Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

Now, let me repeat the question: what alternative do you offer to "MightMakesWinner" in the case where a conflict is heading to violence.

Would "protecting your business by not killing your customers, not disrupting business in your area, and preserving your own reputation" play into this at all? Since customers have the might to give you their money or not I mean. I'm once again reminded by the India/Pakistan incident a few years ago, where both countries were, once again, on the brink of war, and Indian businesses convinced (forced) the government to back down because India was a huge international business hub, and couldn't just take a break to go to war.
Or am I completely off topic here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

The UVF is still going and still killing people they suspect of being Catholics.  They don't have customers and they go to heaven if they die killing Catholics.  These are the the type who will have the money and motivation to get and use nukes. 

Do you want them and every other angry little militia in the world to have nukes?  Do you really feel that will make the world a safer place?

[1714245247]

1714245247

[1714245247]

1714245247

[NghtRppr]

BTW, if your car with Semtex, you may not intend to use it as a bomb but you are a threat.

Are you saying that a tanker truck full of gasoline driving next to you isn't just as destructive as a bomb? That's a rhetorical question. We both know that it is. That blows your argument out of the water.

You are now editing my posts to avoid the fact that your logic is flawed.

Fail.  

Really, its sad that you can't argue your case so you reduce yourself to comparing apples to oranges or weapons to consumables.  Can't you at least try to make an intelligent response?

I haven't edited anything. I simply quoted you. Instead of resorting to insults and false accusations, why don't you just address the arguments? I can drive a tanker truck full of gasoline around but I can't have explosives? Do you not understand what a tanker full of gasoline can do? Your argument is incoherent.

[Hawker]

BTW, if your car with Semtex, you may not intend to use it as a bomb but you are a threat.

Are you saying that a tanker truck full of gasoline driving next to you isn't just as destructive as a bomb? That's a rhetorical question. We both know that it is. That blows your argument out of the water.

You are now editing my posts to avoid the fact that your logic is flawed.

Fail.  

Really, its sad that you can't argue your case so you reduce yourself to comparing apples to oranges or weapons to consumables.  Can't you at least try to make an intelligent response?

I haven't edited anything. I simply quoted you. Instead of resorting to insults and false accusations, why don't you just address the arguments? I can drive a tanker truck full of gasoline around but I can't have explosives? Do you not understand what a tanker full of gasoline can do? Your argument is incoherent.

Is gasoline a weapon?  No.
If you are drunk or appear violent and driving a truck of gasoline near me, do I have the right to stop you?  Yes. 
Is Semtex a weapon? Yes.  So that gives me the right to stop you.

I am not insulting you - merely puzzled you are asking me to state the obvious for you. You are a smart guy and don't need the blindingly obvious spelt out.

Now, my question to you is this; if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?

[Rassah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

The UVF is still going and still killing people they suspect of being Catholics.  They don't have customers and they go to heaven if they die killing Catholics.  These are the the type who will have the money and motivation to get and use nukes.  

Do you want them and every other angry little militia in the world to have nukes?  Do you really feel that will make the world a safer place?

Haters gonna hate, and sure, there will still be pockets of the world where strongmen oppress the people. but being the eternal optimist, I'm seeing a lot of those regimes fall apart and dissolve, in part because the oppressed people are pissed, and in part PRECISELY because you really can't make all that much money through oppression, and thus eventually run out of things to pay with to buy weapons, bombs, etc. Someone mentioned Somalia, and it's is actually an excellent example. There, angry power -crazy militias have morphed into private security forces, working in tandem with business and populace. Sure, it's about as extortionist as mafias, but their fees aren't as high as the taxes we're paying for police and military here.

[FredericBastiat]

Just so you know, you lost this argument a long time ago. You know it. We know it. You can continue to put up a show if you want, be we all know that when you go to bed at night, you're well aware that your arguments have failed.

Was this the argument where you shoot first and ask questions later, in contradistinction to where I preferred to determine intent first? Why are you so against measuring motive or intent as necessary precursors to violent retaliation?

Obviously there are some situations that can present themselves very quickly, and there isn't much to do except respond. Merely possessing something, whatever that thing may be, doesn't fall into that category.

[Hawker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

The UVF is still going and still killing people they suspect of being Catholics.  They don't have customers and they go to heaven if they die killing Catholics.  These are the the type who will have the money and motivation to get and use nukes.  

Do you want them and every other angry little militia in the world to have nukes?  Do you really feel that will make the world a safer place?

Haters gonna hate, and sure, there will still be pockets of the world where strongmen oppress the people. but being the eternal optimist, I'm seeing a lot of those regimes fall apart and dissolve, in part because the oppressed people are pissed, and in part PRECISELY because you really can't make all that much money through oppression, and thus eventually run out of things to pay with to buy weapons, bombs, etc. Someone mentioned Somalia, and it's is actually an excellent example. There, angry power -crazy militias have morphed into private security forces, working in tandem with business and populace. Sure, it's about as extortionist as mafias, but their fees aren't as high as the taxes we're paying for police and military here.

WTF are you talking about?  The UK is a democracy.  The UVF are not part of an oppressed minority - they are part of the majority.  Their motivation is defeat of the Antichrist.

Really, you ought to think things through.

Oh, point of information, the nice Somali private security forces you mention are preventing food being delivered to the starving.  I'm sure that your police and military are not doing that to you: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14785304

[Hawker]

Just so you know, you lost this argument a long time ago. You know it. We know it. You can continue to put up a show if you want, be we all know that when you go to bed at night, you're well aware that your arguments have failed.

Was this the argument where you shoot first and ask questions later, in contradistinction to where I preferred to determine intent first? Why are you so against measuring motive or intent as necessary precursors to violent retaliation?

Obviously there are some situations that present can themselves very quickly, and there isn't much to do except respond. Merely possessing something, whatever that thing may be, doesn't fall into that category.

The problem is you don't care if he gets killed.  You only care about the rights of the person pointing the gun right to the point at which they pull the trigger or the person with the nuke right up to the point where they press the big red button.  He does care if he gets killed.

I can't see anyone agreeing with you - we live in the real world and have to deal with the fact that once the trigger is pulled or the button pressed, its too late to respond.

[FredericBastiat]

The problem is you don't care if he gets killed.  You only care about the rights of the person pointing the gun right to the point at which they pull the trigger or the person with the nuke right up to the point where they press the big red button.  He does care if he gets killed.

I can't see anyone agreeing with you - we live in the real world and have to deal with the fact that once the trigger is pulled or the button pressed, its too late to respond.

Actually I'm opposed to politicians who think they can write a "one size fits all" law for any type of potential crime. Every situation is unique and should be handled as such. I'm not sure I could adequately measure intent perfectly even with the most obvious of situations, but that doesn't mean we should manipulate/regulate peoples lives and property beforehand with the hopes that there will be fewer conflicts. I'm not sure that truly serves the purpose of law. Many laws create more conflict than they resolve.

[Hawker]

The problem is you don't care if he gets killed.  You only care about the rights of the person pointing the gun right to the point at which they pull the trigger or the person with the nuke right up to the point where they press the big red button.  He does care if he gets killed.

I can't see anyone agreeing with you - we live in the real world and have to deal with the fact that once the trigger is pulled or the button pressed, its too late to respond.

Actually I'm opposed to politicians who think they can write a "one size fits all" law for any type of potential crime. Every situation is unique and should be handled as such. I'm not sure I could adequately measure intent perfectly even with the most obvious of situations, but that doesn't mean we should manipulate/regulate peoples lives and property beforehand with the hopes that there will be fewer conflicts. I'm not sure that truly serves the purpose of law. Many laws create more conflict than they resolve.

We live in the real world and have to deal with the fact that once the trigger is pulled or the button pressed, its too late to respond.  Its time you acknowledged that we have the ability to create a safe environment and that its pointless saying "it wouldn't hurt if the UVF had nukes."  It really would hurt.  They really like killing Catholics, they are happy to die for their cause and the only sane response is to limit their access to weapons.  We even regulate the sale of fertiliser because they used it to make bombs.  And you know what?  Their use of bombs dropped off after they no longer had access to fertiliser. 

That's the real world Fred.  People do bad things.  We can limit the harm they cause.  You have no right to tell us stop.

[fergalish]

Hey, Fred & b2c, I sure hope ye didn't somehow miss my posts 618 and 619 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.msg538197#msg538197 in this thread.  I'm *really* curious to see how ye reply and I'd hate to think you were just avoiding them.  While you're at it, I'm also curious to see the answer to:

Now, my question to you is this; if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?

BTW, if your car with Semtex, you may not intend to use it as a bomb but you are a threat.

Are you saying that a tanker truck full of gasoline driving next to you isn't just as destructive as a bomb? That's a rhetorical question. We both know that it is. That blows your argument out of the water.

Count the percentage of semtex-laden cars that tend to be intended for peaceful purposes, then count the percentage of gasoline-laden tankers that tend to be used as bombs.  b2c, this is pathetic debating on your part too - not so bad as Fred asking us how we know the sun is hot though.

Now, let me repeat the question: what alternative do you offer to "MightMakesWinner" in the case where a conflict is heading to violence.

Would "protecting your business by not killing your customers, not disrupting business in your area, and preserving your own reputation" play into this at all? <snip>

If everyone was willing to accept that everytime you get in your car, you have to bring along a chain of drivers licences, one for each road you drive along, and everytime you enter in a shop, you have to read it's full terms and conditions, and so on, then "protecting business" might actually work as a method of avoiding conflict - in other words, there would have to be a contract governing every single interaction between people and businesses, specifying all possible outcomes of that interaction, and all compensations to be paid for each of those outcomes (so you'd have to put a monetary value on the life of your child, should a heavy box fall on him).

So, if we're willing to accept such an absurdity, then yes, "business prevails" logically follows as a violence inhibitor.  Read the earlier parts of this thread to see that discussion.

However, here we're talking *specifically* about cases where the conflicting interaction in question is not governed by a contract between the conflicting parties.  You seem to be suggesting, in such circumstances, that some collection of entities, be they businesses or maybe wealthy or even poor individuals, should unite and decide on some course of action to be imposed on the conflicting parties.  A popular tribunal, so to speak.  Do I understand correctly?

Was this the argument where you shoot first and ask questions later, in contradistinction to where I preferred to determine intent first? Why are you so against measuring motive or intent as necessary precursors to violent retaliation?

Then why did you ridicule FirstAscent when he asked you how you plan on measuring the intent of a supposed aggressor?

Obviously there are some situations that can present themselves very quickly, and there isn't much to do except respond. Merely possessing something, whatever that thing may be, doesn't fall into that category.

So, repeating myself again, what do you propose as a method to avoid violence in those circumstances?  In case it's not clear, I would propose an impartial nation-wide rapid-reaction police force, operating in the framework of an impartial nation-wide legal system, backed by an impartial judiciary, all paid for through impartial nation-wide taxation.

... Someone mentioned Somalia, and it's is actually an excellent example. ...

Oh, Somalia again... let me book my flights right away... [/sarcasm]  Not to belittle the Somali or anything, I've no doubt in the right circumstances they could at least compete with neighbouring nations, but could you try to at least pick a country that's NOT the world's worst place to be for children http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/sarah-boseley-global-health/2011/sep/06/children-doctors ("World's worst place to be a sick child"), or a country where homosexuality can be punished by death - yaay, go go libertarians http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Chapter4_reprint.pdf (page 82).  Really, you're not helping your case by citing Somalia.

[FredericBastiat]

We live in the real world and have to deal with the fact that once the trigger is pulled or the button pressed, its too late to respond.  Its time you acknowledged that we have the ability to create a safe environment and that its pointless saying "it wouldn't hurt if the UVF had nukes."  It really would hurt.  They really like killing Catholics, they are happy to die for their cause and the only sane response is to limit their access to weapons.  We even regulate the sale of fertiliser because they used it to make bombs.  And you know what?  Their use of bombs dropped off after they no longer had access to fertiliser. 

That's the real world Fred.  People do bad things.  We can limit the harm they cause.  You have no right to tell us stop.

Of course, you have every right to stop bad people from doing bad things. You do that in one of two ways. Your life is imminently threatened and you respond to defend yourself or 2, you determine before a court of law, with sufficient evidence, that the alleged crimes in question, are the crimes attributed to the accused. Law 101.

You don't regulate materials. That makes anybody who possess said materials, without the blessing of the state, an instant criminal. Your blessing doesn't make the criminals go away. What's even worse, is those types of laws tend to turn your citizens into criminals and it manipulates free markets. You create an opportunity for more crime to flourish. Black markets come to mind.

I'll repeat again, possession alone does not equate to criminal intent. That forces you yield to the whims of the electorate and there's little if anything lawful about that.

[Hawker]

We live in the real world and have to deal with the fact that once the trigger is pulled or the button pressed, its too late to respond.  Its time you acknowledged that we have the ability to create a safe environment and that its pointless saying "it wouldn't hurt if the UVF had nukes."  It really would hurt.  They really like killing Catholics, they are happy to die for their cause and the only sane response is to limit their access to weapons.  We even regulate the sale of fertiliser because they used it to make bombs.  And you know what?  Their use of bombs dropped off after they no longer had access to fertiliser.  

That's the real world Fred.  People do bad things.  We can limit the harm they cause.  You have no right to tell us stop.

Of course, you have every right to stop bad people from doing bad things. You do that in one of two ways. Your life is imminently threatened and you respond to defend yourself or 2, you determine before a court of law, with sufficient evidence, that the alleged crimes in question, are the crimes attributed to the accused. Law 101.

You don't regulate materials. That makes anybody who possess said materials, without the blessing of the state, an instant criminal. Your blessing doesn't make the criminals go away. What's even worse, is those types of laws tend to turn your citizens into criminals and it manipulates free markets. You create an opportunity for more crime to flourish. Black markets come to mind.

I'll repeat again, possession alone does not equate to criminal intent. That forces you yield to the whims of the electorate and there's little if anything lawful about that.

So your first response is that we should wait until the crime takes place, the victims are dead and the killer put on trial.  Are you aware that in Ireland we have special jury less trials because the IRA killed jurors who convicted them?  And that there are no witnesses?  Its too dangerous - a witness would have to leave the country.  Real world law 102.

Your second response is that regulating materials doesn't work.

Wrong!  It has worked for 40 years.  We don't need to debate this - a quick look at the history of the UVF tells you that the year fertiliser was regulated was the year they stopped their major bombings.  

Who cares about criminal intent?  Possession means DANGER and we have a right to protect ourselves.  Regulating material is proven to work.  Do you feel that the people who are alive today as a result of regulating fertiliser sales don't deserve to be alive?  Because in Ireland alone, thats a few thousand people.

[FredericBastiat]

Now, my question to you is this; if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?

No ...(don't try to read in between the lines)... No.

Count the percentage of semtex-laden cars that tend to be intended for peaceful purposes, then count the percentage of gasoline-laden tankers that tend to be used as bombs.  b2c, this is pathetic debating on your part too - not so bad as Fred asking us how we know the sun is hot though.

I know the sun example was obvious, but nevertheless necessary. I was asked whether I could respond to an unknown event, caused by an unknown assailant, that hadn't happened yet, or that didn't exist. How exactly would anybody respond to such nonsense. If you read my response, you would have noticed that observation is the key to determining intent, just like indirect observation of the suns emissions is one indication that the sun is hot. It's a corollary, and an obvious one at that. Sorry for the crushing simplicity of it.

Then why did you ridicule FirstAscent when he asked you how you plan on measuring the intent of a supposed aggressor?

See above.

[Hawker]

Now, my question to you is this; if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?

No ...(don't try to read in between the lines)... No.

...snip...

OK - you believe that even when I have proven there is a threat, the potential victim has to wait for their fate.

[FredericBastiat]

So your first response is that we should wait until the crime takes place, the victims are dead and the killer put on trial.  Are you aware that in Ireland we have special jury less trials because the IRA killed jurors who convicted them?  And that there are no witnesses?  Its too dangerous - a witness would have to leave the country.  Real world law 102.

Your second response is that regulating materials doesn't work.

Wrong!  It has worked for 40 years. We don't need to debate this - a quick look at the history of the UVF tells you that the year fertiliser was regulated was the year they stopped their major bombings.  

Who cares about criminal intent?  Possession means DANGER and we have a right to protect ourselves.  Regulating material is proven to work.  Do you feel that the people who are alive today as a result of regulating fertiliser sales don't deserve to be alive?  Because in Ireland alone, thats a few thousand people.

Again, to put it bluntly, you lie. I did not say that "we should wait until the crime takes place". If you put words in my mouth one more time I will ignore you.

In response to your "regulating materials works" law theory. Of course it works, but you should't do it. I could wipe out my entire neighborhood and I'd be a lot safer (no people, less danger), but that wouldn't be the lawful, just, and fair thing to do.

[Hawker]

So your first response is that we should wait until the crime takes place, the victims are dead and the killer put on trial.  Are you aware that in Ireland we have special jury less trials because the IRA killed jurors who convicted them?  And that there are no witnesses?  Its too dangerous - a witness would have to leave the country.  Real world law 102.

Your second response is that regulating materials doesn't work.

Wrong!  It has worked for 40 years. We don't need to debate this - a quick look at the history of the UVF tells you that the year fertiliser was regulated was the year they stopped their major bombings.  

Who cares about criminal intent?  Possession means DANGER and we have a right to protect ourselves.  Regulating material is proven to work.  Do you feel that the people who are alive today as a result of regulating fertiliser sales don't deserve to be alive?  Because in Ireland alone, thats a few thousand people.

Again, to put it bluntly, you lie. I did not say that "we should wait until the crime takes place". If you put words in my mouth one more time I will ignore you.

In response to your "regulating materials works" law theory. Of course it works, but you should't do it. I could wipe out my entire neighborhood and I'd be a lot safer (no people, less danger), but that wouldn't be the lawful, just, and fair thing to do.

There is no lie.  Your own text shows you to be happy to have innocents killed.

By all means ignore me.  You acknowledge that regulating materials works.  You don't actually care about the consequence of not regulating them.  I do.  We won't agree.

What you are describing is a society in which people are being killed. A society where they know how they can save their own lives. Regulating materials will save them.  But your strange ideology means they "shouldn't" do it.  They should die.

Not nice.

[FredericBastiat]

Now, my question to you is this; if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?

No ...(don't try to read in between the lines)... No.

...snip...

OK - you believe that even when I have proven there is a threat, the potential victim has to wait for their fate.

You didn't prove threat. You attempted to equate danger with threat. Nuclear materials, gasoline, semtex, bullets, guns, kitchen knives, and cigarretts are all potentially dangerous. How you act while using them represents a possible threat.

[Hawker]

Now, my question to you is this; if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?

No ...(don't try to read in between the lines)... No.

...snip...

OK - you believe that even when I have proven there is a threat, the potential victim has to wait for their fate.

You didn't prove threat. You attempted to equate danger with threat. Nuclear materials, gasoline, semtex, bullets, guns, kitchen knives, and cigarretts are all potentially dangerous. How you act while using them represents a possible threat.

The question was  if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?

The answer was no.  As with fertiliser, you prefer the freedom on the bomb maker to the lives of the victims.  No matter how you wriggle, the system you want is one in which the bombs gets made and the victim dies.

Its not inspiring.  You want public services but don't want to pay for them.  You want people who are perfectly able to protect themselves to stop doing so and facilitate their own deaths.  You don't want people to have movies. 

Tell me something nice about your utopia.  Or is it all crap?

[FredericBastiat]

There is no lie.  Your own text shows you to be happy to have innocents killed.

By all means ignore me.  You acknowledge that regulating materials works.  You don't actually care about the consequence of not regulating them.  I do.  We won't agree.

What you are describing is a society in which people are being killed. A society where they know how they can save their own lives. Regulating materials will save them.  But your strange ideology means they "shouldn't" do it.  They should die.

Not nice.

Liar again. I pointed out your lies. Redact them, or admit you have nothing more to add other than ad hominem.

[fergalish]

I know the sun example was obvious, but nevertheless necessary. I was asked whether I could respond to an unknown event, caused by an unknown assailant, that hadn't happened yet, or that didn't exist. How exactly would anybody respond to such nonsense. If you read my response, you would have noticed that observation is the key to determining intent, just like indirect observation of the suns emissions is one indication that the sun is hot. It's a corollary, and an obvious one at that. Sorry for the crushing simplicity of it.

So, in the libertarian world you are advocating, the rule is "if someone establishes that another intends to do him harm, he is entitled to immediately defend himself; through violence if necessary".  You then stated that observation is necessary to determine a person's intent, but you admit that this is not always possible, and also that it is subjective.  Let me repeat myself:

In case you hadn't noticed, you've been trapped you into contradicting yourself even though I specifically drew your attention to your previous relevant statement.

Let me try to reduce this to the minimum:

• Do I, or do I not, have the right to immediately defend myself, with mortal violence if necessary, as soon as I perceive a threat to my life?
• Do you, or do you not, have the right to carry a gun into a room where you and I are discussing the solution to a mutual conflict?

edit: the sun example was not necessary.  It was pathetic.  FirstAscent asked you a legitimate question, you replied with an absurdity.