Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FirstAscent]

The Shankill butchers believed they were defending their community.  Does that belief entitle them to nukes?

No. Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.

So using this logic and your past logic, you can "defend" yourself from taxes with nukes.  Seems totally logical.

No doubt he's still ignoring you. He was actually agreeable for a short period of time, and then declared that he was concerned that my reading recommendations were going to mostly represent consequentialism. It seemed an odd thing to be concerned about, assuming it was true.

[1713974788]

1713974788

[1713974788]

1713974788

[FirstAscent]

Why do you trivialize the sum total of everything we are derived from and depend upon? I think you need to seriously reevaluate the importance of the concept of property rights against everything else that has ever existed. Read what you just wrote. Do you think I'm going to give you a book which goes on about property rights? Seriously. There are bigger things in this world to discuss. Understanding those things, instead of trivializing them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

Some Coen Brothers films are some of my favorite all time films. However, I think what I said bears some more thought. In fact, most of the things I say here bear a little bit more thought than you're giving. Try it for a few weeks, and then you can go back to your views if you so desire.

Are you going to read more of what I recommend, or should I not bother? Let me know.

[NghtRppr]

Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                in proportion

                                                                                        in proportion

                                                                               in proportion

                                                                    in proportion

[FirstAscent]

Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.

What if you threaten me with a Chef's knife, but I only have an axe? Would we both call for a timeout, so I can head down to Bed, Bath and Beyond?

[Hawker]

Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                in proportion

                                                                                        in proportion

                                                                               in proportion

                                                                    in proportion

You have agreed that dangerous individuals and groups should not have nukes.  But you still haven't answered the question of who decides if a person is entitled to have nukes? 

[deuxmill]

Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                in proportion

                                                                                        in proportion

                                                                               in proportion

                                                                    in proportion

You have agreed that dangerous individuals and groups should not have nukes.  But you still haven't answered the question of who decides if a person is entitled to have nukes? 

Hahaha . No one should have nukes . But we have them. If USA , Russia , etc. have them , why not Iran for example? What makes one group less dangerous than another? Until USA and the others nuclear powers dispose of their nukes , the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is pure Bigotry . Also the only country that ever used a Nuclear bomb to attack still has them. Why doesn't it dispose of them all first maybe then they could be more entitled to enforce a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[Hawker]

Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                in proportion

                                                                                        in proportion

                                                                               in proportion

                                                                    in proportion

You have agreed that dangerous individuals and groups should not have nukes.  But you still haven't answered the question of who decides if a person is entitled to have nukes? 

Hahaha . No one should have nukes . But we have them. If USA , Russia , etc. have them , why not Iran for example? What makes one group less dangerous than another? Until USA and the others nuclear powers dispose of their nukes , the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is pure Bigotry . Also the only country that ever used a Nuclear bomb to attack still has them. Why doesn't it dispose of them all first maybe then they could be more entitled to enforce a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

You missed his post.  He believes that individuals should have a right to nukes.  Every person would have their own weapon capable of killing a million or so people at a time and some would have collections.  In his utopia, instead of suicidal people throwing themselves off bridges, they will detonate their personal stock of nukes.  So forget Iran; we are talking about the Jared Loughners and Andrew Beievec's and the random drunken loons of this world having nuclear weapons.

[deuxmill]

Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                in proportion

                                                                                        in proportion

                                                                               in proportion

                                                                    in proportion

You have agreed that dangerous individuals and groups should not have nukes.  But you still haven't answered the question of who decides if a person is entitled to have nukes? 

Hahaha . No one should have nukes . But we have them. If USA , Russia , etc. have them , why not Iran for example? What makes one group less dangerous than another? Until USA and the others nuclear powers dispose of their nukes , the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is pure Bigotry . Also the only country that ever used a Nuclear bomb to attack still has them. Why doesn't it dispose of them all first maybe then they could be more entitled to enforce a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

You missed his post.  He believes that individuals should have a right to nukes.  Every person would have their own weapon capable of killing a million or so people at a time and some would have collections.  In his utopia, instead of suicidal people throwing themselves off bridges, they will detonate their personal stock of nukes.  So forget Iran; we are talking about the Jared Loughners and Andrew Beievec's and the random drunken loons of this world having nuclear weapons.

Like I said . NO ONE SHOULD HAVE THEM. Regardless if associated in groups (countries) or as individuals.

[AyeYo]

Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                in proportion

                                                                                        in proportion

                                                                               in proportion

                                                                    in proportion

You have agreed that dangerous individuals and groups should not have nukes.  But you still haven't answered the question of who decides if a person is entitled to have nukes? 

In for an answer to this.

[NghtRppr]

What if you threaten me with a Chef's knife, but I only have an axe? Would we both call for a timeout, so I can head down to Bed, Bath and Beyond?

It's not about weapon. It's about the damage dealt. If you trespass on my property, I can't kill you just for that. If you pick my pocket, I can't kill you just for that. If you don't understand libertarian views then how can you be so opposed to them?

[Hawker]

What if you threaten me with a Chef's knife, but I only have an axe? Would we both call for a timeout, so I can head down to Bed, Bath and Beyond?

It's not about weapon. It's about the damage dealt. If you trespass on my property, I can't kill you just for that. If you pick my pocket, I can't kill you just for that. If you don't understand libertarian views then how can you be so opposed to them?

No. Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat. The particular people they abducted, tortured and killed were not threatening them with physical violence. Therefore, it wasn't self-defense.

So you don't agree they are entitled to nukes.

Phew!

Now tell us who you will put in charge of deciding who is fit to have nukes as they only want to defend themselves and who is not?

Still waiting for my answer

[NghtRppr]

What if you threaten me with a Chef's knife, but I only have an axe? Would we both call for a timeout, so I can head down to Bed, Bath and Beyond?

It's not about weapon. It's about the damage dealt. If you trespass on my property, I can't kill you just for that. If you pick my pocket, I can't kill you just for that. If you don't understand libertarian views then how can you be so opposed to them?

No. Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat. The particular people they abducted, tortured and killed were not threatening them with physical violence. Therefore, it wasn't self-defense.

So you don't agree they are entitled to nukes.

Phew!

Now tell us who you will put in charge of deciding who is fit to have nukes as they only want to defend themselves and who is not?

Still waiting for my answer

Who is in charge of deciding if a mugger is using his knife to rob your or is using it to whittle a piece of wood?

[FirstAscent]

What if you threaten me with a Chef's knife, but I only have an axe? Would we both call for a timeout, so I can head down to Bed, Bath and Beyond?

It's not about weapon. It's about the damage dealt. If you trespass on my property, I can't kill you just for that. If you pick my pocket, I can't kill you just for that. If you don't understand libertarian views then how can you be so opposed to them?

No. Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat. The particular people they abducted, tortured and killed were not threatening them with physical violence. Therefore, it wasn't self-defense.

So you don't agree they are entitled to nukes.

Phew!

Now tell us who you will put in charge of deciding who is fit to have nukes as they only want to defend themselves and who is not?

Still waiting for my answer

Who is in charge of deciding if a mugger is using his knife to rob your or is using it to whittle a piece of wood?

Witnesses and the person being mugged. And the mugger, if he confesses. That's all very interesting.

[FredericBastiat]

Witnesses and the person being mugged. And the mugger, if he confesses. That's all very interesting.

Ding, ding, ding, we have an answer. It certainly is very interesting indeed. It's circumstantial.

[FirstAscent]

Witnesses and the person being mugged. And the mugger, if he confesses. That's all very interesting.

Ding, ding, ding, we have an answer. It certainly is very interesting indeed. It's circumstantial.

Actually, I was being sarcastic. It's not that interesting unless you can elicit an 'Aha!' moment for most of the world's citizens by presenting a solution with precise terms that can be shown to be better than current systems, and can realistically supplant current systems. Demonstrate not just the efficacy of your proposals, but a clear path towards its implementation and adoption.

[Hawker]

What if you threaten me with a Chef's knife, but I only have an axe? Would we both call for a timeout, so I can head down to Bed, Bath and Beyond?

It's not about weapon. It's about the damage dealt. If you trespass on my property, I can't kill you just for that. If you pick my pocket, I can't kill you just for that. If you don't understand libertarian views then how can you be so opposed to them?

No. Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat. The particular people they abducted, tortured and killed were not threatening them with physical violence. Therefore, it wasn't self-defense.

So you don't agree they are entitled to nukes.

Phew!

Now tell us who you will put in charge of deciding who is fit to have nukes as they only want to defend themselves and who is not?

Still waiting for my answer

Who is in charge of deciding if a mugger is using his knife to rob your or is using it to whittle a piece of wood?

So you are saying that because knives are free for all, nuclear weapons are free for all. 

You have mixed up priorities.  The right to life is in itself the most basic freedom.  If you are giving nukes to people who are so filled with hatred that they will gladly die in their cause, you are taking the most basic right of all from millions.  Shame on you.

[AyeYo]

What if you threaten me with a Chef's knife, but I only have an axe? Would we both call for a timeout, so I can head down to Bed, Bath and Beyond?

It's not about weapon. It's about the damage dealt. If you trespass on my property, I can't kill you just for that. If you pick my pocket, I can't kill you just for that. If you don't understand libertarian views then how can you be so opposed to them?

No. Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat. The particular people they abducted, tortured and killed were not threatening them with physical violence. Therefore, it wasn't self-defense.

So you don't agree they are entitled to nukes.

Phew!

Now tell us who you will put in charge of deciding who is fit to have nukes as they only want to defend themselves and who is not?

Still waiting for my answer

Who is in charge of deciding if a mugger is using his knife to rob your or is using it to whittle a piece of wood?

Proof positive that you're delusional if you think this laughably idioic belief system ever has a chance of working.

Let's just let everyone have nukes and if they blow stuff up with them... well then I guess we won't give them anymore.

Too bad you can't reverse the damage done.  LOL @ such reactionary crap

[FirstAscent]

Too bad you can't reverse the damage done.  LOL @ such reactionary crap

It's not just the reactionary crap. It's the idea that there will be three roads side by side as competitors each build roads. Or that being taxed is horrific violence. Or that you each pick a court that has its own set of laws which it believes are appropriate, some being NAP, and others not. It's the idea that everyone just agrees to NAP. It's the idea that the environment plays second fiddle to minor rights of people. It's the idea that everyday people will know complex stuff in order to not cause cascading effects in the world. It's the idea that there is no might makes right except it all devolves to exactly that. It's the idea that an HOA is not taxing you. It's the idea that everyone in here arguing these point of views is using and taking for granted a myriad of services that they could not do without. It's the idea that all this talk will ever ever actually be implementable, which makes it moot. It's the idea that all this philosophical talk is more important than addressing real issues. It's the idea that knowledge of political ideology is all you need, and not real world knowledge of things external to political ideologies. It's the idea that everything will just work. It's the idea that the neighbor will always keep you in line through lawsuits, instead of actually colluding with you and causing damage to others. It's the idea that anyone would want to learn and keep up with private enforcement, different sets of laws on different roads or businesses, that you would want to spend all your time researching and hiring services, paying tolls, and monitoring changes in policies for every service provider.

Sounds like hell.

[AyeYo]

Too bad you can't reverse the damage done.  LOL @ such reactionary crap

It's not just the reactionary crap. It's the idea that there will be three roads side by side as competitors each build roads. Or that being taxed is horrific violence. Or that you each pick a court that has its own set of laws which it believes are appropriate, some being NAP, and others not. It's the idea that everyone just agrees to NAP. It's the idea that the environment plays second fiddle to minor rights of people. It's the idea that everyday people will know complex stuff in order to not cause cascading effects in the world. It's the idea that there is no might makes right except it all devolves to exactly that. It's the idea that an HOA is not taxing you. It's the idea that everyone in here arguing these point of views is using and taking for granted a myriad of services that they could not do without. It's the idea that all this talk will ever ever actually be implementable, which makes it moot. It's the idea that all this philosophical talk is more important than addressing real issues. It's the idea that knowledge of political ideology is all you need, and not real world knowledge of things external to political ideologies. It's the idea that everything will just work. It's the idea that the neighbor will always keep you in line through lawsuits, instead of actually colluding with you and causing damage to others. It's the idea that anyone would want to learn and keep up with private enforcement, different sets of laws on different roads or businesses, that you would want to spend all your time researching and hiring services, paying tolls, and monitoring changes in policies for every service provider.

Sounds like hell.

LOL  Well that basically touched on everything.


But let's just take the simplest of all those issues: the roads.  We'll be very, very practical with it.


Can any one of the libertarian folk that think privates roads are realistic please draw me a nice little MS paint picture show how my driveway will be connected to 3, 4, maybe even 5 different roads, so that I do not have to pass over any other road owner's land/road to get to the road owned by the company whose roads I choose to pay to drive on.  Here's is my section of the neighborhood:





The picture is pretty self-explanitory.  The houses are black, the driveways are gray, the yards are green, and the existing state road is red.

Please remove that state road and redraw that picture so that AT LEAST FOUR (because even four is not adequate competition, but we'll be conservative) full size roads connect to each driveway in the neighborhood with NO overlapping.  This is practical libertarianism lesson #1.  Ready?  GO!

[FirstAscent]

Bridges and tunnels, man. Over and under your house. Bitcoin2cash suggested that at least once. He said, don't think two dimensionally.