Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FredericBastiat]

The question remains; we have the ability to act in a way that will save lives.  You have the ability to try to stop us.  But do you have some moral basis for stopping us?  In the Irish case, what are you offering to balance the thousands of lives that regulating fertiliser sales saves?

I would proffer the fertilizer manufacturer a fee to secure information about any and all transactions over a specified size, or about individuals of a suspicious nature (i.e. ones who may not use it for gardening purposes). If the fertilizer manufacturer requires public disclosure of all sales of fertilizer, everybody will know who owns what, and who to keep an eye out for.

In the interest of the fertilizer manufacturer, he could also decide to deny certain sales, unless further information and risk exposure be obtained or determined. The fee could be paid by an organization of self-interested persons seeking safety, or the fertilizer manufacturer could just freely disclose it because doing so might garner him respect within the community (this may lead to more profits) hence the reason. If he relents, boycott him, a.k.a., let the buyers speak with their feet.

That would be one way. Of course, as usual, you'll probably smack this one down too... I'm waiting for it, in 3...2...1...

[1714302320]

1714302320

[1714302320]

1714302320

[Hawker]

The question remains; we have the ability to act in a way that will save lives.  You have the ability to try to stop us.  But do you have some moral basis for stopping us?  In the Irish case, what are you offering to balance the thousands of lives that regulating fertiliser sales saves?

I would proffer the fertilizer manufacturer a fee to secure information about any and all transactions over a specified size, or about individuals of a suspicious nature (i.e. ones who may not use it for gardening purposes). If the fertilizer manufacturer requires public disclosure of all sales of fertilizer, everybody will know who owns what, and who to keep an eye out for.

In the interest of the fertilizer manufacturer, he could also decide to deny certain sales, unless further information and risk exposure be obtained or determined. The fee could be paid by an organization of self-interested persons seeking safety, or the fertilizer manufacturer could just freely disclose it because doing so might garner him respect within the community (this may lead to more profits) hence the reason. If he relents, boycott him, a.k.a., let the buyers speak with their feet.

That would be one way. Of course, as usual, you'll probably smack this one down too... I'm waiting for it, in 3...2...1...

Oh come on; that's a poor attempt to divert the conversation from principle to implementation.

Let me ask the question again as it goes the core of your idea.

We have the capacity to organise.  We have to choose between regulation of fertiliser sales which will save lives and not regulating fertiliser sales which will result in a many deaths.  So we debate whether or not to do it. 

On one side of the debate, for regulation, we have an advocate who says "Its nice to avoid being killed.  If you don't regulate fertiliser sales, thousands will die and you and your own family may be among them."

On the other side we have an advocate who says "If you regulate fertiliser sales, I lose my.... "

Lose what?  I don't get what you want to offer that is worth dying for?

[Rassah]

On one side of the debate, for regulation, we have an advocate who says "Its nice to avoid being killed.  If you don't regulate fertiliser sales, thousands will die and you and your own family may be among them."

So, wait, the debate is about government v.s. total Mad Max style anarchy, and not government v.s. free-market libertarianism? Since regulation can be both public and private, I think you are arguing with someone not actually in this debate.

On the other side we have an advocate who says "If you regulate fertiliser sales, I lose my.... "

Lose what?  I don't get what you want to offer that is worth dying for?

If you want to limit it to just fertilizer... maybe lose capacity to produce enough food to keep people from going hungry? Or, since there's usually only one type of fertilizer available - the regulated one - stifle innovation for new types of fertilizer that may help prevent the damage done by current environmental degredation? Just guessing, though I think the main point of the opposing side is if we regulate fertilizer, then why not gasoline, cars, guns, knives, pencils, martial arts, or anything else that may be deemed destructive? Can your side provide a well defined line as to where to start regulating?

[Hawker]

On one side of the debate, for regulation, we have an advocate who says "Its nice to avoid being killed.  If you don't regulate fertiliser sales, thousands will die and you and your own family may be among them."

So, wait, the debate is about government v.s. total Mad Max style anarchy, and not government v.s. free-market libertarianism? Since regulation can be both public and private, I think you are arguing with someone not actually in this debate.

On the other side we have an advocate who says "If you regulate fertiliser sales, I lose my.... "

Lose what?  I don't get what you want to offer that is worth dying for?

If you want to limit it to just fertilizer... maybe lose capacity to produce enough food to keep people from going hungry? Or, since there's usually only one type of fertilizer available - the regulated one - stifle innovation for new types of fertilizer that may help prevent the damage done by current environmental degredation? Just guessing, though I think the main point of the opposing side is if we regulate fertilizer, then why not gasoline, cars, guns, knives, pencils, martial arts, or anything else that may be deemed destructive? Can your side provide a well defined line as to where to start regulating?

Fertiliser regulation works by recording all sales of the ammonium nitrate based fertilisers.  No farmer loses anything unless he is buying it for resale to bomb makers.

My side doesn't have to have a well defined line.  Regulation is a nuisance and slows the economy so we avoid it.  But when people like the IRA and UVF are on killing sprees, we record access to bomb making materials. 

[FredericBastiat]

Oh come on; that's a poor attempt to divert the conversation from principle to implementation.

Let me ask the question again as it goes the core of your idea.

We have the capacity to organise.  We have to choose between regulation of fertiliser sales which will save lives and not regulating fertiliser sales which will result in a many deaths.  So we debate whether or not to do it.  

On one side of the debate, for regulation, we have an advocate who says "Its nice to avoid being killed.  If you don't regulate fertiliser sales, thousands will die and you and your own family may be among them."

On the other side we have an advocate who says "If you regulate fertiliser sales, I lose my.... "

Lose what?  I don't get what you want to offer that is worth dying for?

You asked about fertilizer for heck sake! I can't be ambiguous about a specific thing. You'd accuse me of being obtuse (you probably mean abstruse) again. You asked, I answered. Regulation limits utility, which limits innovation, which limits change, it increases costs due to bureaucratic overhead, and of course, as per usual, it limits my rights.

[Rassah]

My side doesn't have to have a well defined line.  Regulation is a nuisance and slows the economy so we avoid it.  But when people like the IRA and UVF are on killing sprees, we record access to bomb making materials.  

I may have missed an important point earlier in the debate, but why do you believe that the other side, which (I guess) is arguing for libertarianism, does not support private voluntary regulation for those same reasons? Is it just the methods of regulation you don't understand or disagree with?

[FirstAscent]

You asked about fertilizer for heck sake! I can't be ambiguous about a specific thing. You'd accuse me of being obtuse (you probably mean abstruse) again. You asked, I answered. Regulation limits utility, which limits innovation, which limits change, and of course, as per usual, it limits my rights.

I'm quite certain he meant obtuse. The word has naturally come to my mind many times while here.

[Hawker]

My side doesn't have to have a well defined line.  Regulation is a nuisance and slows the economy so we avoid it.  But when people like the IRA and UVF are on killing sprees, we record access to bomb making materials. 

I may have missed an important point earlier in the debate, but why do you believe that the other side that, I guess, is arguing for libertarianism does not support private voluntary regulation for those same reasons?

"voluntary regulation" - that means that the manufacturers won't do it.  All it takes is one phone call promising a bullet in the head and the manufacturer will lose all enthusiasm for recording sales.  

I don't know where you are from but where I am from, terrorists don't get jury trials because jurors get shot.  Most terrorists trials are forensics only as witnesses get shot.  The notion of private volunteering information to the police is simply not applicable in Northern Ireland.

[Hawker]

Oh come on; that's a poor attempt to divert the conversation from principle to implementation.

Let me ask the question again as it goes the core of your idea.

We have the capacity to organise.  We have to choose between regulation of fertiliser sales which will save lives and not regulating fertiliser sales which will result in a many deaths.  So we debate whether or not to do it.  

On one side of the debate, for regulation, we have an advocate who says "Its nice to avoid being killed.  If you don't regulate fertiliser sales, thousands will die and you and your own family may be among them."

On the other side we have an advocate who says "If you regulate fertiliser sales, I lose my.... "

Lose what?  I don't get what you want to offer that is worth dying for?

You asked about fertilizer for heck sake! I can't be ambiguous about a specific thing. You'd accuse me of being obtuse (you probably mean abstruse) again. You asked, I answered. Regulation limits utility, which limits innovation, which limits change, it increases costs due to bureaucratic overhead, and of course, as per usual, it limits my rights.

OK you are mixing up real world consequences with ideals.  Limits to utility, innovation, change and so on pale into insignificance compared to the limit of not being able to visit shopping centres for fear of explosions.  And this is not theory; we know that fertiliser based car bombs were very effective.  Timothy McVeigh killed 500 people with one bomb in Oklahoma.  

So if you are looking at real world consequences, we have to say that regulating fertiliser sales is the lesser of 2 evils. Its not a hard decision.

I'm more interested in your statement that "it limits my rights".  What right is being lost that outweighs the right to life of bomb victims?  

[Rassah]

"voluntary regulation" - that means that the manufacturers won't do it.  All it takes is one phone call promising a bullet in the head and the manufacturer will lose all enthusiasm for recording sales.  

I don't know where you are from but where I am from, terrorists don't get jury trials because jurors get shot.  Most terrorists trials are forensics only as witnesses get shot.  The notion of private volunteering information to the police is simply not applicable in Northern Ireland.

I'm not from Northern Ireland, that's for sure.
I think in your case the manufacturer will have a choice between increasing security from bullets, or losing so many customers to boycots that they go out of business anyway. The third choice will be to just close up shop and leave. That is why I mentioned people in libertarian societies will likely have to learn to be more mobile. Of course another option is that the manufacturer can let this information be public, and have the customers that depend on his fertilizer help protect him as well.
Worst case scenario, though, is everyone who cares even a little just up and moves the hell away, letting the idiots fight it out till they're broke and dead. The land itself isn't all that rare or precious, after all, and if it is, whatever private company that wants it will surely have enough funds to clean it up. Hypothetically of course

[Rassah]

OK you are mixing up real world consequences with ideals.  Limits to utility, innovation, change and so on pale into insignificance compared to the limit of not being able to visit shopping centres for fear of explosions.  And this is not theory; we know that fertiliser based car bombs were very effective.  Timothy McVeigh killed 500 people with one bomb in Oklahoma.  

Has regulating fertilizers stopped car bombs? And why is the mall owner not doing anything to stop explosions? They very obviously hurt business. If the mall owner couldn't depend on the government for help, wouldn't he set up monitoring technologies and securities to prevent bombings himself?

[Hawker]

"voluntary regulation" - that means that the manufacturers won't do it.  All it takes is one phone call promising a bullet in the head and the manufacturer will lose all enthusiasm for recording sales.  

I don't know where you are from but where I am from, terrorists don't get jury trials because jurors get shot.  Most terrorists trials are forensics only as witnesses get shot.  The notion of private volunteering information to the police is simply not applicable in Northern Ireland.

I'm not from Northern Ireland, that's for sure.
I think in your case the manufacturer will have a choice between increasing security from bullets, or losing so many customers to boycots that they go out of business anyway. The third choice will be to just close up shop and leave. That is why I mentioned people in libertarian societies will likely have to learn to be more mobile. Of course another option is that the manufacturer can let this information be public, and have the customers that depend on his fertilizer help protect him as well.
Worst case scenario, though, is everyone who cares even a little just up and moves the hell away, letting the idiots fight it out till they're broke and dead. The land itself isn't all that rare or precious, after all, and if it is, whatever private company that wants it will surely have enough funds to clean it up. Hypothetically of course

Fertiliser is a necessity and there is no way on Earth that farmers will boycott a manufacturer over politics.

Sorry if I seem dense but you are demanding a lot - do explain the benefit of a libertarian society if it means that people who are not violent are forced to leave the country.  

[Hawker]

OK you are mixing up real world consequences with ideals.  Limits to utility, innovation, change and so on pale into insignificance compared to the limit of not being able to visit shopping centres for fear of explosions.  And this is not theory; we know that fertiliser based car bombs were very effective.  Timothy McVeigh killed 500 people with one bomb in Oklahoma.  

Has regulating fertilizers stopped car bombs? And why is the mall owner not doing anything to stop explosions? They very obviously hurt business. If the mall owner couldn't depend on the government for help, wouldn't he set up monitoring technologies and securities to prevent bombings himself?

It has pretty much stopped them.  You still get the occasional atrocity like the Omagh bombing but its been over 10 years and it was the first in 5 years.  Prior to regulation, up to 5 car bombs a day were going off.

You come across as a little innocent in what happens when a guy parks a car and runs like hell.  Maybe take a second to read what happened in Omagh to understand what we are talking about.  

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

I think you will see that (a) its a rare security system can stop a bomb like that in a small country town and (b) people have a reasonable fear.  

Edit: here's a US example if you are American.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_bomb

[Rassah]

Fertiliser is a necessity and there is no way on Earth that farmers will boycott a manufacturer over politics.

Sorry if I seem dense but you are demanding a lot - do explain the benefit of a libertarian society if it means that people who are not violent are forced to leave the country.  

You don't seem dense. I don't know you enough to make that judgement, and am still trying to find a position to settle in.
The farmers will boycott a manufacturer if that manufacturer does something to put their personal safety in jeopardy, especially if that manufacturer has competition. Should a manufacturer get busted for selling something that was used for a bomb, I'd be able to come in and advertise my stuff as farmer only. You mentioned community. Would a community not come together, even if it means paying a bit extra, if one of their members is hurt or killed?

As for leaving the country, like with public v.s. private regulation, I think the point is moot. From what you mentioned, the democratic government regulated society sounds like it's failing, too, so people are likely leaving. Neither system has full proof security methods, so I think the question is, which one would work better? The government security and regulation where everyone is forced to pay, and the government's incentive is not to be fired or voted out? Or private libertarian security and regulation, where everyone pays to stay safe, and the security's incentive is to continue to stay in business? And if both are equally good (or bad) at protecting people, then what other benefits do they bring?

[Hawker]

Fertiliser is a necessity and there is no way on Earth that farmers will boycott a manufacturer over politics.

Sorry if I seem dense but you are demanding a lot - do explain the benefit of a libertarian society if it means that people who are not violent are forced to leave the country.  

You don't seem dense. I don't know you enough to make that judgement, and am still trying to find a position to settle in.
The farmers will boycott a manufacturer if that manufacturer does something to put their personal safety in jeopardy, especially if that manufacturer has competition. Should a manufacturer get busted for selling something that was used for a bomb, I'd be able to come in and advertise my stuff as farmer only. You mentioned community. Would a community not come together, even if it means paying a bit extra, if one of their members is hurt or killed?

As for leaving the country, like with public v.s. private regulation, I think the point is moot. From what you mentioned, the democratic government regulated society sounds like it's failing, too, so people are likely leaving. Neither system has full proof security methods, so I think the question is, which one would work better? The government security and regulation where everyone is forced to pay, and the government's incentive is not to be fired or voted out? Or private libertarian security and regulation, where everyone pays to stay safe, and the security's incentive is to continue to stay in business? And if both are equally good (or bad) at protecting people, then what other benefits do they bring?

Um no it works fine.  The bad guys are still there but they have been reduced to using firearms.  If it were not for Gadaffy, the Libyan dictator, supplying Semtex to the IRA, the Troubles would have ended in the early 80s.

Communities are not always united.  Sometimes communities hate one another and rejoice in killing of the "enemy"  A state that stands aside from tribal loyalties and regulates things is useful as it saves lives. 

[Rassah]

You come across as a little innocent in what happens

GUILTY!

I think you will see that (a) its a rare security system can stop a bomb like that in a small country town and (b) people have a reasonable fear.  

Why are the methods that were used by government, which, after all, is a representation of a swell of really pissed off people, can not be used by a collaboration between private security forces and manufacturers as well? I would think that being able to freely buy fertilizer from a manufacturer, and know that this manufacturer likely secretly reported you to the private security force, and worse, used your own payment to put a price on your head (no day in court here), as being way more terrifying for a would-be bomber than having to forge permits to illegally buy the stuff, and have that manufacturer report you to the government where you can try in court to prove it was for some other reasons.

[Hawker]

You come across as a little innocent in what happens

GUILTY!

I think you will see that (a) its a rare security system can stop a bomb like that in a small country town and (b) people have a reasonable fear.  

Why are the methods that were used by government, which, after all, is a representation of a swell of really pissed off people, can not be used by a collaboration between private security forces and manufacturers as well? I would think that being able to freely buy fertilizer from a manufacturer, and know that this manufacturer likely secretly reported you to the private security force, and worse, used your own payment to put a price on your head (no day in court here), as being way more terrifying for a would-be bomber than having to forge permits to illegally buy the stuff, and have that manufacturer report you to the government where you can try in court to prove it was for some other reasons.

You are kidding right?  

[Rassah]

Communities are not always united.  Sometimes communities hate one another and rejoice in killing of the "enemy"  A state that stands aside from tribal loyalties and regulates things is useful as it saves lives.  

That is true, though here the question becomes exactly how valuable are some of those lives. Why not, instead of focusing on stopping the tribal violence, have the state focus on helping those wanting nothing to do with it relocate, leaving the tribes to just kill each other off? Hell sell them weapons even, if it'll drain them of their cash and help them kill each other faster. And if it's the types of religious bombers who want some other religious types off their land, why not give them their wish, and have them starve to death as no one wants to do any business with them?
Then again, this depends on how much you value specific land...

And, OK, yes, this does make me sound like a crazy fanatic, and is not something I would personally agree with, but...

I would think that being able to freely buy fertilizer from a manufacturer, and know that this manufacturer likely secretly reported you to the private security force, and worse, used your own payment to put a price on your head (no day in court here)...

You are kidding right?  

What about this do you see as the problem?

[Hawker]

Communities are not always united.  Sometimes communities hate one another and rejoice in killing of the "enemy"  A state that stands aside from tribal loyalties and regulates things is useful as it saves lives.  

That is true, though here the question becomes exactly how valuable are some of those lives. Why not, instead of focusing on stopping the tribal violence, have the state focus on helping those wanting nothing to do with it relocate, leaving the tribes to just kill each other off? Hell sell them weapons even, if it'll drain them of their cash and help them kill each other faster. And if it's the types of religious bombers who want some other religious types off their land, why not give them their wish, and have them starve to death as no one wants to do any business with them?
Then again, this depends on how much you value specific land...

I would think that being able to freely buy fertilizer from a manufacturer, and know that this manufacturer likely secretly reported you to the private security force, and worse, used your own payment to put a price on your head (no day in court here)...

You are kidding right?  

What about this do you see as the problem?

There is no question of our descending to the level of the terrorist.  That would be disgusting.  Descending to random killing of potential terrorists because we don't want to record the purchase of fertiliser is a revolting idea.

There is also no question of allowing people to be forced to leave their lands and lives and to to another country.

I really think you need to stop pushing half baked implementation ideas and look at the big picture.  Before advocating any idea, decide that if its not to going to improve society, why bother?  We already have stable working systems and any change has to be a change for the better. 

[fergalish]

Do you agree that you have a right to self-defense and ownership of a gun (among other things), or am I missing something? Seemingly you have no problem "engaging in mortal violence", so what's the problem?

I missed the question in here. I do think everyone has an automatic right to self defense, but I do not think that everyone has an automatic right to gun ownership.  Like I said earlier, I'd use a baseball bat.

You STILL didn't, and presumably can't, defend your ideology from the accusation of being fundamentally flawed.  Please stop wasting people's time with illogical incoherent political rubbish please; read a few books and fix your ideas.