Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 12:44:29 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ... 116 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!  (Read 95904 times)
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:05:08 AM
 #921

As for the other stuff, I honestly don't know what the existing precise regulations are, but I believe in studying each individual case and determining something that strikes some type of balance, admitting and fully accepting that everyone will not be pleased.

What kind of balance? What guides you? Whatever tickles your fancy? Popular opinion? The alignment of the stars?


Why do you ask stupid questions like this when you openly admit that your ideas are just some undefendable randomness you pulled out of your ass?

There's a difference between picking some arbitrary rules and sticking with them vs. having no rules at all. I'm sure you know that.
1480941869
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480941869

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480941869
Reply with quote  #2

1480941869
Report to moderator
1480941869
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480941869

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480941869
Reply with quote  #2

1480941869
Report to moderator
1480941869
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480941869

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480941869
Reply with quote  #2

1480941869
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480941869
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480941869

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480941869
Reply with quote  #2

1480941869
Report to moderator
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:06:17 AM
 #922

As for the other stuff, I honestly don't know what the existing precise regulations are, but I believe in studying each individual case and determining something that strikes some type of balance, admitting and fully accepting that everyone will not be pleased.

What kind of balance? What guides you? Whatever tickles your fancy? Popular opinion? The alignment of the stars?


Why do you ask stupid questions like this when you openly admit that your ideas are just some undefendable randomness you pulled out of your ass?

There's a difference between picking some arbitrary rules and sticking with them vs. having no rules at all. I'm sure you know that.

Yes, we know there is a difference. Do you know that there is a difference between arbitrary random rules and specific well thought out rules based on research, knowledge and examination of the consequences?
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:07:34 AM
 #923

In that regard, I'm actually in the same boat as you.  My ideas are also seen as crazy by a country that is predominantly far-right authoritarian, religious nut cases that worship the US military and are blissfully.... no, more like orgasmically ignorant of history and anything not covered by Fox News.  The difference between you and I is that I choose to surround myself by these people so that I can educate them, sway them over to my way of thinking, and also through their counter-arguments, strengthen, examine, and reflect on my own beliefs, often modifying them where they prove to be illogical.  You, on the other hand, choose to surround yourself with like-mind people, which is essentially burying your head in the sand.  You know you can't adequately defend your beliefs, maybe you're even afraid of beginning to question them, so you stick to pumping yourself full of world-view affirming literature and surrounding yourself with people that think exactly like you.  If you truly like your way is not only the best way, but also a realistic and workable way for the world, then stop hiding behind "me too" people and go out and start winning strangers to your cause.

Nothing is more satisfying than having an effect - getting people who think they believe what they believe, but getting them to understand that what they believe is not the best way, usually because they're unaware of all the consequences of their beliefs.

In reference to my post quoted here, knowledge is key - knowledge external to some political ideology. But you already know that.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:09:01 AM
 #924

So you can't explain your process other than "thinking hard about it". I'm really supposed to endorse that?
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:13:36 AM
 #925

So you can't explain your process other than "thinking hard about it". I'm really supposed to endorse that?

Unlike you, my process isn't simple like yours. It depends on each individual case. Would you like to discuss automobile efficiency and a method for that? Or CO2 emissions and a method for that? Or wolf populations? Or wildlife corridors? Or road management?

I don't just have some simple process to explain to you. That's the difference between sophisticated understanding and application to problems and your method, which is application of one sentence to everything, acknowledging that no sophisticated understanding is necessary. I can point you to the post you made where you precisely stated that no sophisticated understanding is necessary - about three posts after you stated that you engage in sophisticated understanding to better understand subtle and difficult problems.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:15:34 AM
 #926

So you can't explain your process other than "thinking hard about it". I'm really supposed to endorse that?

Unlike you, my process isn't simple like yours. It depends on each individual case. Would you like to discuss automobile efficiency and a method for that? Or CO2 emissions and a method for that? Or wolf populations? Or wildlife corridors? Or road management?

I don't just have some simple process to explain to you. That's the difference between sophisticated understanding and application to problems and your method, which is application of one sentence to everything, acknowledging that no sophisticated knowledge is necessary. I can point you to the post you made where you precisely stated that not sophisticated knowledge is necessary - about three posts after you stated that you engage in sophisticated understanding to better understand subtle and difficult problems.

I don't need a simple process. That's your strawman. I need some kind of process. You say that you are concerned about consequences but how do you quantify that? Is it some utility calculation? I don't care if it's complex or subtle but it better be consistent. You seem to confuse those things.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:18:16 AM
 #927

I don't need a simple process. That's your strawman. I need some kind of process. You say that you are concerned about consequences but how do you quantify that? Is it some utility calculation? I don't care if it's complex or subtle but it better be consistent. You seem to confuse those things.

Back up your claims about me. Demonstrate to me that I have not made significant educational posts which either state a reason for certain policy or have not made significant posts which suggest a solution.

Back up your accusation about me, or shut it.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:20:37 AM
 #928

I don't need a simple process. That's your strawman. I need some kind of process. You say that you are concerned about consequences but how do you quantify that? Is it some utility calculation? I don't care if it's complex or subtle but it better be consistent. You seem to confuse those things.

Back up your claims about me. Demonstrate to me that I have not made significant educational posts which either state a reason for certain policy or have not made significant posts which suggest a solution.

Back up your accusation about me, or shut it.

Let me repeat my question, you say you are concerned about consequences but how do you judge them? How do you determine if the consequences are too great to allow something? Can you describe it for me?
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:22:39 AM
 #929

I don't need a simple process. That's your strawman. I need some kind of process. You say that you are concerned about consequences but how do you quantify that? Is it some utility calculation? I don't care if it's complex or subtle but it better be consistent. You seem to confuse those things.

Back up your claims about me. Demonstrate to me that I have not made significant educational posts which either state a reason for certain policy or have not made significant posts which suggest a solution.

Back up your accusation about me, or shut it.

Let me repeat my question, you say you are concerned about consequences but how do you judge them? How do you determine if the consequences are too great to allow something? Can you describe it for me?

I just stated that each case often requires a different method. Mention a specific case - I have named several, and then we'll have a discussion.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:25:13 AM
 #930

I don't need a simple process. That's your strawman. I need some kind of process. You say that you are concerned about consequences but how do you quantify that? Is it some utility calculation? I don't care if it's complex or subtle but it better be consistent. You seem to confuse those things.

Back up your claims about me. Demonstrate to me that I have not made significant educational posts which either state a reason for certain policy or have not made significant posts which suggest a solution.

Back up your accusation about me, or shut it.

Let me repeat my question, you say you are concerned about consequences but how do you judge them? How do you determine if the consequences are too great to allow something? Can you describe it for me?

I just stated that each case often requires a different method. Mention a specific case - I have named several, and then we'll have a discussion.

How do you determine the method required for a particular case? The deeper we dig, the more it seems like you just fly by the seat of your pants.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:27:26 AM
 #931

How do you determine the method required for a particular case? The deeper we dig the more it seems like you just fly by the seat of your pants.

I'm going to assume that you don't actually want to discuss this topic with me, by carefully avoiding getting too deep into it.

Tell me, how do you determine that your simplistic one sentence rule is adequate for everything?
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:37:11 AM
 #932

How do you determine the method required for a particular case? The deeper we dig the more it seems like you just fly by the seat of your pants.

I'm going to assume that you don't actually want to discuss this topic with me, by carefully avoiding getting to deep into it.

Tell me, how do you determine that your simplistic one sentence rule is adequate for everything?

Ultimately, I define my rights based on empathy. I don't ask others to do what I would not have myself do. I consider myself equal in rights to everyone else. I start with "I wouldn't want to be assaulted or killed", "I wouldn't want my property stolen", etc and then these all distill to "I don't want people to touch my property without permission". Since I consider my person to be owned by myself, it therefore falls under property. That gives us the NAP. Then, that leaves the question of how property can be obtained in the first place and what constitutes theft. That's where homesteading and legitimate title transfer come into play. As you can see, all these disparate considerations ultimately boil down to the two tenets of libertarianism. It's accomplished by taking specific considerations, seeing what they have in common and generalizing them. Just because something can be said in a few words doesn't mean it's simple. Let's not focus on word count while ignoring content.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:43:09 AM
 #933

So you can't explain your process other than "thinking hard about it". I'm really supposed to endorse that?

That's how stuff gets done in the real world.  We spend a great deal of time and effort to understand cause and effect, and we make decisions from there.  We can justify and explain our choices.  We have reasoned through the cost/benefit analysis before drawing a conclusion.

On the other hand, you slap a one-liner philosophy that you admittedly pulled out of your ass (and can't justify, explain, or argue for) on everything, sight unseen, and call it a day.


But you think we're the crazy ones?

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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:46:09 AM
 #934

Ultimately, I define my rights based on empathy. I don't ask others to do what I would not have myself do. I consider myself equal in rights to everyone else. I start with "I wouldn't want to be assaulted or killed", "I wouldn't want my property stolen", etc and then these all distill to "I don't want people to touch my property without permission". Since I consider my person to be owned by myself, it therefore falls under property.

Ummm, that's how most people feel, instinctively. Is this original? No.

Quote
That gives us the NAP.

The NAP is nothing unless universally enforced, or at least consistently enforced within a region. It's also subject to interpretation because it's so vague.

Quote
Then, that leaves the question of how property can be obtained in the first place and what constitutes theft. That's where homesteading and legitimate title transfer come into play.

I'm sorry, but somehow, based on this conclusion you've drawn, you've publicly interpreted this to mean that you own a life raft if you're the first in it, and thus you also declare the rules for all subsequent boarders. Odd.

Quote
As you can see, all these disparate considerations ultimately boil down to the two tenets of libertarianism. It's accomplished by taking specific considerations, seeing what they have in common and generalizing them. Just because something can be said in a few words doesn't mean it's simple. Let's not focus on word count while ignoring content.

Well, if these disparate considerations are so rock solid, then why is there such disagreement about them here in this thread?
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:46:57 AM
 #935

How do you determine the method required for a particular case? The deeper we dig the more it seems like you just fly by the seat of your pants.

I'm going to assume that you don't actually want to discuss this topic with me, by carefully avoiding getting to deep into it.

Tell me, how do you determine that your simplistic one sentence rule is adequate for everything?

Ultimately, I define my rights based on empathy. I don't ask others to do what I would not have myself do.


And there's your root flaw.


Just because you're willing to die for Joe Idiot's pull-from-ass "right" to own a nuke, doesn't mean that I am.  Just because you think you wouldn't mind dealing with a voluntary legal system clusterfuck, doesn't mean that I am.  The fact that you're willing to do something doesn't give you license to sign up everyone else on the planet for it as well.  Thus, your opinion is actually the very embodiment of selfishness and the very opposite of empathetic.



So if you want to force on me a system that allows that, you're going to need to justify it and sell me on it, otherwise I'll fight you tooth and nail, and there are a lot more people on my side than yours.

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
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:49:03 AM
 #936

So if you want to force on me a system that allows that, you're going to need to justify it and sell me on it, otherwise I'll fight you tooth and nail, and there are a lot more people on my side than yours.

See you on the battlefield.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:49:50 AM
 #937

So if you want to force on me a system that allows that, you're going to need to justify it and sell me on it, otherwise I'll fight you tooth and nail, and there are a lot more people on my side than yours.

See you on the battlefield.

We invited you to the battlefield, but you chickened out and chose to remain in your bunker.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:51:08 AM
 #938

So if you want to force on me a system that allows that, you're going to need to justify it and sell me on it, otherwise I'll fight you tooth and nail, and there are a lot more people on my side than yours.

See you on the battlefield.


And here we have the ultimate irony, as I've pointed out in many, many other threads.  

The libertarian, whose world is supposedly based on non-aggression, no coercion, voluntary everything, and not forcing beliefs on anyone, is threatening violence to impliment his beliefs on the unwilling.

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
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:52:19 AM
 #939

So if you want to force on me a system that allows that, you're going to need to justify it and sell me on it, otherwise I'll fight you tooth and nail, and there are a lot more people on my side than yours.

See you on the battlefield.

We invited you to the battlefield, but you chickened out and chose to remain in your bunker.

These last couple posts were basically check and mate.  There's not even any point in cluttering up H-T with his dumbassery, much less me getting blamed for inviting him there, because he just shoved his foot so far down his throat that there's nothing left to say.

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
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 25, 2011, 02:52:49 AM
 #940

So if you want to force on me a system that allows that, you're going to need to justify it and sell me on it, otherwise I'll fight you tooth and nail, and there are a lot more people on my side than yours.

See you on the battlefield.


And here we have the ultimate irony, as I've pointed out in many, many other threads.  

The libertarian, whose world is supposedly based on non-aggression, no coercion, voluntary everything, and not forcing beliefs on anyone, is threatening violence to impliment his beliefs on the unwilling.

Oh, in that case, my apologies. I thought you were going to be enforcing your beliefs on me. So you're saying I'm free to own nuclear bombs and not pay my taxes?
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 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ... 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!