Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FirstAscent]

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.

More fallacies by these clowns. What works in frontiers isn't necessarily applicable to heavily populated civilized society.

[1714328280]

1714328280

[1714328280]

1714328280

[1714328280]

1714328280

[Rassah]

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.

Sorry, in short, we had a lot of colonists, by heir own choice, take huge risks to try something new. Many of them died of disease, starvation, and winter. In the end, they learned how to live here, humanity learned about a new continent, and established a new country. Progress.

That was all I meant, nothing more. And this was aimed specifically at the two styles of country discussion, where even if libertyville completely fails, their actions and experiments will no doubt enrich democracyville with at least things they'll know NOT to do, and at best things they couldn't have tried to do.

More fallacies by these clowns. What works in frontiers isn't necessarily applicable to heavily populated civilized society.

Thanks for being so clear about your preconceived notions of the people you are hoping to debate with. I don't know if anyone else actually proposed applying this to a currently existing block of "heavily populated civilized society" before I came here. I certainly would advise against doing that. I do think the SeaSteading idea, and what's being somewhat tried in parts Somalia, as interesting though, and likely only practical ways of testing this type of society.

[FirstAscent]

Thanks for being so clear about your preconceived notions of the people you are hoping to debate with.

You're welcome. It's nothing personal. It's more a frustration with circular arguments presented by two particular individuals here. Your comments have been more balanced and well thought out.

I don't know if anyone else actually proposed applying this to a currently existing block of "heavily populated civilized society" before I came here. I certainly would advise against doing that. I do think the SeaSteading idea, and what's being somewhat tried in parts Somalia, as interesting though, and likely only practical ways of testing this type of society.

Lots of arguments here are worthless - I'm not referring to yours. Honestly, the last ten (I didn't count them - just a wild guess) pages here are just absurd. Do you actually buy into the soundness of b2c and Fred's ideas?

[Rassah]

Lots of arguments here are worthless - I'm not referring to yours. Honestly, the last ten (I didn't count them - just a wild guess) pages here are just absurd. Do you actually buy into the soundness of b2c and Fred's ideas?

I reply with

Lots of arguments here are worthless

and

Honestly, the last ten pages here are just absurd

I only skimmed some of them, but they seemed to be a waste of "You answer this!" "I already did, so no, you answer that!"
and it just seemed like a waste of time, so I didn't read enough to see what their ideas were. I kinda just stuck myself at the end of the conversation. Sorry about that.
If I were to guess that they are going for total lack of government regulation, and everything being controlled only by free-market capitalism? I don't in so much as I still believe there may be a lot of weird things that I may not have thought of that would make that idea totally crash and burn (money being replaced by addictive gene-modifying drugs, for instance  ). But I do think it's a fun thought experiment, and should some island be built, will be an interesting live experiment to watch. As I've mentioned, everything I have said here as examples I had pretty much pulled out of my ass while thinking about it right then. I love things like that, where I try to think through problems, and get stumbled up by others, and this libertyville is definitely an idea like that.
Honestly, though, my main concern with the SeaSteading idea is that it will become like Tor - a safe haven for digital piracy, drugs, and CP - and when other governments have had enough, they'll just blow it out of the water.

[FredericBastiat]

I just get a hankering for quotes sometimes, so bear with me. Notwithstanding, I still think they're apropos to the discussion at hand.

"Reason obeys itself; Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it" --Thomas Paine.

[NghtRppr]

Lots of arguments here are worthless - I'm not referring to yours. Honestly, the last ten (I didn't count them - just a wild guess) pages here are just absurd. Do you actually buy into the soundness of b2c and Fred's ideas?

I don't think "keep your hands off others and their property unless you have their permission" is such an unsound idea.

[Hawker]

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?

Actually, you haven't.  What is the basis of your right to stop us?  Where does it come from?

[Hawker]

I just get a hankering for quotes sometimes, so bear with me. Notwithstanding, I still think they're apropos to the discussion at hand.

"Reason obeys itself; Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it" --Thomas Paine.

Let me ask the same question again for the third time as it goes the core of your idea.  Its almost as if you can't answer 

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?

[fergalish]

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.

Thank you for the clear response.  Now (again, assuming we live in liberty-land): We have established that I am at liberty to defend myself from any perceived threat, AND you are at liberty to arm yourself with a (arbitrarily?) powerful weapon.  I perceive some weapons as a threat, whether loaded, pointed, handled or not.  Therefore, my liberty is incompatible with yours.  Therefore, you and I cannot be members of the same society.  In case I'm not explaining myself clearly: if there should happen to be some random conflict between us, violence would almost certainly ensue; and here I presume that the point of having a social ideology is so members of a society can co-exist peacefully.  Likewise any two people who have incompatible definitions of "threat" or "weapon" cannot be members of the same society.  If you disagree, please explain how can we co-exist, GIVEN that we enjoy the rights specified above AND that we are free to perceive things according as we see fit.

The "freakishly absurd" question is not rhetorical.  I think nukes in private hands is freakishly absurd and you don't; but you do think raindrop-triggered nukes are.  Hawker, for example, would probably say that allowing sales of semtex or other high explosives to private individuals is freakishly absurd.  How can we decide who to defend ourselves against if we happen to live in the same city?  Or do you seriously believe that the crackpot umbrella-maker should be allowed to carry out his proof-of-faith in his umbrellas in the middle of a crowded city?  I know it's absurd, but before you so dismiss it, bear in mind that people will sometimes take great personal risks in order to further their agenda - look at Lifelock CEO Todd Davis; look at suicide bombers; look at religious extremists; look at political extremists; look at organised criminals; look at anti-abortion extremists; look at homophobia; look at...... need I go on?

Edit: fixed links.

[fergalish]

Fred, here are two quotes from you.  Are they compatible?

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

Any ideology should address all problems both real and perceived.

If everyone in the world magically turned into perfect, god-like beings with ZERO variance in opinion, [libertarianism] would work.  And if everyone in the world grew wings we could fly.  But what do those idiotic fantasies have to do with discussing real-world issues?  [Libertarianists] can't seem to see the irrelevance.

... Libertarianism starts with the NAP and builds on that, yours is just majority rules, personal liberties be damned.

But of course you will say that libertarian ideas are too "simplistic" and we must "complicate" them because of the "real world", and due to these supposed "real world" problems, it's just easier to threaten violence upon your neighbor to achieve your goal, than envision some other way. There's more than one way to "skin a cat", and thus, not all means to an end should be justified. I know of one too many politicians, dictators, kings, princes, and thugs that espouse that sort of poppycock.

"The end justifies the means" is an ethical choice - see Ethics.  There are several ethical choices available, but they will result in very different and probably incompatible societies.

In fact, to reply to your "... majority rules, personal liberty be damned", I do not consider that the law should exist so as to restrict the personal liberties of anyone.  I think the law should exist so as all people can equally enjoy a minimum set of personal liberties.  In other words, the raison d'etre for law is NOT to curtail liberty, but to CREATE it.

Regrettably, as I have said several times in this thread, I do think present-day lawmakers abuse their powers.

[AyeYo]

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.

And that has fuck all to do with what I just said, re: everyone needing an unattainable level of knowledge and information to survive for more than an exceedingly short period in liberland.

[NghtRppr]

In other words, the raison d'etre for law is NOT to curtail liberty, but to CREATE it.

Laws should exist solely to protect rights.

[FredericBastiat]

And that has fuck all to do with what I just said, re: everyone needing an unattainable level of knowledge and information to survive for more than an exceedingly short period in liberland.

Well, I liked the quote anyway. It may not have addressed your comment directly, but it sure made a good point, albeit a sarcastic one perhaps. I'm not sure we've really ever had a "liberland", and so for you to say we couldn't survive long if one were to exist, would be assuming things not in evidence.

We may never get one, but I'll still try anyway. I might even be willing to meet some of you half way on some things. Unfortunately, there are too many people that like the thrill of power, and the urge to continually exercise it is an exciting but addicting drug with serious withdrawals symptoms, and so it would be unlikely to last very long. Like I've said in the past, you give an inch and they take a country mile.

[Rassah]

I'm not sure we've really ever had a "liberland"

SecondLife came damn close as an experiment, until the game mods banned all banking and financial services (which I guess suggests it was never truly one in the first place... or suggest a real liberland will last only until a lot of liberlanders lose a lot of money and "demand" someone do something about it)

[FirstAscent]

Laws should exist solely to protect rights.

Exactly.

- The right to live when in the presence of wackos
- The right to not have the Earth spoiled
- The right to breathe clean air
- The right to not have to be overly burdened with varying and differing policies of businesses and fees for all manner of things
- The right to a consistent minimum standard of safety provided by service providers
- The right to not have to engineer your own security and protection and justice system

[NghtRppr]

Laws should exist solely to protect rights.

Exactly.

- The right to live when in the presence of wackos
- The right to not have the Earth spoiled
- The right to breathe clean air
- The right to not have to be overly burdened with varying and differing policies of businesses and fees for all manner of things
- The right to a consistent minimum standard of safety provided by service providers
- The right to not have to engineer your own security and protection and justice system

I can make up random rights too.

• The right to free cable TV.
• The right to have people with red hair executed.
• The right to have Nirvana playing in every elevator.
• The right to have X-ray vision.

This is fun.

[FirstAscent]

Laws should exist solely to protect rights.

Exactly.

- The right to live when in the presence of wackos
- The right to not have the Earth spoiled
- The right to breathe clean air
- The right to not have to be overly burdened with varying and differing policies of businesses and fees for all manner of things
- The right to a consistent minimum standard of safety provided by service providers
- The right to not have to engineer your own security and protection and justice system

I can make up random rights too.

• The right to free cable TV.
• The right to have people with red hair executed.
• The right to have Nirvana playing in every elevator.
• The right to have X-ray vision.

This is fun.

You mean fun like making up your own silly libertopia? I'm sorry, but the rights you just made up are childish, arbitrary, and don't address anything important.

Try again. Or you can just put me back on ignore if you want. Makes little difference to me.

[NghtRppr]

I'm sorry, but the rights you just made up are childish, arbitrary, and don't address anything important.

That was the point. Now you know how I feel.

[FredericBastiat]

I'm sorry, but the rights you just made up are childish, arbitrary, and don't address anything important.

That was the point. Now you know how I feel.

+1

[AyeYo]

Laws should exist solely to protect rights.

Exactly.

- The right to live when in the presence of wackos
- The right to not have the Earth spoiled
- The right to breathe clean air
- The right to not have to be overly burdened with varying and differing policies of businesses and fees for all manner of things
- The right to a consistent minimum standard of safety provided by service providers
- The right to not have to engineer your own security and protection and justice system

I can make up random rights too.

• The right to free cable TV.
• The right to have people with red hair executed.
• The right to have Nirvana playing in every elevator.
• The right to have X-ray vision.

This is fun.

The right to own nukes.
The right to carry a gun anywhere.
The right to pollute the earth.


How are these rights you pulled out of your ass any more real or correct?