't...

Again you are comparing a shooting rampage, which is sad but inevitable, with a nuclear explosion.  Its a false comparison.  Shooting only kills a few people.  It stops when someone else with a gun arrives.  A nuclear explosion kills millions if done in a city (I live in a city).  It doesn't stop if someone else comes along with a nuke; that may double the effect.  And the land itself is poisoned.  

You already know all this.  Why are you asking me to repeat it?  Surely repeating what we both know to be true is wasting time.  Make an argument for your position please.

So you don't care that people will die, you just care if it's a lot of people? That goes against what you said earlier about having a right to live. Unless you are Superman, I'm pretty sure bullets kill you just as much as explosions do.

Please be rational.  I can't help the fact that human nature is flawed and the killing is hard wired into us.  However, I can help with people doing something that endangers my life.

Again, you know this and agree with it as a matter of fact.  Surely you can argue your case instead of repeating stuff we both know. 

[NghtRppr]

Please be rational.  I can't help the fact that human nature is flawed and the killing is hard wired into us.  However, I can help with people doing something that endangers my life.

Then you must want to ban guns, knives and heavy objects too?

[Hawker]

Please be rational.  I can't help the fact that human nature is flawed and the killing is hard wired into us.  However, I can help with people doing something that endangers my life.

Then you must want to ban guns, knives and heavy objects too?

If anyone is doing anything that endangers my life, I have the right to stop them.  If you really believe that I have some wishy washy "turn the other cheek" duty, you are not a libertarian.

The thing is you don't believe that.  So why are you posting it?

[NghtRppr]

If anyone is doing anything that endangers my life, I have the right to stop them.

So owning a gun doesn't endanger your life but owning a nuclear bomb does? Are you immune to bullets or something?

[Hawker]

If anyone is doing anything that endangers my life, I have the right to stop them.

So owning a gun doesn't endanger your life but owning a nuclear bomb does? Are you immune to bullets or something?

Why are you editing my posts to make silly points?

If you point a gun at me, you are dead.  There is no need for me to wait and see if you are going to pull the trigger or not.  If you have a nuke on your property, you are dead.  There is no need for me to wait and see if you are going to press the red button.  I have to kill you.  I have no choice because you may kill my children as well as me.

Sadly, the chance of my getting from my house to yours in less time that it takes for you to press a button means that I can't take the chance.  So you cannot try to obtain a nuke without my having to assume I am in danger of you killing me and mine.  So if you want a nuke, I have to kill you before you get it.  Once you have it, its game over and I am dead.

Luckily, we have a system in place that means I don't have to employ detectives all over the world looking for potential buyers of nukes and assassins all over the world to kill them before they kill me.  Its called the Non Proliferation Treaty.  We have a working system and unless you have something better, it won't change.

Of course you already know this.  You already agree with it.  As I have asked 2 or 3 times now, why are you asking me to repeat stuff we both agree on?  

[NghtRppr]

If you point a gun at me, you are dead.  There is no need for me to wait and see if you are going to pull the trigger or not.  If you have a nuke on your property, you are dead.

The fallacy is in equating my pointing a gun at you with a nuclear bomb being on my property. A gun pointing at you indicates intent to use it on you, that's why you are within your rights to defend yourself. A nuclear bomb on my property doesn't indicate my intent to use it on you.

[Hawker]

If you point a gun at me, you are dead.  There is no need for me to wait and see if you are going to pull the trigger or not.  If you have a nuke on your property, you are dead.

The fallacy is in equating my pointing a gun at you with a nuclear bomb being on my property. A gun pointing at you indicates intent to use it on you, that's why you are within your rights to defend yourself. A nuclear bomb on my property doesn't indicate my intent to use it on you.

I don't care who you use it on.   Even if I am a mile away and you have no idea whether or not I exist, I die if you use that bomb.  Even if its a drunken accident, I and my family die.   If I am going to be killed by it, I have to protect myself.

You agree with that don't you?  

[NghtRppr]

Even if its a drunken accident, I and my family die.   If I am going to be killed by it, I have to protect myself.

I could just as easily get drunk and use a gun on you. You're not giving a convincing argument for why nuclear bombs shouldn't be privately owned but guns should.

[Hawker]

Even if its a drunken accident, I and my family die.   If I am going to be killed by it, I have to protect myself.

I could just as easily get drunk and use a gun on you. You're not giving a convincing argument for why nuclear bombs shouldn't be privately owned but guns should.

Now you are being deliberately dense so I will give a dense answer.  

If you point a gun at me, I have to kill you.  I grew up with guns and there are no circumstances under which anyone can ever point a loaded weapon at me.

Lets assume we live 100 miles apart:

If you shoot your wife, does it damage me physically?  No.

If you shoot your wife, is my property damaged? No.

If you use a nuke after your wife cheats on you, does it damage me physically?  Maybe - its down to luck.

If you use a nuke after your wife cheats on you, is my property damaged? Maybe - its down to luck.

Question: if you knew the answers before asking the question, and you agree with the answers, why are you asking the question?  There are no prizes for having a high post count.

 

[NghtRppr]

You apparently wish to claim that merely possessing a nuclear bomb is an overt threat while possessing a gun is not. Yet, for every argument you give regarding nuclear bombs, the same applies to guns. If I shoot someone with a shotgun and you are in close proximity, you could be killed as well. Yet, simply possessing a gun isn't an overt threat. If I am putting you in immediate danger then you have the right to stop me. Simply possessing a nuclear bomb does not do so. Yes, if I were going to use it and you were in close enough proximity, you would have the right to stop me, regardless if you were the intended target or not. However, until I show some intent to use it, you have no right to do anything.

[Hawker]

You apparently wish to claim that merely possessing a nuclear bomb is an overt threat while possessing a gun is not. Yet, for every argument you give regarding nuclear bombs, the same applies to guns. If I shoot someone with a shotgun and you are in close proximity, you could be killed as well. Yet, simply possessing a gun isn't an overt threat. If I am putting you in immediate danger then you have the right to stop me. Simply possessing a nuclear bomb does not do so. Yes, if I were going to use it and you were in close enough proximity, you would have the right to stop me, regardless if you were the intended target or not. However, until I show some intent to use it, you have no right to do anything.

You know the answer.  You know that you personally would not allow your family to die.  Why are you asking such silly questions?

[NghtRppr]

You apparently wish to claim that merely possessing a nuclear bomb is an overt threat while possessing a gun is not. Yet, for every argument you give regarding nuclear bombs, the same applies to guns. If I shoot someone with a shotgun and you are in close proximity, you could be killed as well. Yet, simply possessing a gun isn't an overt threat. If I am putting you in immediate danger then you have the right to stop me. Simply possessing a nuclear bomb does not do so. Yes, if I were going to use it and you were in close enough proximity, you would have the right to stop me, regardless if you were the intended target or not. However, until I show some intent to use it, you have no right to do anything.

You know the answer.  You know that you personally would not allow your family to die.  Why are you asking such silly questions?

Answer to what? There was no question in the post you quoted. Did you even read it?

[BitterTea]

You just shot yourself in the foot.  By your argument, since you can't prove that the abrogation of all IP laws would be helpful, then there are no grounds to propose any such an abrogation.

Not really. Let me just quote Against Intellectual Property, though I recommend reading the entire thing.

Nature, then, contains things that are economically scarce. My use of such a thing conflicts with (excludes) your use of it, and vice versa. The function of property rights is to prevent interpersonal conflict over scarce resources, by allocating exclusive ownership of resources to specified individuals (owners). To perform this function, property rights must be both visible and just. Clearly, in order for individuals to avoid using property owned by others, property borders and property rights must be objective (intersubjectively ascertainable); they must be visible. For this reason, property rights must be objective and unambiguous. In other words, “good fences make good neighbors.”

Property rights must be demonstrably just, as well as visible, because they cannot serve their function of preventing conflict unless they are acceptable as fair by those affected by the rules. If property rights are allocated unfairly, or simply grabbed by force, this is like having no property rights at all; it is merely might versus right again, i.e., the pre-property rights situation. But as libertarians recognize, following Locke, it is only the first occupier or user of such property that can be its natural owner. Only the first-occupier homesteading rule provides an objective, ethical, and non-arbitrary allocation of ownership in scarce resources.

But surely it is clear, given the origin, justification, and function of property rights, that they are applicable only to scarce resources. Were we in a Garden of Eden where land and other goods were infinitely abundant, there would be no scarcity and, therefore, no need for property rules; property concepts would be meaningless. The idea of conflict, and the idea of rights, would not even arise. For example, your taking my lawnmower would not really deprive me of it if I could conjure up another in the blink of an eye. Lawnmower-taking in these circumstances would not be “theft.” Property rights are not applicable to things of infinite abundance, because there cannot be conflict over such things.

Thus, property rights must have objective, discernible borders, and must be allocated in accordance with the first-occupier homesteading rule. Moreover, property rights can apply only to scarce resources. The problem with IP rights is that the ideal objects protected by IP rights are not scarce; and, further, that such property rights are not, and cannot be, allocated in accordance with the first-occupier homesteading rule, as will be seen below.

Comparing IP law to religious dogma seems a bit fallacious to me.  IP law serves a specific purpose and has very evident and measurable effects on what it aims to govern.  Religion does not.

Religious individuals would beg to differ with your assertion just as you beg to differ with ours. You've got no monopoly on objective reality, pal.

edit... Wow, this thread is a lot longer than I thought.

[Hawker]

You apparently wish to claim that merely possessing a nuclear bomb is an overt threat while possessing a gun is not. Yet, for every argument you give regarding nuclear bombs, the same applies to guns. If I shoot someone with a shotgun and you are in close proximity, you could be killed as well. Yet, simply possessing a gun isn't an overt threat. If I am putting you in immediate danger then you have the right to stop me. Simply possessing a nuclear bomb does not do so. Yes, if I were going to use it and you were in close enough proximity, you would have the right to stop me, regardless if you were the intended target or not. However, until I show some intent to use it, you have no right to do anything.

You know the answer.  You know that you personally would not allow your family to die.  Why are you asking such silly questions?

Answer to what? There was no question in the post you quoted. Did you even read it?

If you have a nuke, I to protect myself and my family from the risk it will detonate.  I have to kill you and disarm it.  It does not matter whether or not you intend to use it today.  You bought it.  You will use it if I let you live. I have to stop you.  I don't have a choice.

If the situation is reversed, you will kill me without a moment's hesitation.  That is the nature of weapons of mass destruction.  If you don't protect yourself, you are at the mercy of the guy who does have it.

So, I do have the right to stop you.  Even if I don't have the right, I MUST stop you because if I don't, I die.

[NghtRppr]

You bought it.  You will use it if I let you live.

If that were the case I'd agree with you but just because I buy something doesn't mean I'm going to use it. Maybe I bought it because I collect weapons? Maybe I'm going to sell it? Maybe I'm storing it for someone else? Maybe I'm going to attach it to a rocket and fire it into the sun?

[FredericBastiat]

If you have a nuke, I to protect myself and my family from the risk it will detonate.  I have to kill you and disarm it.  It does not matter whether or not you intend to use it today.  You bought it.  You will use it if I let you live. I have to stop you.  I don't have a choice.

If the situation is reversed, you will kill me without a moment's hesitation.  That is the nature of weapons of mass destruction.  If you don't protect yourself, you are at the mercy of the guy who does have it.

So, I do have the right to stop you.  Even if I don't have the right, I MUST stop you because if I don't, I die.

There are a lot of people you've just asked to take a position in front of your firing squad. Most of your politicians, nuclear engineers, chemical engineers, and explosives experts, etc. are about to get a bullet to the head, it seems. Sounds awful threatening.

[Hawker]

You bought it.  You will use it if I let you live.

If that were the case I'd agree with you but just because I buy something doesn't mean I'm going to use it. Maybe I bought it because I collect weapons? Maybe I'm going to sell it? Maybe I'm storing it for someone else? Maybe I'm going to attach it to a rocket and fire it into the sun?

I am not going to take the chance.  If you have it, you can use it.  If you use it, I die. So I have to stop you.  You may say that I should wait for you to phone me and tell me that life is horrible, that you have to end it all.  But I don't need to wait.  You can kill me and I have to stop you before you do kill me.

Its worth remembering who I grew up with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers  I have no reason to kid myself that life is fair and that good people don't die screaming for mercy.