Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FirstAscent]

b2c makes an interesting point. If you were hungry, and you were at risk of dying, you (and many others) would likely steal to survive. That doesn't excuse the theft, and the law must exact its just desserts, but at least you'd be alive to answer for it. I'm not going to say you have lawfully justified anything by your actions, neither am I suggesting a law should be made to support it, merely stating that it is what it is. Take your lumps and move on.

I could just as easily argue that it is my duty to extract my child from a neighboring home he has wandered into, even break into it if necessary in the interests of protecting my child, but damage has been done. The neighbors property has been trespassed, perhaps even vandalized, but my child is now safe. However, that doesn't excuse me from restitution to the owner. I have no problem answering to him for what I've done.

It's not that interesting. Honestly, in an emergency, do what you've got to do - just try to minimize your damage to others. A good rule of thumb is: it must be an emergency, avoid putting others at risk, avoid causing more damage than the damage you're trying to prevent, and weigh how much the parties you're affecting will be affected relative to what you need to do. Geez, breaking into a cabin and eating someone else's food because you're starving is so fundamental and so trivial relative to the issues the world faces today.

These emergency situations you bring up are generally understood, and not the underlying basis for the big things that need to be addressed, such as: climate change, disaster management, agriculture, starvation, transportation, national defense, environmental destruction, economic stability, resource management, etc.

Among those listed, the nuke situation falls under disaster management and national defense, but it also relates to all topics just listed.

[1714318319]

1714318319

[1714318319]

1714318319

[FredericBastiat]

Why do you think people just automatically think that? Honestly, the reality is, most people gripe every fucking day about all manner of laws. You are the ignorant one to believe that people just think laws echo morality.

Yeah, that's probably true. It kind of depends on the age of the person too. The younger they are the less they question it (my personal experience). They usually gripe when their rights and liberties are on the chopping block, then they take it personally. There sure has been a lot of griping lately. Sorry about projecting my personal experience as a generality. It used to be a lot more apathy, but in the last few years it seems to have become more acute. My personal experience and opinion, of course.

[FredericBastiat]

It's not that interesting. Honestly, in an emergency, do what you've got to do - just try to minimize your damage to others. A good rule of thumb is: it must be an emergency, avoid putting others at risk, avoid causing more damage than the damage you're trying to prevent, and weigh how much the parties you're affecting will be affected relative to what you need to do. Geez, breaking into a cabin and eating someone else's food because you're starving is so fundamental and so trivial relative to the issues the world faces today.

These emergency situations you bring up are generally understood, and not the underlying basis for the big things that need to be addressed, such as: climate change, disaster management, agriculture, starvation, transportation, national defense, environmental destruction, economic stability, resource management, etc.

Among those listed, the nuke situation falls under disaster management and national defense, but it also relates to all topics just listed.

Those subject matters should be addressed. That doesn't necessarily give anybody the right to make a law to regulate it. That just complicates the issue, but then maybe that's what you're going for -more interesting. I prefer less interesting to more interesting in that case. If you're advocating laws to manipulate and coerce the property owners of others, then you better have a very good reason for doing so.

Here we go. I'm going to get whacked upside the head. I can just feel it coming.

[FirstAscent]

It's not that interesting. Honestly, in an emergency, do what you've got to do - just try to minimize your damage to others. A good rule of thumb is: it must be an emergency, avoid putting others at risk, avoid causing more damage than the damage you're trying to prevent, and weigh how much the parties you're affecting will be affected relative to what you need to do. Geez, breaking into a cabin and eating someone else's food because you're starving is so fundamental and so trivial relative to the issues the world faces today.

These emergency situations you bring up are generally understood, and not the underlying basis for the big things that need to be addressed, such as: climate change, disaster management, agriculture, starvation, transportation, national defense, environmental destruction, economic stability, resource management, etc.

Among those listed, the nuke situation falls under disaster management and national defense, but it also relates to all topics just listed.

Those subject matters should be addressed. That doesn't necessarily give anybody the right to make a law to regulate it. That just complicates the issue, but then maybe that's what you're going for -more interesting. I prefer less interesting to more interesting in that case. If you're advocating laws to manipulate and coerce the property owners of others, then you better have a very good reason for doing so.

Here we go. I'm going to get whacked upside the head. I can just feel it coming.

Regarding breaking into the cabin because you're starving: it's not interesting at all because regardless of the political climate, situation, laws, etc., human instinct takes over and you do what you've got to do. These situations usually work themselves out. It's just not really worth exploring in this debate with regard to how it is handled.

However, there is a vast difference in how the big issues are addressed and dealt with depending on the politics. Thus, these issues are worth debating. Pick any one of those topics. They are deep, broad, and complicated.

Consider transportation, and just transportation. We have urban planning, road development and maintenance, rail, aircraft airframe structural integrity, airplane safety, helicopter safety, air traffic safety, right of ways, traffic management, insurance, terrorism potentially targeting air, land or sea (human beings or cargo), boating, car safety, shipping ports, noise abatement, bicycle pathways, delivery of hazardous materials, etc.

How does all this interrelate safely and efficiently? Are there commonly defined protocols?

How about the environment? Ecosystems, species extinction, soil sustainability, aquifers, water quality, riparian zones, trophic cascades, erosion, deforestation, old growth forests, secondary growth forests, fire management, wildlife corridors, cattle grazing, toxic dumping, sewage management, water tables, ocean pollution, air pollution, edge effects, ecosystem fragmentation, ocean currents, styrofoam, plastic bags, tar sands, oil spills, animal poaching (Sumatran Rhino), suburban sprawl, dust pollution (Owens Lake due to the DWP), preserves, etc.

[AyeYo]

If your opinions are so crazy as to be indefensible by argument, and your first resort is violence, then you're a ragging hypocrite and a tyrannt worse than any state which you hate.

You said you were going to "fight me tooth and nail". I guess you meant that figuratively then? How else are you going to fight me? Strongly worded forum posts? I think I'll survive.

I don't have to do anything, because you're the one trying to making radical change happen.  You can do so violently and be a hypocrite or you can do so peacefully by winning people over to your side.


Let me quote myself just to further rub in what a hypocrite you are...

If you don't like that and you truly believe in the non-aggression, no coercion BS you preach, you'll win the majority over to your side through better arguments and the demonstration that your position is superior.  If your opinions are so crazy as to be indefensible by argument, and your first resort is violence, then you're a raging hypocrite and a tyrannt worse than any state which you hate.

So which is it?  Are you going to bring about change by forcing it on people via violence (just like the state that you hate!) or are you going to win over a majority through superior reasoning and arguments (which will still result in your forcing your opinion on the minority, thus concluding that libertarianism is hypocritical and contradictory no matter what way you slice it, as I've said in a million threads before, you can make EVERYONE happy ALL the time, thus you will ALWAYS have to suppress at least some people via threat of violence)?

So let me get this straight. If I'm forced to do something at gunpoint and resist, I'm the one using violence to get my way?

I'll requote myself until you address the issue:

So which is it?  Are you going to bring about change by forcing it on people via violence (just like the state that you hate!) or are you going to win over a majority through superior reasoning and arguments (which will still result in your forcing your opinion on the minority, thus concluding that libertarianism is hypocritical and contradictory no matter what way you slice it, as I've said in a million threads before, you can make EVERYONE happy ALL the time, thus you will ALWAYS have to suppress at least some people via threat of violence)?

[AyeYo]

Nukes aren't reasonable self-defense weapons.  Conventional bombs are not self-defense weapons.  Cannons are not self-defense weapons.  RPGs are not self-defense weapons. etc. etc. etc. etc.

And we allow the government to own them... why? For "national defense"?

If I had my ideal world, no one would own them.  If most people AND governments had their ideal worlds, no one would own them.  But it's too late for that, so now some governments have to own them or their citizens are at the mercy of those governments that do own them.  I live in the real world where this is a complicated issue and I must deal with complexities of the real world.  Where do you live?

[AyeYo]

your philosophy boils down to one sentence, so I think the common man can grasp it.

Ooh, let me do yours. "If you can't get what you want peacefully, the initiation of violence is morally justified"

Which is exactly what all the libertarians in this thread have said.  Ironic, no?

We've got what we want peacefully.  We have democratic societies where we all get together to make rules that everyone agrees to follow, even if they don't necessarily agree with all of them.  Compromise is part of living in the real world.

It's you idiots that make up a small minority of people (otherwise you'd already have the world you want) that want to force the rest of society that vastly outnumbers you to conform to your worldview via violence.

[FredericBastiat]

your philosophy boils down to one sentence, so I think the common man can grasp it.

Ooh, let me do yours. "If you can't get what you want peacefully, the initiation of violence is morally justified"

Which is exactly what all the libertarians in this thread have said.  Ironic, no?

We've got what we want peacefully.  We have democratic societies where we all get together to make rules that everyone agrees to follow, even if they don't necessarily agree with all of them.  Compromise is part of living in the real world.

It's you idiots that make up a small minority of people (otherwise you'd already have the world you want) that want to force the rest of society that vastly outnumbers you to conform to your worldview via violence.

No libertarian would ever so much as breathe that. You're just trying to start a flame war and it's already heated in here as is.

[BitterTea]

your philosophy boils down to one sentence, so I think the common man can grasp it.

Ooh, let me do yours. "If you can't get what you want peacefully, the initiation of violence is morally justified"

Which is exactly what all the libertarians in this thread have said.  Ironic, no?

We've got what we want peacefully.  We have democratic societies where we all get together to make rules that everyone agrees to follow, even if they don't necessarily agree with all of them.  Compromise is part of living in the real world.

It's you idiots that make up a small minority of people (otherwise you'd already have the world you want) that want to force the rest of society that vastly outnumbers you to conform to your worldview via violence.

I agreed to nothing. I follow some rules because I agree with them (rules against harming others), some because otherwise excessive violence would be used against me (taxes), and others not at all. Yet in all of this time I have never agreed to any of those laws.

[AyeYo]

your philosophy boils down to one sentence, so I think the common man can grasp it.

Ooh, let me do yours. "If you can't get what you want peacefully, the initiation of violence is morally justified"

Which is exactly what all the libertarians in this thread have said.  Ironic, no?

We've got what we want peacefully.  We have democratic societies where we all get together to make rules that everyone agrees to follow, even if they don't necessarily agree with all of them.  Compromise is part of living in the real world.

It's you idiots that make up a small minority of people (otherwise you'd already have the world you want) that want to force the rest of society that vastly outnumbers you to conform to your worldview via violence.

No libertarian would ever so much as breathe that. You're just trying to start a flame war and it's already heated in here as is.

Apparently you're either blind, retarded, willfully ignorant, or you missed the last few pages.  Let me recap libertarian beliefs for you...

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.

Maybe you can answer this question that moron2cash refuses to (because he's already answered it indirectly, thus condemning himself and his hypocritical philosophy)...

So which is it?  Are you going to bring about change by forcing it on people via violence (just like the state that you hate!) or are you going to win over a majority through superior reasoning and arguments (which will still result in your forcing your opinion on the minority, thus concluding that libertarianism is hypocritical and contradictory no matter what way you slice it, as I've said in a million threads before, you can make EVERYONE happy ALL the time, thus you will ALWAYS have to suppress at least some people via threat of violence)?

You can't get around it.  This non-aggression bullshit is bullshit because you will be forcing everyone to abide by it under threat of violence.  Non-coercion bullshit is bullshit because your system is based on the coercion of the vastly larger number of people that disagree with you by the vastly smaller number of people that agree with you.

If you really believed in non-aggression bullshit and non-coercion bullshit then you'd shut up and sit down and realize that you're grossly outnumbered by people that aren't the least bit interested in your idiotic belief system and want nothing to do with it.  If you're all about things being voluntary then you'd accept the fact that nearly the entirety of the world's society has voluntarily chosen to NOT accept your beliefs (as evidenced by the fact that a libertarian society has never been voted into power anywhere, ever) and you'd just go way.  If the basis of what is good and right is solely that which is freely chosen, then obviously libertarianism is NOT good or right, because our societies consistantly DO NOT choose it.

[FredericBastiat]

Regarding breaking into the cabin because you're starving: it's not interesting at all because regardless of the political climate, situation, laws, etc., human instinct takes over and you do what you've got to do. These situations usually work themselves out. It's just not really worth exploring in this debate with regard to how it is handled.

However, there is a vast difference in how the big issues are addressed and dealt with depending on the politics. Thus, these issues are worth debating. Pick any one of those topics. They are deep, broad, and complicated.

Consider transportation, and just transportation. We have urban planning, road development and maintenance, rail, aircraft airframe structural integrity, airplane safety, helicopter safety, air traffic safety, right of ways, traffic management, insurance, terrorism potentially targeting air, land or sea (human beings or cargo), boating, car safety, shipping ports, noise abatement, bicycle pathways, delivery of hazardous materials, etc.

How does all this interrelate safely and efficiently? Are there commonly defined protocols?

How about the environment? Ecosystems, species extinction, soil sustainability, aquifers, water quality, riparian zones, trophic cascades, erosion, deforestation, old growth forests, secondary growth forests, fire management, wildlife corridors, cattle grazing, toxic dumping, sewage management, water tables, ocean pollution, air pollution, edge effects, ecosystem fragmentation, ocean currents, styrofoam, plastic bags, tar sands, oil spills, animal poaching (Sumatran Rhino), suburban sprawl, dust pollution (Owens Lake due to the DWP), preserves, etc.

Why should I consider your transportation issues if the road development and maintenance is for your roads, same for rail, airplane and helicopter and other modes of transportation? You being a business man, you should figure that out. I suppose if you hired me to help you manage your roads, railroads, airplane production and other whatnot, we might have something. I will not assist you as long as you use eminent domain, taxpayer subsidies, and other types of government interference, as I'm diametrically opposed to plunder, mollycoddling and forceful manipulation.

Same goes for your environmental issues. All of them are important, but none of them should have any lawful effect on property you don't own, unless and only unless the property use exceeds the boundaries within which it is contained. Prove that one, and you might just have another disciple. I will never put other lifeforms above that of humans and their basic human rights. Your only other option is to educate them and show them that by being better stewards of their lands they can preserve the natural beauty (and species) of the land, otherwise you should back down.

[FredericBastiat]

Apparently you're either blind, retarded, willfully ignorant, or you missed the last few pages.  Let me recap libertarian beliefs for you...

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.

You're not a libertarian so why are you quoting yourself? That isn't exactly proof of what we believe. Why don't you quote somebody who claims to be a libertarian and attack their ideology? You should do your homework first, of course (ya know, like read a few books on Libertarianism). Lashing out makes for an unconvincing argument. I like to poke holes in Libertarianism, and I have a few thoughts, but in this forum most of my time is spent putting out the occasional garbage-can fire.

So which is it?  Are you going to bring about change by forcing it on people via violence (just like the state that you hate!) or are you going to win over a majority through superior reasoning and arguments (which will still result in your forcing your opinion on the minority, thus concluding that libertarianism is hypocritical and contradictory no matter what way you slice it, as I've said in a million threads before, you can make EVERYONE happy ALL the time, thus you will ALWAYS have to suppress at least some people via threat of violence)?

You can't get around it.  This non-aggression bullshit is bullshit because you will be forcing everyone to abide by it under threat of violence.  Non-coercion bullshit is bullshit because your system is based on the coercion of the vastly larger number of people that disagree with you by the vastly smaller number of people that agree with you.

If you really believed in non-aggression bullshit and non-coercion bullshit then you'd shut up and sit down and realize that you're grossly outnumbered by people that aren't the least bit interested in your idiotic belief system and want nothing to do with it.  If you're all about things being voluntary then you'd accept the fact that nearly the entirety of the world's society has voluntarily chosen to NOT accept your beliefs (as evidenced by the fact that a libertarian society has never been voted into power anywhere, ever) and you'd just go way.  If the basis of what is good and right is solely that which is freely chosen, then obviously libertarianism is NOT good or right, because our societies consistantly DO NOT choose it.

Being outnumbered by the enemy doesn't make the enemy any more right. I could join a gang and rob Grandma of the $500 under her mattress, but just because there's one of her and ten of us doesn't make it right. Voting by majority can get you any law, and you know it. I bet if you start letting children vote (just promise them candy), it might increase your numbers and then you'd feel even better about yourself. A majority requires little deliberation and thought, it tends to be anonymous, and it prevents blowback for the voter, for that very reason. I'm beginning to wonder if voting isn't some sort of ploy for the thief because stealing is getting harder and harder to do these days; besides stealing on a person to person basis is getting dangerous. With an army to back you, it makes your job so much the easier.

Theft by vote. I could probably write a book about that.

[FredericBastiat]

If you really believed in non-aggression bullshit and non-coercion bullshit then you'd shut up and sit down and realize that you're grossly outnumbered by people that aren't the least bit interested in your idiotic belief system and want nothing to do with it.  If you're all about things being voluntary then you'd accept the fact that nearly the entirety of the world's society has voluntarily chosen to NOT accept your beliefs (as evidenced by the fact that a libertarian society has never been voted into power anywhere, ever) and you'd just go way.  If the basis of what is good and right is solely that which is freely chosen, then obviously libertarianism is NOT good or right, because our societies consistantly DO NOT choose it.

You use the word voluntary in a rather contradictory way. If an act is voluntary for you but not voluntary for another, then I say it has failed that definition requirement. You can't volunteer another, it just doesn't make sense. But then not much in the way of what government does, constitutes volunteerism anyway.

Libertarianism only responds to violence, it doesn't institute it, initiate it, incite it, or instigate it. For everything else, it keeps to itself, or it proffers an environment of free exchange. Sounds ideal to me.

[FirstAscent]

Why should I consider your transportation issues if the road development and maintenance is for your roads, same for rail, airplane and helicopter and other modes of transportation? You being a business man, you should figure that out. I suppose if you hired me to help you manage your roads, railroads, airplane production and other whatnot, we might have something. I will not assist you as long as you use eminent domain, taxpayer subsidies, and other types of government interference, as I'm diametrically opposed to plunder, mollycoddling and forceful manipulation.

You should consider the transportation issues I have listed. Let's take a tiny subset of the domain of transportation: trucking. Here in the U.S., we have the DOT and the state highway patrol. What are some of the things they regulate with regard to trucking?

• A truck's GVW must not exceed it's designated GVW
• A truck's total GVW must be registered to the DMV
• A driver many not drive more than a certain number of hours in a 24 hour period
• A driver must maintain an up to date logbook
• A truck's tires must be able to support the truck's published GVW
• A truck may not exceed 102 inches in width, otherwise it needs an oversize load permit
• There are height and length restrictions as well
• Any vehicle over a certain width must have 3 central red lights in the rear and 3 central amber lights in the front
• A truck may not run recapped tires on the front axle
• Oversize permits require display of a placard front and back
• Oversize permits must designate a route
• Trucks must stop at truck scales
• A class A license is required if a tractor trailer is driven
• A class B license is required if the truck has 3 axles
• A class B license is required if passengers will be transported
• An air brakes endorsement is required if the vehicle has air brakes
• A hazmat license is required if hazardous materials will be transported which exceed a certain amount
• Hazardous placards must be displayed if hazardous materials will be transported which exceed a certain amount
• A truck must submit to random inspections, which include any of the following:
  
  • U bolts which affix the body to the chassis
  • Tires, specs, conditions, etc.
  • Air compressor (for air brakes)
  • Brakes
  • Payload
  • Licenses and registration
  • Logbook
  • Bill of lading
  • Lights
  • Any and all mechanical components

Have you ever seen what trucking looks like in the third world? Consider the trucks which, due to the fact that they just barely avoid falling into the category of needing to be regulated (dually pickup trucks), which come from Mexico into the U.S. empty and return to Mexico fully loaded. They are loaded to twelve feet high with refrigerators, ovens, washers, dryers, tires and furniture. Their tires are questionable, the trucks are wobbly, and invariably slow on the freeway. They are just skating under the radar. Thankfully, they are not the norm in the U.S. - but they are the norm in Mexico, and this translates to larger rigs in that country as well, and it's even worse in other third world nations.

Now, do you want to discuss airframe inspections? Crankshaft certification for small aircraft engine rebuilds? Road development?

Same goes for your environment issues. All of them are important, but none of them should have any lawful effect on property you don't own, unless and only unless the property use exceeds the boundaries within which it is contained. Prove that one, and you might just have another disciple. I will never put other lifeforms above that of humans and their basic human rights. Your only other option is to educate them and show them that being better stewards of their lands they can preserve the natural beauty of the land, otherwise you should back down.

You own 5,000 acres in lala land. So does your neighbor. Nearby are several towns and a nearby city. You never venture into the rear right quarter of your acreage because it has many crumbly cliffs to be traversed to get to the corner, is mostly inaccessible, has thick vegetation, etc. You consider it largely unusable, and simply ignore it. If this isn't you, then it's somebody else.

Your neighbor also owns 5,000 acres. On the far side of his parcel, opposite your adjoining border, is a manufacturing plant. You can't see it, hear it, and can't smell it. All is good. They have built a small network of dirt roads which lead here and there on their property. Out of sight, out of mind.

Well, guess what? We find out that the water of all the nearby towns is contaminated. People have been drinking it for years. There have been deaths. As it turns out, the manufacturing plant has been dumping toxic waste on your property in the back corner. You never knew it. That toxic waste has been seeping into the ground for years, affecting the underground water which ultimately supplies water to all the nearby towns and the mid sized city.

"Hands off!" you've cried. Let others do what they will on their own property. Do not interfere in other people's business on their own property.

In my world: a business decides they are going to manufacture widgets. They need a license. They are classified as a manufacturer. They must disclose to a governing body what they do. They must subject themselves to onsite inspections on a regular basis. They must explain their manufacturing processes and show manifests which show what incoming chemicals they buy, notably chemicals which are regulated. They must disclose, on a regular basis, because of the manufacturing process they employ, manifests which document where those waste chemicals go. Is there a record that x quantity of waste products have been hauled out via a qualified (meaning regulated) waste disposal service (let's call them ACME Waste Disposal Company). ACME Waste Disposal Company gets regulated too. Their income is documented. Their trucks are inspected. They must use an approved process of waste disposal.

[FirstAscent]

You're not a libertarian so why are you quoting yourself? That isn't exactly proof of what we believe. Why don't you quote somebody who claims to be a libertarian and attack their ideology? You should do your homework first, of course (ya know, like read a few books on Libertarianism). Lashing out makes for an unconvincing argument. I like to poke holes in Libertarianism, and I have a few thoughts, but in this forum most of my time is spent putting out the occasional garbage-can fire.

There is no point in applying politics to anything at all unless you've educated yourself about what you're applying politics too. We don't apply hammers to hammers. We apply hammers to construction and fabrication. Construction and fabrication involves wood, metals, etc. Hammers were invented (and refined) to address the need of working with those materials.

Your favorite political ideology needs to be justified within the context of the world and society it is applied to. You simply cannot do that without understanding the world and society you're applying it to. Rather than read books on Libertarianism, you should read (and recommend that others read) books on the problems you're trying to address. You need to be comprehensive as well.

Tell me, do your books on Libertarianism effectively address the annual global fish haul, and the factors which limit it today, as opposed to the factors which limited it in the past?

[NghtRppr]

As it turns out, the manufacturing plant has been dumping toxic waste on your property in the back corner. You never knew it. That toxic waste has been seeping into the ground for years, affecting the underground water which ultimately supplies water to all the nearby towns and the mid sized city.

I wonder if you know that already happens with government regulations? In either case, the results would be the same, that company would be sued into oblivion. The difference is, for causing deaths, the people responsible would have to pay dearly, perhaps even with their own lives. Of course, why didn't the water get tested regularly? That's right, because everyone thought they were safe because the government was on the job. Remove that fantasy from people's minds and they'll think twice about what they put in their bodies. They'll get the water tested regularly since it clearly isn't guaranteed to be safe no matter who's running the show.

[FredericBastiat]

You should consider the transportation issues I have listed. Let's take a tiny subset of the domain of transportation: trucking. Here in the U.S., we have the DOT and the state highway patrol. What are some of the things they regulate with regard to trucking?

• A truck's GVW must not exceed it's designated GVW
• A truck's total GVW must be registered to the DMV
• A driver many not drive more than a certain number of hours in a 24 hour period....

Have you ever seen what trucking looks like in the third world? Consider the trucks which, due to the fact that they just barely avoid falling into the category of needing to be regulated (dually pickup trucks), which come from Mexico into the U.S. empty and return to Mexico fully loaded. They are loaded to twelve feet high with refrigerators, ovens, washers, dryers, tires and furniture. Their tires are questionable, the trucks are wobbly, and invariably slow on the freeway. They are just skating under the radar. Thankfully, they are not the norm in the U.S. - but they are the norm in Mexico, and this translates to larger rigs in that country as well, and it's even worse in other third world nations.

Now, do you want to discuss airframe inspections? Crankshaft certification for small aircraft engine rebuilds? Road development?

Point taken. However, that is great for a road you own, as in a privately managed and maintained road. Make all the rules you want. Invite or exclude anybody you want. However, don't dictate to me what I will do on my road. That's all I'm trying to say. It's a great list of things to do on your private land. Get it?

You own 5,000 acres in lala land. So does your neighbor. Nearby are several towns and a nearby city. You never venture into the rear right quarter of your acreage because it has many crumbly cliffs to be traversed to get to the corner, is mostly inaccessible, has thick vegetation, etc. You consider it largely unusable, and simply ignore it. If this isn't you, then it's somebody else.

Your neighbor also owns 5,000 acres. On the far side of his parcel, opposite your adjoining border, is a manufacturing plant. You can't see it, hear it, and can't smell it. All is good. They have built a small network of dirt roads which lead here and there on their property. Out of sight, out of mind.

Well, guess what? We find out that the water of all the nearby towns is contaminated. People have been drinking it for years. There have been deaths. As it turns out, the manufacturing plant has been dumping toxic waste on your property in the back corner. You never knew it. That toxic waste has been seeping into the ground for years, affecting the underground water which ultimately supplies water to all the nearby towns and the mid sized city.

"Hands off!" you've cried. Let others do what they will on their own property. Do not interfere in other people's business on their own property.

You can do anything you like, as long as the materials you use, stay on your land. If they don't, you've either trespassed, endangered others, or both. The law can then intervene. If you don't know you're being damaged, by whom, or how, you can't lawfully intervene on a hunch. I suggest you continually monitor your water supply. If/When the water supply has increases in toxic levels of certain compounds, and you can demonstrate that those chemicals originated with your local manufacturer, sue to enjoin, or press other criminal charges. Rinse and repeat as necessary. But I doubt even that's necessary, as one flub on their part would probably land them in the clink (attempted murder charges from poisoning). At this point you might offer a version of monitoring (volunteer regulating) and they can sidestep the murder rap. See where I'm going with this? Other manufacturers might catch on, others will risk it..

Even if you can't prove damage or direct harm, you can boycott just in case. All manufacturers, at least those that operate for profit, need customers to sustain themselves. You'd be amazed what a concerted effort of a few picketers can do for a cause. All things considered, even I have an extremely low tolerance and patience for polluters. Notwithstanding that however, I don't think government regulation is the way to go. It unfairly punishes those already in compliance, or who have not yet caused harm.

In my world: a business decides they are going to manufacture widgets. They need a license. They are classified as a manufacturer. They must disclose to a governing body what they do. They must subject themselves to onsite inspections on a regular basis. They must explain their manufacturing processes and show manifests which show what incoming chemicals they buy, notably chemicals which are regulated. They must disclose, on a regular basis, because of the manufacturing process they employ, manifests which document where those waste chemicals go. Is there a record that x quantity of waste products have been hauled out via a qualified (meaning regulated) waste disposal service (let's call them ACME Waste Disposal Company). ACME Waste Disposal Company gets regulated too. Their income is documented. Their trucks are inspected. They must use an approved process of waste disposal.

And a mad mad mad mad world it is. Mother-may-I? And I thought by leaving, I wouldn't have to be under the thumb of my parents. I'd rather live at home. Big brother is much worse.

[Hawker]

Its funny no-one answers my basic question.

We have the capacity to organise society to make life better for its members.  The care of mentally ill, the elimination of smallpox, the reduction of car bombings and the rarity of nuclear deaths and the abundance of movies are examples of what we can achieve if we organise.  These are good things and if we are to lose them we need to be offered something better.

So far, no-one has offered anything better.  Its all moralistic arguments along the lines of "you should do this" and "you ought do that."

I can't change your opinion on morals and you can't change mine.  But is there any real world benefit you can offer in return for the millions of deaths to smallpox, nukes and car bombs?

[FirstAscent]

I can't change your opinion on morals and you can't change mine.  But is there any real world benefit you can offer in return for the millions of deaths to smallpox, nukes and car bombs?

Well, they claim you'll get all these extra rights to do strange things without intervention that you didn't even want to do.

[FirstAscent]

In my world: a business decides they are going to manufacture widgets. They need a license. They are classified as a manufacturer. They must disclose to a governing body what they do. They must subject themselves to onsite inspections on a regular basis. They must explain their manufacturing processes and show manifests which show what incoming chemicals they buy, notably chemicals which are regulated. They must disclose, on a regular basis, because of the manufacturing process they employ, manifests which document where those waste chemicals go. Is there a record that x quantity of waste products have been hauled out via a qualified (meaning regulated) waste disposal service (let's call them ACME Waste Disposal Company). ACME Waste Disposal Company gets regulated too. Their income is documented. Their trucks are inspected. They must use an approved process of waste disposal.

And a mad mad mad mad world it is. Mother-may-I? And I thought by leaving, I wouldn't have to be under the thumb of my parents. I'd rather live at home. Big brother is much worse.

I don't see how Big brother is affecting you unless you're the guy running the complex manufacturing processes. In that case, consider the regulations to be guidelines which help educate you to better manage the complex processes. If you're not the guy running the complex manufacturing processes, why are you so bent out of shape over it?