Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[fergalish]

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?

So Rassah's position is at least more coherent.  He justifies MightMakesRight, end of story.  But worse, be considers that some people's lives are less valuable than others because of some generic attribute and NOT specific to any single person.  Civilisation is sure taking a pounding here folks.

Tell us, Rassah, if it was a tribe of white people fighting a tribe of black people, what do you think the 'state' should do?

[fergalish]

The farmers will boycott a manufacturer if that manufacturer does something to put their personal safety in jeopardy, especially if that manufacturer has competition.

Are you seriously suggesting that farmers wil, en masse, voluntarily choose to pay more for an equivalent product simply because their usual producer doesn't make background checks on all clients?  I say choose to pay more, because the producer not paying for security services and background checks, will have lower costs.

It's funny, the libertarianism argument states that free market capitalism will save the day and everyone will bask in the glory thereof.  However, here it seems that it would require people to make irrational economic decisions, and be far, far, far more informed about non market-related issues before making their purchases and sales.

Somebody is going to come on here and argue that looking at a person the wrong way is considered aggression.

Someone already did.  See the example of a kid pointing a toy gun at you here.

[FredericBastiat]

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.

I have a right to self defense but I don't have a right to the method of self defense? A oxymoron if I've ever seen one. The method is what matters the most. The only people you could remotely exclude from gun ownership might be those individuals who have used guns to commit crimes (unprovoked aggression, to be crystal clear).

Excluding anybody, other than criminals, and you'd be just playing the nanny/mother-may-I/overlord statist game again.

[Hawker]

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.

I have a right to self defense but I don't have a right to the method of self defense? A oxymoron if I've ever seen one. The method is what matters the most. The only people you could remotely exclude from gun ownership might be those individuals who have used guns to commit crimes (unprovoked aggression, to be crystal clear).

Excluding anybody, other than criminals, and you'd be just playing the nanny/mother-may-I/overlord statist game again.

Let me ask the same 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]

he considers that some people's lives are less valuable than others because of some generic attribute and NOT specific to any single person.

If I had to be more specific, I was saying that some people's lives are less valuable based on their actions. A terrorist's live is way less valuable than a farmers (though even that depends on from who's perspective he is a terrorist, since he could also be a freedom fighter).
As for the black/white thing, I do not advocate that. I only pointed out that in a libertarian society, things like racism and sexism could very well be a problem (i.e. I may have been agreeing with you)

Before advocating any idea, decide that if its not to going to improve society, why bother?

To me, it feels that the underlying point of libertarianism is to educate society, or gradually move it to a position where people will take more responsibility...

Aw fuckit. I can't think straight any more because of this shit...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=45298.0

sorry, I'm out of the debate for a bit.

[fergalish]

I have a right to self defense but I don't have a right to the method of self defense? A dichotomy if I've ever seen one. The method is what matters the most. The only people you could remotely exclude from gun ownership might be those individuals who have used guns to commit crimes (unprovoked aggression, to be crystal clear).

Excluding anybody, other than criminals, and you'd be just playing the nanny/mother-may-I/overlord statist game again.

Well, even you agreed that raindrop-triggered nukes are not an appropriate tool for anything, though I could probably imagine a scenario where they might be useful for self defense - but it would admittedly be freakishly absurd.  And hey, if such a nuke could be used offensively, then it could certainly be used defensively.  So, in your libertarian world, would random people be allowed to hold raindrop-triggered nukes for defense purposes in a city where such things are not otherwise prohibited?

But you STILL haven't answered the real question clearly.  Here it is *again*.  Do you, or do you not, have the right to enter a negotiating room armed with a gun, where being so armed is not specifically prohibited?  Just to remind you, you've already agreed that I have the right to immediately defend myself, with mortal violence if necessary, from any perceived threat to my life.  Again, assume we live in your liberty-land.

More generically, do you think everybody in liberty-land should mutually agree on what is "freakishly absurd"?

More philosophically, do you think your ideology should address real-world problems, or just imaginary problems?


As for the nanny state, well you know, you make a good point.  Recreational drugs are outlawed in many places even they might only affect the user - I mean drug use with no secondary direct/indirect passive/active effects on others.  But I can see how it is necessary to restrict people from *abusing* drugs - it can often lead to crime and increased healthcare costs.  The problem would be - how can you tell if someone is a drug user, or a drug abuser?  I have no solution better than stringently regulating those drugs which are likely to lead to abuse, addiction and crime etc.  For example, there could be drug-shops which would be the only possible place to buy the drug, every user has a fixed quota and must consume it right then and there.

On the other hand, in the EU, I recall there was some legislation that prohibited restaurants from serving eggs sunny-side-up (that means not well cooked for those who might not understand the terminology).  Now, eating eggs sunny-side-up can only increase healthcare costs on account of salmonella (edit: but maybe if you added up the extra cooking time & energy required for all the healthy eggs, maybe the overall cost to society would be higher; who knows.), but I hardly think it could lead to crime.  So I would think that's an unjustified regulation.  Again, these are lines in the sand, but I still think one line is better than a million, or none.

I don't mean to post off-topic, but the nanny-state is relevant to the discussion of weapons regulation, personal liberties, property rights and, eventually, intellectual property.

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

Yes, I meant obtuse, though I had to check thesaurus.com just to be sure.  Now please don't say this is an ad hominim attack, fred - I asked if you were being "deliberately obtuse" which says nothing about what I actually think of your level of obtuseness or intelligence.

Main Entry:   obtuse
Part of Speech:   adjective
Definition:   slow to understand
Synonyms:    dense, dopey, dull*, dumb, imperceptive, insensitive, opaque, slow on uptake, stolid, thick, uncomprehending, unintelligent
Notes:   acute  is an angle of less than 90 degrees; obtuse  is one of more than 90 degrees
Antonyms:    bright, intelligent, quick, smart

[NghtRppr]

Do you feel you have a right to stop us?  If yes, what is the basis of that right?

If I want to buy something from a second party that they rightfully own, third parties have no right to interfere.

That's avoiding the question.  We have the capacity to interfere and if we don't, people will die.  You feel that you have a right to ahead anyway.  What is the basis of this right? 

I just told you. Why do you want me to repeat myself?

[AyeYo]

It's funny, the libertarianism argument states that free market capitalism will save the day and everyone will bask in the glory thereof.  However, here it seems that it would require people to make irrational economic decisions, and be far, far, far more informed about non market-related issues before making their purchases and sales.

Liberland will require that everyone be an expert on... well... everything.  That's just another reason why it'll never work.

[Rassah]

It's funny, the libertarianism argument states that free market capitalism will save the day and everyone will bask in the glory thereof.  However, here it seems that it would require people to make irrational economic decisions, and be far, far, far more informed about non market-related issues before making their purchases and sales.

Liberland will require that everyone be an expert on... well... everything.  That's just another reason why it'll never work.

That's why it would be cool if both existed at the same time. People liking to learn stuff and make their own decisions would have some place to move.

[AyeYo]

It's funny, the libertarianism argument states that free market capitalism will save the day and everyone will bask in the glory thereof.  However, here it seems that it would require people to make irrational economic decisions, and be far, far, far more informed about non market-related issues before making their purchases and sales.

Liberland will require that everyone be an expert on... well... everything.  That's just another reason why it'll never work.

That's why it would be cool if both existed at the same time. People liking to learn stuff and make their own decisions would have some place to move.

What you don't realize is that it's not some "hey, I like learning new stuff" hobby.  It would be a matter of life and death for you and your family.  And it wouldn't just hinge on you having this unattainable level of knowledge.  EVERYONE in the society would have to possess that same level of knowledge or the entire thing would collapse and many people would die.

[Rassah]

It's funny, the libertarianism argument states that free market capitalism will save the day and everyone will bask in the glory thereof.  However, here it seems that it would require people to make irrational economic decisions, and be far, far, far more informed about non market-related issues before making their purchases and sales.

Liberland will require that everyone be an expert on... well... everything.  That's just another reason why it'll never work.

That's why it would be cool if both existed at the same time. People liking to learn stuff and make their own decisions would have some place to move.

What you don't realize is that it's not some "hey, I like learning new stuff" hobby.  It would be a matter of life and death for you and your family.  And it wouldn't just hinge on you having this unattainable level of knowledge.  EVERYONE in the society would have to possess that same level of knowledge or the entire thing would collapse and many people would die.

Then many people who have made a wrong choice will die, and humanity will learn from it to never make that mistake again?

[fergalish]

Then many people who have made a wrong choice will die, and humanity will learn from it to never make that mistake again?

Is that what you call progress?

[Rassah]

Then many people who have made a wrong choice will die, and humanity will learn from it to never make that mistake again?

Is that what you call progress?

Isn't progress the action of going forward to try new things, and learning from resulting mistakes?

[NghtRppr]

That's why it would be cool if both existed at the same time. People liking to learn stuff and make their own decisions would have some place to move.

I don't change my own brake fluid nor do I know anything about brakes yet I find quality workmanship just like everyone else, using the wisdom of crowds. If you don't read reviews or do research before you do business with someone, you deserve half of what you get.

[fergalish]

Then many people who have made a wrong choice will die, and humanity will learn from it to never make that mistake again?

Is that what you call progress?

Isn't progress the action of going forward to try new things, and learning from resulting mistakes?

Yeah.  Something like that.  So is many people dying some kind of progress then?

[FredericBastiat]

What you don't realize is that it's not some "hey, I like learning new stuff" hobby.  It would be a matter of life and death for you and your family.  And it wouldn't just hinge on you having this unattainable level of knowledge.  EVERYONE in the society would have to possess that same level of knowledge or the entire thing would collapse and many people would die.

I've got a good quote for that one AyeYo:

"It is only needful to open, almost at random, a book on philosophy, politics, or history, to see how strongly this idea—the child of classical studies and the mother of socialism—is rooted in our country; that mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and wealth from power; or, rather, and still worse—that mankind  itself tends towards degradation, and is only arrested in its tendency by the mysterious hand of the legislator. Classical conventionalism shows us everywhere, behind  massive society, a hidden power, under the names of Law, or Legislator (or, by a mode of expression which refers to some person or persons of undisputed weight and authority, but not named), which moves, animates, enriches, and regenerates mankind..."

"...Happily, according to these writers, there are some men, termed governors and legislators, upon whom Heaven has bestowed opposite tendencies, not for their own sake only, but for the sake of the rest of the world. Whilst mankind tends to evil, they incline to good; whilst mankind is advancing towards darkness, they are aspiring to enlightenment; whilst mankind is drawn towards vice, they are attracted by virtue. And, this granted, they demand the assistance of force, by means of which they are to substitute their own tendencies for those of the human race."  --Frederic Bastiat.

Sounds awfully familiar, and this made mention only 150 years ago. I don't think much has changed since. You "high-and-mighties" have had your chance, time to back down and give liberty back to their rightful owners.

[FredericBastiat]

But you STILL haven't answered the real question clearly.  Here it is *again*.  Do you, or do you not, have the right to enter a negotiating room armed with a gun, where being so armed is not specifically prohibited?  Just to remind you, you've already agreed that I have the right to immediately defend myself, with mortal violence if necessary, from any perceived threat to my life.  Again, assume we live in your liberty-land.

More generically, do you think everybody in liberty-land should mutually agree on what is "freakishly absurd"?

More philosophically, do you think your ideology should address real-world problems, or just imaginary problems?

If there is no specific prohibition to possessing a weapon during mediation, you could arm yourself and would not have to relinquish that right. I'm not going to answer the "freakishly absurd" definition question, it's rhetorical. Any ideology should address all problems both real and perceived.

[Rassah]

Then many people who have made a wrong choice will die, and humanity will learn from it to never make that mistake again?

Is that what you call progress?

Isn't progress the action of going forward to try new things, and learning from resulting mistakes?

Yeah.  Something like that.  So is many people dying some kind of progress then?

If it is by their own choice, then yes.
See:
America, circa 1400-1500's

[FirstAscent]

I don't change my own brake fluid nor do I know anything about brakes yet I find quality workmanship just like everyone else, using the wisdom of crowds. If you don't read reviews or do research before you do business with someone, you deserve half of what you get.

Never does he (bitcoin2cash) see the fallacy of his arguments. Never, never does he realize that his anecdotal stories are from life in this world, not his fabled world. Let's take a look:

b2c: I don't know anything about cars, but I seem to have fairly good luck with such and such brand.
OtherDude: Oh yeah?
b2c: yeah, I did my research and selected an ACME car.
OtherDude: that's good to know.
b2c: yep.
OtherDude: Must be tough, having to select between 10 different brands, where regulations have pretty much filtered out any really really badly made cars, huh?
b2c: Ummm, that doesn't have anything to do with it.
OtherDude: It has everything to do with it. Your stories do not apply to your fabled world.

[fergalish]

Isn't progress the action of going forward to try new things, and learning from resulting mistakes?

Yeah.  Something like that.  So is many people dying some kind of progress then?

If it is by their own choice, then yes.
See:
America, circa 1400-1500's

But in this case it would often not be of choice, but from guys like Fred that want anyone to hold nukes.  But it's extraordinary that you think many people dying, and humanity losing all their knowledge, that somehow people will learn.  How can you learn from someone's mistakes if they're dead?  How can you remember all the things they knew?  Progress is generally defined by your ethical viewpoint - for example you might be utilitarian, in which case you consider it as progress when people become somehow happier overall, or it might be consequentialist, in which case you consider an increasing overall morality as an indicator of progress.  But this, where the path to progress involves many people dying... well, that's a new ethics to me.  Like I say, civilisation sure is taking a beating today.

What happened in America circa 1400-1500?  That was when the Americas was 'discovered' by Europe, right?  I don't know of any large group of people choosing paths of action that led to their deaths.  Please elaborate.