Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FirstAscent]

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.

No, I don't know how you feel. The rights I posted are the basis for whole government agencies. I don't know of any government agencies in place to enforce the rights you posted. Therefore, I draw the following conclusion:

Nobody takes the rights you posted seriously.

[1714275326]

1714275326

[1714275326]

1714275326

[1714275326]

1714275326

[1714275326]

1714275326

[FirstAscent]

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?

Does he still have you on ignore?

[Rassah]

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

Let's see..
- protection of your own person and property, same as in libertarian beliefs
- protection of property
- protection of property
- not sure, but that sounds like the right to stay ignorant. What is "overly burdered?" Is reading a nutrition label on food you buy 'overly burdened?"
- protection of property, either contract with government or private providers of service would work here
- and ditto here, since you'd be paying either a government organization, or a private one.

What exactly is the difference again?

[FredericBastiat]

Laws should exist solely to protect rights.

Exactly.

- The right to live and defend myself when in the presence of wackos who threaten my life
- The right to not have that portion of the Earth I own from being spoiled
- The right to breathe clean air not polluted by my neighbors
- The right to not have to be overly burdened with varying and differing policies of businesses and fees for all manner of things, and because I don't like it, I'll start my own business organization and convince other to join me to "fix" it
- The right to a free market consistent minimum standard of safety chosen by me provided by service providers I paid for
- The right to not have to engineer your own security and protection and justice system so I'll go purchase one already devised by others

That's sounds more like it.

[FirstAscent]

- protection of your own person and property, same as in libertarian beliefs

Except the solutions offered here by you know who don't actually provide said protection.

- protection of property

Except the solutions offered here by you know who don't actually provide said protection.

- protection of property

Except the solutions offered here by you know who don't actually provide said protection.

- not sure, but that sounds like the right to stay ignorant. What is "overly burdered?" Is reading a nutrition label on food you buy 'overly burdened?"

Why do you think the nutrition label is there in the first place?

- protection of property, either contract with government or private providers of service would work here
- and ditto here, since you'd be paying either a government organization, or a private one.

Totally missed the point here. But you kind of missed the point on all of them.

What exactly is the difference again?

Everything.

[FredericBastiat]

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?

If you use force (via government in your case) to regulate my fertilizer, without cause (I'm not using it to commit a crime), your regulation makes a physical claim to the use of my property. To do so is to violate my property rights. This, in effect, is theft and trespass, or threats thereto. Last I checked, most people will defend their lives and property against invasion, theft and trespass. Sometimes to the death.

Apparently some things are worth dying for. Did I say I like quotes? Here's another one:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin

[Rassah]

So, stop arguing about specific rights, and start arguing about the specifics of implementing the solutions?

[NghtRppr]

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

At least you acknowledge that all rights are simply based on opinion. That's a start.

Does he still have you on ignore?

I have cleared my ignore list because I'm moderating this section now and I have to be able to see everything to do my job. I'll just have to mentally ignore the insults instead. Don't expect to get a rise out of me though.

[FredericBastiat]

So, stop arguing about specific rights, and start arguing about the specifics of implementing the solutions?

Did that already.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.msg539838#msg539838

[BitterTea]

A nuke that is within range is like a load gun pointed at your face.

Is a loaded gun within range a loaded gun pointed at your face?

It may be that the person doing it has no bad intentions, it may even be that the safety catch is on but you cannot allow them to carry on as sooner or later there will be a bang.  So yes, if an individual owns a nuclear weapon and its under his control and you are in range, its a direct threat.

Same applies to a state.

If its your own state, you can campaign to get them into an arms reduction treaty. If its an ally, you can campaign to have your government lobby that state to enter an arms reduction treaty.  If its an enemy, you need your government to act on your behalf to remove the threat, ideally with an arms reduction treaty.

Surely, if immediate violence is warranted against an individual, than it is warranted against a state. If not, why this disparity?

At the moment, parts of the world are dismantling their nukes and other parts are trying to get nukes.  We are still at the stage where a US/Russian war would result in human extinction.  Hopefully the reductions will continue.

You think states will willingly give up nuclear weapons, and I bet you think anarchists are utopian.

You realize of course that the only reason we're having this discussion is because governments created nuclear weapons. Without institutionalized violence, I really doubt there would have  been a demand for such a device. If this is the case, there would have been no drive to create it.

[AyeYo]

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

At least you acknowledge that all rights are simply based on opinion. That's a start.

Does he still have you on ignore?

I have cleared my ignore list because I'm moderating this section now and I have to be able to see everything to do my job. I'll just have to mentally ignore the insults instead. Don't expect to get a rise out of me though.

So you agree that all rights are opinion based, but you still won't explain why people need to die to give you your idea of what rights you think you deserve.

[NghtRppr]

So you agree that all rights are opinion based, but you still won't explain why people need to die to give you your idea of what rights you think you deserve.

If you don't agree that you should keep your hands to yourself, how can I convince you otherwise? I'd rather deal with people that already agree with that and then argue from there to libertarianism.

[Rassah]

A nuke that is within range is like a load gun pointed at your face.

Is a loaded gun within range a loaded gun pointed at your face?

Oh come on. You know a loaded nuke is pointed in a spherical direction. Think before you post like that :/

[AyeYo]

So you agree that all rights are opinion based, but you still won't explain why people need to die to give you your idea of what rights you think you deserve.

If you don't agree that you should keep your hands to yourself, how can I convince you otherwise? I'd rather deal with people that already agree with that and then argue from there to libertarianism.

Because sticking to a circle jerk is the best way to never have your ideas see the light of day. People that actually are interested in doing more than playing political are most interested in convincing others because that's how ideas get implemented.

Also, as has been demonstrated throughout this thread, your ideas are inherently contradictory in nature, even if we argue from the basis of your root beliefs being true.

[Hawker]

So you agree that all rights are opinion based, but you still won't explain why people need to die to give you your idea of what rights you think you deserve.

If you don't agree that you should keep your hands to yourself, how can I convince you otherwise? I'd rather deal with people that already agree with that and then argue from there to libertarianism.

Where is this "should" coming from?

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.

You haven't answered the question of where you think your "rights" come from.  And yes, I know that's asking the same question a different way 

[Rassah]

You haven't answered the question of where you think your "rights" come from.  And yes, I know that's asking the same question a different way 

From our own capacity/ability to reason
or from god. Take your pick (side)

[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."

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 use force (via government in your case) to regulate my fertilizer, without cause (I'm not using it to commit a crime), your regulation makes a physical claim to the use of my property. To do so is to violate my property rights. This, in effect, is theft and trespass, or threats thereto. Last I checked, most people will defend their lives and property against invasion, theft and trespass. Sometimes to the death.

Apparently some things are worth dying for. Did I say I like quotes? Here's another one:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin

That's avoiding the question.

We have to choose; regulate fertiliser sales and save 1000s of lives or don't regulate fertiliser sales, have 1000s of people die and gain ... well we don't gain anything.

Unless you offer something that outweighs the loss of life from not regulating fertiliser, its an easy decision.  I'll opt to save lives.  If you want to be selfish about it, I could argue that my own life is one of those being protected but even if it wasn't, I'd opt not to have those poor people killed.  

And I know somethings are worth dying for.  That's why intelligent educated people carry out suicide bombings.  My view is that we should minimize the number of innocents they take with them.

[Hawker]

You haven't answered the question of where you think your "rights" come from.  And yes, I know that's asking the same question a different way 

From our own capacity/ability to reason
or from god. Take your pick (side)

Lets stick to fertiliser sales.  Regulate them and you avoid bombs going off.  Avoid bombs going off and you increase your own life expectancy. 

My capacity/ability to reason tells me that allowing myself get killed by bombs will prevent me from achieving any of my life's goals.  So the reasonable thing is to regulate fertiliser sales. 

I am not religious but I am sure if I was, God would say "Stop that bomb before it kills you."

It seems to me that there is no Libertarian basis for opposing the regulation of fertiliser sales.  But do correct me; its a puzzle what the basis of the objections are.

[Hawker]

..snip...

You realize of course that the only reason we're having this discussion is because governments created nuclear weapons. Without institutionalized violence, I really doubt there would have  been a demand for such a device. If this is the case, there would have been no drive to create it.

Humans are by nature tribal and violent.  You may be blessed with living in a part of the world where we have overcome such primitive instincts but its a great mistake to think that the species has somehow changed.  We, as a species, like killing our enemies - talk to any soldier who has experienced the rush of contact and you will understand.  Think of the youngsters, barely old enough to remember 9/11, celebrating the killing of Osama bin Ladin in the streets.  That's how we are.

To say governments created nuclear weapons is a little inaccurate.  We created governments and we are responsible for what our governments do.  The general public in most of the major WW2 countries was hungry for war and celebrated the slaughter of enemy civilians by bombing raids.  Making nukes was part of the same basic blood lust.

[fergalish]

• 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.

Nobody will stop you setting up a company offering free cable TV, or doing research into x-ray vision for eventual human implants - though I suppose you might have to be sure to offer a quality product.  Tell you what, I don't have a TV, but if you offer free cable to me, I'll definitely 'buy' it.  Good luck.  You have the right to have free cable TV, and everyone else has a greater right not to be obliged to offer you free cable TV.

Fortunately, under just about any reasonable legal system I can think of, the right to have people with red hair arbitrarily executed is vastly superseded by redheads' right to life - so there is no problem in a legal system and the law protects redheads.  Likewise Nirvana and people's right to peace and tranquillity.

I'll bet if you take the core idea of law it would boil down to pretty much what libertarians would like.  "Do no harm; do not threaten to harm," might be a (simplified) starting point; the rest is just making a clear, unique definition of what constitutes "threat" and "harm" such that members of society can co-exist peacefully.

b2c, your own post just here shows that people with differing opinions on what their rights should be, cannot peacefully co-exist.  I realise that you are being facetious, but have you ever heard of Poe's Law?  In short: "Parodies of extremism are indistinguishable from the real thing."  So *whatever* your understanding of "threat" and "harm", there will *always* potentially be someone who's understanding is incompatible with yours.  Any society which has competing or conflicting members, REQUIRES a common definition of "threat" and "harm" if it is to be peaceful.  If all members of a society are cooperating towards a single mutually beneficial end, in some kind of symbiotic web maybe, then law would not be required.  Self-interest would be sufficient to keep things peaceful.

How's about this: I previously wrote that libertarianism might be defined as:

1. Do no violence except to defend from imminent perceived threats to life, health or property.
2. Do not threaten or damage the life, health or property of another.
3. Honour all your contractual obligations.

I'd asked to be corrected it it was wrong but nobody did (I think), so I'll assume it's at least close.

Now, please define "violence", "defend", "imminent", "perceived", "threat", "life", "health", "property", "damage", "honour", "contract", "obligations", starting with the ones in boldface.  I mean, you might come from a different country from me, with different linguistic conventions; you might not be a native English speaker and so misunderstand some words; your background might give you different interpretations and so on.  I need them to be defined, so if I decide to move to your liberty-land, I'll know what to do and what not to do, whenever I happen to find myself in circumstances somehow not comprehensively addressed by some prior contract.  Now don't reply "here's what you must do: 'don't threaten anyone' etc", please actually *define* the terminology used; use examples if you think it's necessary.