Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 08:37:50 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 ... 116 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!  (Read 95951 times)
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 23, 2011, 08:31:11 PM
 #781

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.

How about in response to your comment, I use a similie to make a point? Here are your options to solve the problem: you must pick black or white, it's an easy decision, and it's the only option. Don't look over there, that's the rainbow section... no you don't want any of that, it's too colorful.

Don't draw conclusions from choices only you think exist (false dilemma - a type of logical fallacy). Forcing choices aren't choices in the end anyway. Yes I get it. People will die. People always die. I want fewer people to die too. I think we can keep our liberties and achieve both despite the worst of suicidal intentions.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440


View Profile
September 23, 2011, 08:37:13 PM
 #782

How about in response to your comment, I use a similie to make a point? Here are your options to solve the problem: you must pick black or white, it's an easy decision, and it's the only option. Don't look over there, that's the rainbow section... no you don't want any of that, it's too colorful.

Don't draw conclusions from choices only you think exist (false dilemma - a type of logical fallacy). Forcing choices aren't choices in the end anyway. Yes I get it. People will die. People always die. I want fewer people to die too. I think we can keep our liberties and achieve both despite the worst of suicidal intentions.
He's not being black-and-white.  That would be "fertiliser for everyone" or "fertiliser for no-one".  Hawker just proposes "fertiliser for whoever legitimately needs it".  That's what you're proposing too, except Hawker likes to stop people *before* they suicide bomb a city, not afterwards.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 23, 2011, 08:42:07 PM
 #783

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.

Yeah, I've done that one, take a look here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18489.msg351447#msg351447

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 23, 2011, 08:47:55 PM
 #784

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.

How about in response to your comment, I use a similie to make a point? Here are your options to solve the problem: you must pick black or white, it's an easy decision, and it's the only option. Don't look over there, that's the rainbow section... no you don't want any of that, it's too colorful.

Don't draw conclusions from choices only you think exist (false dilemma - a type of logical fallacy). Forcing choices aren't choices in the end anyway. Yes I get it. People will die. People always die. I want fewer people to die too. I think we can keep our liberties and achieve both despite the worst of suicidal intentions.

The choices are real.  You either regulate fertiliser sales or you don't.  You either allow private possession of nukes or you don't.  You either allow your fellow citizens be killed or you don't.

A society that casually allows its members to be killed is aesthetically ugly as well as being dangerous for the people in it.  The problem you have is that your vision of society is unpleasant.  It has nothing to recommend it.

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 23, 2011, 08:53:52 PM
 #785

He's not being black-and-white.  That would be "fertiliser for everyone" or "fertiliser for no-one".  Hawker just proposes "fertiliser for whoever legitimately needs it".  That's what you're proposing too, except Hawker likes to stop people *before* they suicide bomb a city, not afterwards.

Yes he was. He was saying we must have government regulation of fertilizer sales and concludes that that saves lives, conversely if he says we don't have government regulation he concludes people will die.

It was one or the other. There were no other options on the table. This is an 'either-or' fallacy. Don't conclude that because something "works", that is the only way it can be done, or that it is the correct and just way to do it.

To wit, if we give everybody a lobotomy, and nobody will be violent anymore, therefore we must all get lobotomies to prevent violence; and if nobody is violent, nobody will die. To beat a dead horse deader, getting lobotomies prevents violent death, and is thusly justifiable and is not just if we don't.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 23, 2011, 08:58:15 PM
 #786

He's not being black-and-white.  That would be "fertiliser for everyone" or "fertiliser for no-one".  Hawker just proposes "fertiliser for whoever legitimately needs it".  That's what you're proposing too, except Hawker likes to stop people *before* they suicide bomb a city, not afterwards.

Yes he was. He was saying we must have government regulation of fertilizer sales and concludes that that saves lives, conversely if he says we don't have government regulation he concludes people will die.

It was one or the other. There were no other options on the table. This is an 'either-or' fallacy. Don't conclude that because something "works", that is the only way it can be done, or that it is the correct and just way to do it.

To wit, if we give everybody a lobotomy, and nobody will be violent anymore, therefore we must all get lobotomies to prevent violence; and if nobody is violent, nobody will die. To beat a dead horse deader, getting lobotomies prevents violent death, and is thusly justifiable and is not just if we don't.

The regulation simply records who bought the fertiliser.  No farmer loses anything.  The only people disadvantaged are those who want to buy vast amounts of fertiliser for non-agricultural use.  

And empirically we know it saves lives.

AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 23, 2011, 09:02:01 PM
 #787

He's not being black-and-white.  That would be "fertiliser for everyone" or "fertiliser for no-one".  Hawker just proposes "fertiliser for whoever legitimately needs it".  That's what you're proposing too, except Hawker likes to stop people *before* they suicide bomb a city, not afterwards.

Yes he was. He was saying we must have government regulation of fertilizer sales and concludes that that saves lives, conversely if he says we don't have government regulation he concludes people will die.

It was one or the other. There were no other options on the table. This is an 'either-or' fallacy. Don't conclude that because something "works", that is the only way it can be done, or that it is the correct and just way to do it.

To wit, if we give everybody a lobotomy, and nobody will be violent anymore, therefore we must all get lobotomies to prevent violence; and if nobody is violent, nobody will die. To beat a dead horse deader, getting lobotomies prevents violent death, and is thusly justifiable and is not just if we don't.



I take it you aren't familiar with basic cost/benefit analysis.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 23, 2011, 09:02:56 PM
 #788

The regulation simply records who bought the fertiliser.  No farmer loses anything.  The only people disadvantaged are those who want to buy vast amounts of fertiliser for non-agricultural use.  

Can you imagine how such recordation could be applied and enforced entirely in the private sector?

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 23, 2011, 09:04:24 PM
 #789

The regulation simply records who bought the fertiliser.  No farmer loses anything.  The only people disadvantaged are those who want to buy vast amounts of fertiliser for non-agricultural use.  

And empirically we know it saves lives.

I can empirically show that lobotomies saves lives too. Government regulation is forced coercion. Law is force legalized. The farmer is subsequently diminished in his rights. If the farmer relents, he can be fined and imprisoned. That is a disadvantage.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 23, 2011, 09:05:39 PM
 #790

The regulation simply records who bought the fertiliser.  No farmer loses anything.  The only people disadvantaged are those who want to buy vast amounts of fertiliser for non-agricultural use.  

Can you imagine how such recordation could be applied and enforced entirely in the private sector?

Um, fertiliser is in the private sector.  The role of the state if to make it compulsory.  

Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 23, 2011, 09:10:24 PM
 #791

The regulation simply records who bought the fertiliser.  No farmer loses anything.  The only people disadvantaged are those who want to buy vast amounts of fertiliser for non-agricultural use.  

Can you imagine how such recordation could be applied and enforced entirely in the private sector?

Um, fertiliser is in the private sector.  The role of the state if to make it compulsory.  

*sigh*
Can you imagine how such recordation and regulation of who buys fertilizen can be applied and enforced using only private sector companies, security, and regulators, without a central taxpayer-supported government?

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 23, 2011, 09:12:56 PM
 #792

The regulation simply records who bought the fertiliser.  No farmer loses anything.  The only people disadvantaged are those who want to buy vast amounts of fertiliser for non-agricultural use.  

And empirically we know it saves lives.

I can empirically show that lobotomies saves lives too. Government regulation is forced coercion. Law is force legalized. The farmer is subsequently diminished in his rights. If the farmer relents, he can be fined and imprisoned. That is a disadvantage.

Yes.  But we have to make a choice.  Do we value the farmer's ability to buy fertiliser in secret more than the life of a bomb victim.  We don't have the option of pretending the decision does not have to be made.

I'd choose to save the life.  So do most people.  You choose to let the bomb victim's die.  That's your choice - you can always vote that way - but you can't impose that choice on others.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 23, 2011, 09:14:24 PM
 #793

The regulation simply records who bought the fertiliser.  No farmer loses anything.  The only people disadvantaged are those who want to buy vast amounts of fertiliser for non-agricultural use.  

Can you imagine how such recordation could be applied and enforced entirely in the private sector?

Um, fertiliser is in the private sector.  The role of the state if to make it compulsory.  

*sigh*
Can you imagine how such recordation and regulation of who buys fertilizen can be applied and enforced using only private sector companies, security, and regulators, without a central taxpayer-supported government?

Yes.  Why would the badge matter ?  I don't get the point of your question.

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 23, 2011, 09:15:11 PM
 #794

You haven't answered the question of where you think your "rights" come from.

Where do your rights come from? Let me guess, society? So if society declares you don't have the right to speak freely that's just too bad?
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 23, 2011, 09:17:24 PM
 #795

You haven't answered the question of where you think your "rights" come from.

Where do your rights come from? Let me guess, society? So if society declares you don't have the right to speak freely that's just too bad?

Please answer my question.  I'm not trying to ridicule your position - I'm genuinely curious. 

Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 23, 2011, 09:24:22 PM
 #796

*sigh*
Can you imagine how such recordation and regulation of who buys fertilizen can be applied and enforced using only private sector companies, security, and regulators, without a central taxpayer-supported government?

Yes.  Why would the badge matter ?  I don't get the point of your question.

Can you point out where bitcoin2cash, or anyone else, said that there should be no badges, public or private, to keep fertilizer bombers under control? I still can't find that.

Or has discussion gone so metaphysical into meaning of rights that it doesn't even matter any more?

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 23, 2011, 09:32:39 PM
 #797

*sigh*
Can you imagine how such recordation and regulation of who buys fertilizen can be applied and enforced using only private sector companies, security, and regulators, without a central taxpayer-supported government?

Yes.  Why would the badge matter ?  I don't get the point of your question.

Can you point out where bitcoin2cash, or anyone else, said that there should be no badges, public or private, to keep fertilizer bombers under control? I still can't find that.

Or has discussion gone so metaphysical into meaning of rights that it doesn't even matter any more?


I think the thread is too long  Tongue  b2c and fred both say that the record should not be compulsory; in other words that the bombers can get it secretly.

You don't share that position but you believe in using private means to implement regulation.  I can't see anyone ever objecting to that.

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 23, 2011, 09:37:50 PM
 #798

You haven't answered the question of where you think your "rights" come from.

Where do your rights come from? Let me guess, society? So if society declares you don't have the right to speak freely that's just too bad?

Please answer my question.  I'm not trying to ridicule your position - I'm genuinely curious. 

My rights come from my head. Rights are theoretical fictions. They don't exist as concrete things. They don't come from some divine mandate.

Can you point out where bitcoin2cash, or anyone else, said that there should be no badges, public or private, to keep fertilizer bombers under control? I still can't find that.

I'm all for private security.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 23, 2011, 09:47:56 PM
 #799

b2c and fred both say that the record should not be compulsory; in other words that the bombers can get it secretly.

We know that with government regulation, bombers can and do manage to sometimes get it secretly. So, what kind of incentives would work best to make sure this regulation is better enforced? (threat of violence? financial benefits?)

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 23, 2011, 09:49:45 PM
 #800

Yes.  But we have to make a choice.  Do we value the farmer's ability to buy fertiliser in secret more than the life of a bomb victim.  We don't have the option of pretending the decision does not have to be made.

I'd choose to save the life.  So do most people.  You choose to let the bomb victim's die.  That's your choice - you can always vote that way - but you can't impose that choice on others.

Flip flop. Which side of this argument are you on anyway? How about you choose for you, and I'll choose for me? Get you and yours to create regulations for your fertilizer manufacturer, and we'll have regulations for us and ours. There is no such thing as choosing for others, that's an oxymoron. You don't choose for others, you can only force others to your way. Big difference.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 ... 116 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!