Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FirstAscent]

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.

How come you don't understand that there are things that you do on your land that you aren't aware of their full ramifications? You do X, Y and Z. These in turn cause A, B and C elsewhere. However, you don't know even know what A, B, and C are, let alone where A, B, and C are occurring. Nor are you aware of testing for A, B, and C on your own land, because you know nothing about A, B, and C, but you will, in the future, when it's too late.

[NghtRppr]

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.

How come you don't understand that there are things that you do on your land that you aren't aware of their full ramifications? You do X, Y and Z. These in turn cause A, B and C elsewhere. However, you don't know even know what A, B, and C are, let alone where A, B, and C are occurring. Nor are you aware of testing for A, B, and C on your own land, because you know nothing about A, B, and C, but you will, in the future, when it's too late.

Who isn't aware that dumping toxic waste on the ground can cause it to leach into the soil and eventually the ground water? Are these the same people that don't know smoking cigarettes puts you at a higher risk for lung cancer?

[FirstAscent]

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.

How come you don't understand that there are things that you do on your land that you aren't aware of their full ramifications? You do X, Y and Z. These in turn cause A, B and C elsewhere. However, you don't know even know what A, B, and C are, let alone where A, B, and C are occurring. Nor are you aware of testing for A, B, and C on your own land, because you know nothing about A, B, and C, but you will, in the future, when it's too late.

Who isn't aware that dumping toxic waste on the ground can cause it to leach into the soil and eventually the ground water? Are these the same people that don't know smoking cigarettes puts you at a higher risk for lung cancer?

Thank you for making my point. Where did I say A, B, and C refer to ground water contamination or lung cancer? The point is, A, B, and C refer to things you are not aware of.

[Rassah]

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.

How come you don't understand that there are things that you do on your land that you aren't aware of their full ramifications? You do X, Y and Z. These in turn cause A, B and C elsewhere. However, you don't know even know what A, B, and C are, let alone where A, B, and C are occurring. Nor are you aware of testing for A, B, and C on your own land, because you know nothing about A, B, and C, but you will, in the future, when it's too late.

Who isn't aware that dumping toxic waste on the ground can cause it to leach into the soil and eventually the ground water? Are these the same people that don't know smoking cigarettes puts you at a higher risk for lung cancer?

Thank you for making my point. Where did I say A, B, and C refer to ground water contamination or lung cancer? The point is, A, B, and C refer to things you are not aware of.

That's where liability insurance, or lynch mobs, come in.

[NghtRppr]

So then you admit that dumping toxic waste doesn't fall under your criticism? Great, that's one down.

The point is, A, B, and C refer to things you are not aware of.

Like what? Do you have any examples that aren't so unlikely and far removed from reality that they can only referred to as "A, B or C"?

[FirstAscent]

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.

How come you don't understand that there are things that you do on your land that you aren't aware of their full ramifications? You do X, Y and Z. These in turn cause A, B and C elsewhere. However, you don't know even know what A, B, and C are, let alone where A, B, and C are occurring. Nor are you aware of testing for A, B, and C on your own land, because you know nothing about A, B, and C, but you will, in the future, when it's too late.

Who isn't aware that dumping toxic waste on the ground can cause it to leach into the soil and eventually the ground water? Are these the same people that don't know smoking cigarettes puts you at a higher risk for lung cancer?

Thank you for making my point. Where did I say A, B, and C refer to ground water contamination or lung cancer? The point is, A, B, and C refer to things you are not aware of.

That's where liability insurance, or lynch mobs, come in.

Sadly, no. Insurance is sold on the premise that most insured will not collect a payout, for numerous reasons. Furthermore, many will not purchase full coverage, and certain types of coverage may not be offered. Also, regardless of whether a payout occurs or not, that will still leave the damage which has occurred on the insured's property when they sell. From your point of view, that is only a point of debate between the property owner and the new property owner. From my point of view, it's damage that the Earth is forced to absorb, which has further ramifications down the line.

Insurance and lawsuits are not a comprehensive solution - your unawareness of A, B, and C and their ramifications actually lead you to draw the erroneous conclusion that insurance and lawsuits are adequate. I suggest you readjust the level of knowledge you're trying to apply to the field in question.

[fergalish]

@Moonshadow: I'm still waiting for your non-arbitrary definition of "acceptable weaponry", and if it's not a simple static list then please outline the valid circumstances for a few representative weapons.  If it's truly non-arbitrary, then I'm sure myself, FirstAscent, Ayeyo, Hawker *and* bitcoin2cash, Rassah, FredericBastiat will all instantly realise that the definition cannot logically be otherwise - or at least, we will after some (finite) debate.

Au contraire, preservation of an individual's rights is paramount, and nothing should diminish them.

So HOW can you justify entering armed into a room where I am (where being so armed is not explicitly permitted)?  You are implicitly threatening me with mortal violence, and I have the right not to be threatened.

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.

That's a load of crap.  Boycotts don't work except where the market is close to the production line.  Globalism and outsourcing ensures that any company now can abuse people in one jurisdiction while it's consumers on the other side of the world blissfully buy buy buy unawares - and a libertarian free market would facilitate that even more.  People have been boycotting Nestle for at least 20 years now and it's still doing just fine.  Look at all the bad publicity about sweatshops, child exploitation, people working with toxic chemicals to recycle computer components, genocide in the Congo to feed the cell-phone market... the list goes on and on and on.  If people don't actually *live* the abuse, they don't give a shit.  Boycotting a company is an irrational economic decision except where the cost-benefit analysis (and that's what we *all* do every time we buy something) indicates that not boycotting will incur greater future cost.  This is not so where an abusive factory is far away from the buyer.

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.

LOL.  So tell us, exactly, who are you boycotting right now?  Computer manufacturers?  Oil companies?  Gym shoe manufacturers?  Clothes manufacturers?

Being outnumbered by the enemy doesn't make the enemy any more right.

MightMakesWinnerMakesRight.  You can rant all you like about it, you can rant about how it's not fair and how subjugated you feel.  It has always been that way, it will always be that way.  You won't change anything, but you can keep ranting.

Who isn't aware that dumping toxic waste on the ground can cause it to leach into the soil and eventually the ground water? Are these the same people that don't know smoking cigarettes puts you at a higher risk for lung cancer?

I was hoping someone would mention smoking.  In liberty-land, I would consider it my right to throw a cup of water over anyone smoking in my vicinity (if not otherwise explicitly permitted), in order to reduce my exposure to toxic chemicals.  If they reacted with violence to my rightful behaviour, I would re-react in kind.  Can anyone tell me how such behaviour is not consistent with Hobbes' savage natural world of man against man?

[NghtRppr]

In liberty-land, I would consider it my right to throw a cup of water over anyone smoking in my vicinity (if not otherwise explicitly permitted), in order to reduce my exposure to toxic chemicals.

Most people are already capable of smoking only were permitted. Go to a major park like Cedar Point or Universal Studios and they have specific smoking sections. Where are you going that this is even an issue? Sidewalks? Well that's public property, no wonder. It's a non-issue on private property. If you are smoking in a non-smoking restaurant, they ask you to leave. It's a non-issue.

[Rassah]

Sadly, no. Insurance is sold on the premise that most insured will not collect a payout, for numerous reasons. Furthermore, many will not purchase full coverage, and certain types of coverage may not be offered. Also, regardless of whether a payout occurs or not, that will still leave the damage which has occurred on the insured's property when they sell. From your point of view, that is only a point of debate between the property owner and the new property owner. From my point of view, it's damage that the Earth is forced to absorb, which has further ramifications down the line.

Insurance and lawsuits are not a comprehensive solution - your unawareness of A, B, and C and their ramifications actually lead you to draw the erroneous conclusion that insurance and lawsuits are adequate. I suggest you readjust the level o knowledge you're trying to apply to the field in question.

Those who do not purchase full coverage will be personally liable, and will lose their home, land, and anything else of value.
The only two ways for insurance companies to prevent having to pay claims is to either run a scammy business at the risk of losing reputation, customers, and getting sued themselves, OR work to make sure that there is no need to pay claims in the first place. Insurance companies can inspect your property and let you know what is at risk, what is not up to code, and what will likely hurt someone else. They already do that now. Then it will be up to you to fix it, or pay much higher insurance premiums that would cover the damage from the found risks should it actually happen. This also applies to things like dangerous or harmful business and manufacturing activities. This insurance also covers unexpected damages, such as A, B, and C (like Asbestos for a while). This isn't some hypothetical that may or may not work in libertarianville, it's a fact of doing business in our current form of government which can be easily ported to the other one as well.
Regarding the resale of personal property that was damaged, I figured it was obvious that, insurance or not, the property owner would have an incentive to either be carefull with their property, or clean it up afterwards, since otherwise they'd be losing money. The reason mining and drilling companies don't is because the land on which they mine and drill is not theirs, and is not their responsibility after they leave. They lease it from the government, and thus have no inccentive to kept it clean beyond complying with the bare minimum regulation standards. If mining and drilling companies were forced to buy that land outright, things may be difderent.

Please let me know what my level of knowledge is, where I should readjust it to, and how to go about doing that.

[AyeYo]

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?

Quoted for someone to man up and answer the question.



People on this side of the debate need to stop getting distracted by these ridiculous antics and sidestracks.  Stick to the root issues and make them answer the tough questions.

I'll once again quote myself, and will continue to do so until someone steps up to the plate and addresses 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)?

[NghtRppr]

I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.

[AyeYo]

I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.

You're going to have to define your version of justice.

Living in a world where millions die for a pulled-from-ass "right" for anyone to own a nuke isn't justice by any definition familar to anyone on this planet.

Living in a world where trivial, pointless "rights" like the "right" to own a nuke and the "right" to juggle knives on a life raft supercede real, substantial rights like the right to life isn't justice by any definition that any mentally stable person is familiar with.



Oh, and you still have answered neither my nor hawker's questions.

[BitterTea]

I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.

You're going to have to define your version of justice.

Living in a world where millions die for a pulled-from-ass "right" for anyone to own a nuke isn't justice by any definition familar to anyone on this planet.

Living in a world where trivial, pointless "rights" like the "right" to own a nuke and the "right" to juggle knives on a life raft supercede real, substantial rights like the right to life isn't justice by any definition that any mentally stable person is familiar with.



Oh, and you still have answered neither my nor hawker's questions.

We are currently living in a world, run by governments, where millions die from hunger, war, disease, etc. Your scenario of an old lady detonating a nuke she somehow aquired is pure fantasy. So why don't you show us how having governments solves the problems we have with governments.

[NghtRppr]

I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.

You're going to have to define your version of justice.

Living in a world where millions die for a pulled-from-ass "right" for anyone to own a nuke isn't justice by any definition familar to anyone on this planet.

Living in a world where trivial, pointless "rights" like the "right" to own a nuke and the "right" to juggle knives on a life raft supercede real, substantial rights like the right to life isn't justice by any definition that any mentally stable person is familiar with.



Oh, and you still have answered neither my nor hawker's questions.

Let me spell it out for you.

J-U-S-T-I-C-E

It's worth more than anything.

[AyeYo]

I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.

You're going to have to define your version of justice.

Living in a world where millions die for a pulled-from-ass "right" for anyone to own a nuke isn't justice by any definition familar to anyone on this planet.

Living in a world where trivial, pointless "rights" like the "right" to own a nuke and the "right" to juggle knives on a life raft supercede real, substantial rights like the right to life isn't justice by any definition that any mentally stable person is familiar with.



Oh, and you still have answered neither my nor hawker's questions.

We are currently living in a world, run by governments, where millions die from hunger, war, disease, etc.

Imagine that, reality isn't utopia.  It's up to you to prove that you can offer something better.  So far no one can handle that task.

Your scenario of an old lady detonating a nuke she somehow aquired is pure fantasy.

Quote where I said old ladies will detonate nukes or GTFO.

So why don't you show us how having governments solves the problems we have with governments.

You want change, it's up to you to sell me on why that change is better.  Since you can't handle that, I'll gladly stick with our imperfect, but workable current solution.

[AyeYo]

I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.

You're going to have to define your version of justice.

Living in a world where millions die for a pulled-from-ass "right" for anyone to own a nuke isn't justice by any definition familar to anyone on this planet.

Living in a world where trivial, pointless "rights" like the "right" to own a nuke and the "right" to juggle knives on a life raft supercede real, substantial rights like the right to life isn't justice by any definition that any mentally stable person is familiar with.



Oh, and you still have answered neither my nor hawker's questions.

Let me spell it out for you.

J-U-S-T-I-C-E

It's worth more than anything.

I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.

You're going to have to define your version of justice.

Living in a world where millions die for a pulled-from-ass "right" for anyone to own a nuke isn't justice by any definition familar to anyone on this planet.

Living in a world where trivial, pointless "rights" like the "right" to own a nuke and the "right" to juggle knives on a life raft supercede real, substantial rights like the right to life isn't justice by any definition that any mentally stable person is familiar with.



Oh, and you still have answered neither my nor hawker's questions.

[NghtRppr]

Imagine that, reality isn't utopia.  It's up to you to prove that you can offer something better.  So far no one can handle that task.

Only because you stick your fingers in your ears and go "LA-LA-LA".

Justice is better. Even if the entire universe explodes unless we violate someone's rights, justice is better. You have your answer. You may not like it but stop pretending that you haven't been given an answer. If you continue to deny that, it will be transparent.

[AyeYo]

Imagine that, reality isn't utopia.  It's up to you to prove that you can offer something better.  So far no one can handle that task.

Only because you stick your fingers in your ears and go "LA-LA-LA".

Justice is better. Even if the entire universe explodes unless we violate someone's rights, justice is better. You have your answer. You may not like it but stop pretending that you haven't been given an answer. If you continue to deny that, it will be transparent.

I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.

You're going to have to define your version of justice.

Living in a world where millions die for a pulled-from-ass "right" for anyone to own a nuke isn't justice by any definition familar to anyone on this planet.

Living in a world where trivial, pointless "rights" like the "right" to own a nuke and the "right" to juggle knives on a life raft supercede real, substantial rights like the right to life isn't justice by any definition that any mentally stable person is familiar with.


Oh, and you still have answered neither my nor hawker's questions.

So as long as you have the "right" to juggle vials of small pox in your front yard, it doesn't matter if it kills everyone else on the planet, thus violating their right to life.

Your imagined right to juggle small pox vials > the right to life of the other 6,999,999,999 people on the planet.

Sounds like great justice to me.

[BitterTea]

Omg democracy is unworkable because people could vote to allow the juggling of smallpox on front lawns!

It's about as realistic as your fantasy scenarios.

[NghtRppr]

Omg democracy is unworkable because people could vote to allow the juggling of smallpox on front lawns!

That pretty much sums it up. For example, statism has lead to slavery, genocide, war, two nuclear bombs dropped on Japanese cities, etc. The whole "come up with something better" argument is nonsense. Both systems have their imperfections. The flaws of statism are written in blood. At least libertarianism has the ideal of justice built into it from the start.