Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

Please answer the question I asked earlier.  You say that people who are dangerous should not have nuclear weapons.  How would you prevent someone like Jared Laughner having a nuke?  Or is it your position that it would have been OK for him to plant a nuclear bomb in Tuscon and leave town before it detonated?

If someone kills people and is likely to be a continual threat, nobody will want to have him around. He'll be effectively banned for everyone else's private property. If you were a mall owner, road owner, etc. Would you have people like him on your property? No, of course not. If he is likely to use a nuclear bomb to murder, he won't be allowed to have one. If he is likely to use a gun to murder, he won't be allowed to have one.

Remember, everything is reactionary, not proactive.

You don't have to wait for the mugger's bullet to rip through your flesh before you can defend yourself.

You keep saying things like "If he is likely to use a nuclear bomb to murder, he won't be allowed to have one" but Jared Laughner was likely to use a a gun to murder and of course he could not be stopped until AFTER he killed.  Luckily it was only a gun so very few people died.

The difference with a nuke is that it can be left in the trunk of a car, the nutter can take a bus and an hour later the entire city is slaughtered.

Now please; if your society works on the assumption "he won't be allowed to have one" when it comes to nukes, how would someone like Jared Laughner be stopped having one?  Who would stop him and on what authority?

[FredericBastiat]

No road owner in his right mind would charge a fucking fee to drive on his road. For one, there is no way to enforce such bullshit. Nobody is going to use your fucking road. Society is going to build around the son-of-a-bitch.

It is so unprofitable for such a road to exist that it wouldn't be built. No home owner isn't going to be obfuscated by some retard. This scenario is unlikely to occur in any case.

What most likely happen that a sub-company from a group of businesses that want to bring more consumers to their store will maintain and build roads for residents free of charge and collect profits in people being able to actually drive to their places of business. Fuck, the roads will most likely be mutually-owned property by the people that live on the street and they will pay a HOA fee to have it cleaned, paved, etc.

I mean, is it that hard to conger up an actual desirable and viable solution?

In conclusion, you people are frankly being naive.

Calm down, no need to blow a blood vessel. Sheesh. I'm only arguing a edge case that's all. I'm not even saying the above would be the average. I believe in free market solutions and little if any government intervention, so don't mistake my intentions.

[Anonymous]

Please answer the question I asked earlier.  You say that people who are dangerous should not have nuclear weapons.  How would you prevent someone like Jared Laughner having a nuke?  Or is it your position that it would have been OK for him to plant a nuclear bomb in Tuscon and leave town before it detonated?

If someone kills people and is likely to be a continual threat, nobody will want to have him around. He'll be effectively banned for everyone else's private property. If you were a mall owner, road owner, etc. Would you have people like him on your property? No, of course not. If he is likely to use a nuclear bomb to murder, he won't be allowed to have one. If he is likely to use a gun to murder, he won't be allowed to have one.

Remember, everything is reactionary, not proactive.

You don't have to wait for the mugger's bullet to rip through your flesh before you can defend yourself.

You keep saying things like "If he is likely to use a nuclear bomb to murder, he won't be allowed to have one" but Jared Laughner was likely to use a a gun to murder and of course he could not be stopped until AFTER he killed.  Luckily it was only a gun so very few people died.

The difference with a nuke is that it can be left in the trunk of a car, the nutter can take a bus and an hour later the entire city is slaughtered.

Now please; if your society works on the assumption "he won't be allowed to have one" when it comes to nukes, how would someone like Jared Laughner be stopped having one?  Who would stop him and on what authority?

Jared Laughner was able to commit the crime under a society of unscrupulous government regulation that horribly failed.

To answer your question, it would be the authority enacted directly by the desires of the current society and no less. The people will desire regulation as shown by your very interest and it will find itself in action by voluntary means -- voluntary and competitive means.

[Hawker]

Please answer the question I asked earlier.  You say that people who are dangerous should not have nuclear weapons.  How would you prevent someone like Jared Laughner having a nuke?  Or is it your position that it would have been OK for him to plant a nuclear bomb in Tuscon and leave town before it detonated?

If someone kills people and is likely to be a continual threat, nobody will want to have him around. He'll be effectively banned for everyone else's private property. If you were a mall owner, road owner, etc. Would you have people like him on your property? No, of course not. If he is likely to use a nuclear bomb to murder, he won't be allowed to have one. If he is likely to use a gun to murder, he won't be allowed to have one.

Remember, everything is reactionary, not proactive.

You don't have to wait for the mugger's bullet to rip through your flesh before you can defend yourself.

You keep saying things like "If he is likely to use a nuclear bomb to murder, he won't be allowed to have one" but Jared Laughner was likely to use a a gun to murder and of course he could not be stopped until AFTER he killed.  Luckily it was only a gun so very few people died.

The difference with a nuke is that it can be left in the trunk of a car, the nutter can take a bus and an hour later the entire city is slaughtered.

Now please; if your society works on the assumption "he won't be allowed to have one" when it comes to nukes, how would someone like Jared Laughner be stopped having one?  Who would stop him and on what authority?

Jared Laughner was able to commit the crime under a society of unscrupulous government regulation that horribly failed.

To answer your question, it would be the authority enacted directly by the desires of the current society and no less. The people will desire regulation as shown by your very interest and it will find itself in action by voluntary means -- voluntary and competitive means.

Immanuel Go - you and I are in agreement on this.  Bitcoin2cash seems to see it in a very different way and I'd like him to see that society has a duty to make sure nukes are not available to people who may accidentally or intentionally use them.

[NghtRppr]

but Jared Laughner was likely to use a a gun to murder and of course he could not be stopped until AFTER he killed

So you're saying the current system sucks? I agree.

Who would stop him and on what authority?

Anyone being threatened by the nuke. A mugger points a gun at you, stop him. A killer points a nuke at a city, the entire city stops him. You act like you'll just be able to go to Wal-Mart and pick up a nuke. That's highly unlikely. It will be sold to different groups and they will need to have permission to have nukes if they occupy anyone else's land and they will need to have permission to transport them if they use anyone else's roads.

[Hawker]

but Jared Laughner was likely to use a a gun to murder and of course he could not be stopped until AFTER he killed

So you're saying the current system sucks? I agree.

Who would stop him and on what authority?

Anyone being threatened by the nuke. A mugger points a gun at you, stop him. A killer points a nuke at a city, the entire city stops him. You act like you'll just be able to go to Wal-Mart and pick up a nuke. That's highly unlikely. It will be sold to different groups and they will need to have permission to have nukes if they occupy anyone else's land and they will need to have permission to transport them if they use anyone else's roads.

Jared Laughner could not be stopped by any system.  He had no record of violence and was well within his rights until he started killing people.

And there is no way to stop someone with a nuke and a detonator.

Its not enough to say that its unlikely Walmart will sell nukes.  What you need to do is show how no-one like Jared Laughner can have a nuclear bomb or else come right out and say that being nuked is the price we have to pay for your idea of a free society.

[FredericBastiat]

Jared Laughner could not be stopped by any system.  He had no record of violence and was well within his rights until he started killing people.

And there is no way to stop someone with a nuke and a detonator.

Its not enough to say that its unlikely Walmart will sell nukes.  What you need to do is show how no-one like Jared Laughner can have a nuclear bomb or else come right out and say that being nuked is the price we have to pay for your idea of a free society.

There is only one perfect way to do that. Kill everyone but you. We'll just assume -wink wink- you would never never ever ever, promise, cross my heart hope to die, explode a nuke, right? As if.

[Hawker]

Jared Laughner could not be stopped by any system.  He had no record of violence and was well within his rights until he started killing people.

And there is no way to stop someone with a nuke and a detonator.

Its not enough to say that its unlikely Walmart will sell nukes.  What you need to do is show how no-one like Jared Laughner can have a nuclear bomb or else come right out and say that being nuked is the price we have to pay for your idea of a free society.

There is only one perfect way to do that. Kill everyone but you. We'll just assume -wink wink- you would never never ever ever, promise, cross my heart hope to die, explode a nuke, right? As if.

Stop being silly. 

[FredericBastiat]

Jared Laughner could not be stopped by any system.  He had no record of violence and was well within his rights until he started killing people.

And there is no way to stop someone with a nuke and a detonator.

Its not enough to say that its unlikely Walmart will sell nukes.  What you need to do is show how no-one like Jared Laughner can have a nuclear bomb or else come right out and say that being nuked is the price we have to pay for your idea of a free society.

There is only one perfect way to do that. Kill everyone but you. We'll just assume -wink wink- you would never never ever ever, promise, cross my heart hope to die, explode a nuke, right? As if.

Stop being silly. 

I'll stop being silly when you stop being stupid.

[Hawker]

Jared Laughner could not be stopped by any system.  He had no record of violence and was well within his rights until he started killing people.

And there is no way to stop someone with a nuke and a detonator.

Its not enough to say that its unlikely Walmart will sell nukes.  What you need to do is show how no-one like Jared Laughner can have a nuclear bomb or else come right out and say that being nuked is the price we have to pay for your idea of a free society.

There is only one perfect way to do that. Kill everyone but you. We'll just assume -wink wink- you would never never ever ever, promise, cross my heart hope to die, explode a nuke, right? As if.

Stop being silly. 

I'll stop being silly when you stop being stupid.

With respect, you are the one who says that Jared Loughner should have had access to nuclear weapons before his attack on Tuscon.  That is silly.  Unless you have a better adjective to describe giving nukes to all who want them?   

[FredericBastiat]

With respect, you are the one who says that Jared Loughner should have had access to nuclear weapons before his attack on Tuscon.  That is silly.  Unless you have a better adjective to describe giving nukes to all who want them?   

Nope never said that. Nice try. What did I say about putting words in my mouth. I prefer tasty tidbits, or maybe gum, or just a stiff drink would be good about now. Go read up on what a 'Straw Man' is and get back to the art of argumentation, maybe you'll start to make sense.

[Hawker]

With respect, you are the one who says that Jared Loughner should have had access to nuclear weapons before his attack on Tuscon.  That is silly.  Unless you have a better adjective to describe giving nukes to all who want them?   

Nope never said that. Nice try. What did I say about putting words in my mouth. I prefer tasty tidbits, or maybe gum, or just a stiff drink would be good about now. Go read up on what a 'Straw Man' is and get back to the art of argumentation, maybe you'll start to make sense.

Ah you agree that society can stop people having access to nuclear weapons.  Then we are in agreement

[AyeYo]

To answer your question, it would be the authority enacted directly by the desires of the current society and no less. The people will desire regulation as shown by your very interest and it will find itself in action by voluntary means -- voluntary and competitive means.

So you mean it'd be controlled laws and regulations, enforced my a centralized government.

I thought you were a libertarian?

[NghtRppr]

With respect, you are the one who says that Jared Loughner should have had access to nuclear weapons before his attack on Tuscon.

He would have been in his right, yes. However, to have access to a nuke, you wouldn't just be able to walk into Wal-Mart and buy one. Are you saying that we shouldn't let anyone have guns because a few people like this guy will use them to murder?

[FirstAscent]

He would have been in his right, yes. However, to have access to a nuke, you wouldn't just be able to walk into Wal-Mart and buy one.

Why are you always so contradictory? It does nothing for your arguments.

[JeffK]

Please answer the question I asked earlier.  You say that people who are dangerous should not have nuclear weapons.  How would you prevent someone like Jared Laughner having a nuke?  Or is it your position that it would have been OK for him to plant a nuclear bomb in Tuscon and leave town before it detonated?

If someone kills people and is likely to be a continual threat, nobody will want to have him around. He'll be effectively banned for everyone else's private property. If you were a mall owner, road owner, etc. Would you have people like him on your property? No, of course not. If he is likely to use a nuclear bomb to murder, he won't be allowed to have one. If he is likely to use a gun to murder, he won't be allowed to have one.

Remember, everything is reactionary, not proactive.

You don't have to wait for the mugger's bullet to rip through your flesh before you can defend yourself.

You keep saying things like "If he is likely to use a nuclear bomb to murder, he won't be allowed to have one" but Jared Laughner was likely to use a a gun to murder and of course he could not be stopped until AFTER he killed.  Luckily it was only a gun so very few people died.

The difference with a nuke is that it can be left in the trunk of a car, the nutter can take a bus and an hour later the entire city is slaughtered.

Now please; if your society works on the assumption "he won't be allowed to have one" when it comes to nukes, how would someone like Jared Laughner be stopped having one?  Who would stop him and on what authority?

Jared Laughner was able to commit the crime under a society of unscrupulous government regulation that horribly failed.

To answer your question, it would be the authority enacted directly by the desires of the current society and no less. The people will desire regulation as shown by your very interest and it will find itself in action by voluntary means -- voluntary and competitive means.

Please stop equating every tragedy in society to something you don't like. "Regulation" didn't allow him to get an extended clip.

[Hawker]

With respect, you are the one who says that Jared Loughner should have had access to nuclear weapons before his attack on Tuscon.

He would have been in his right, yes. However, to have access to a nuke, you wouldn't just be able to walk into Wal-Mart and buy one. Are you saying that we shouldn't let anyone have guns because a few people like this guy will use them to murder?

So you believe Jared Loughner would have been in his right to have had a nuclear weapon in the trunk of his car instead of a firearm?

Its really your position that right of a mentally ill teenager should be able to buy nuclear weapon is more important that the right to life of the 1,020,200 who live in Tuscon.

Correct me if I am wrong here.  About 30,000 Americans commit suicide every year.  Presumably you'd like every one of them to have access to a weapon that will kill 100,000 people at a time. 

Lets assume that 1% ( very low but we can be conservative here ) use their personal nuke to end it all.  Thats 300 nuclear explosions a year.  Not all will be in urban areas so lets assume that only 10,000 people are killed in the average explosion.  Of course, vast swathes of land will be uninhabitable, millions more will be handicapped for life by radiation sickness and there will be lots of deformed children as a result of radiation.

Thats the consequence of allowing people who are suicidal have nukes; 3 million Americans killed and the country rendered unfit for life.  Of course you would also allow criminals access to them as well.  And a certain number would be detonated in drunken marital disputes.

It seems a very uninspiring vision of how you want your country to live.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood you. 

[FirstAscent]

With respect, you are the one who says that Jared Loughner should have had access to nuclear weapons before his attack on Tuscon.

He would have been in his right, yes. However, to have access to a nuke, you wouldn't just be able to walk into Wal-Mart and buy one. Are you saying that we shouldn't let anyone have guns because a few people like this guy will use them to murder?

So you believe Jared Loughner would have been in his right to have had a nuclear weapon in the trunk of his car instead of a firearm?

Its really your position that right of a mentally ill teenager should be able to buy nuclear weapon is more important that the right to life of the 1,020,200 who live in Tuscon.

Correct me if I am wrong here.  About 30,000 Americans commit suicide every year.  Presumably you'd like every one of them to have access to a weapon that will kill 100,000 people at a time.  

Lets assume that 1% ( very low but we can be conservative here ) use their personal nuke to end it all.  Thats 300 nuclear explosions a year.  Not all will be in urban areas so lets assume that only 10,000 people are killed in the average explosion.  Of course, vast swathes of land will be uninhabitable, millions more will be handicapped for life by radiation sickness and there will be lots of deformed children as a result of radiation.

Thats the consequence of allowing people who are suicidal have nukes; 3 million Americans killed and the country rendered unfit for life.  Of course you would also allow criminals access to them as well.  And a certain number would be detonated in drunken marital disputes.

It seems a very uninspiring vision of how you want your country to live.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.  

You have misunderstood him. He says that only those who won't actually hit the detonation button have the right. He says that the community at large will not allow those who would actually push the detonation button to have them.

He never seems to get that in his world where there would be no laws, that it's kind of contradictory that the community unites to enforce some set of agreed upon laws. Nor does he seem to realize that if the community does enforce some agreed upon set of laws, that those laws might no be the laws he keeps stressing would be the laws (i.e. NAP).

Nor does he seem to realize that just because NAP might be the agreed upon set of laws, NAP might not be the agreed upon set of laws on the other side of the river. The whole thing is just silly. It's about as pointless as debating whether the Easter Bunny should have a business license or not. Better to spend our time discussing real issues that plague the world today, and how to fix them.

[NghtRppr]

Its really your position that right of a mentally ill teenager should be able to buy nuclear weapon is more important that the right to life of the 1,020,200 who live in Tuscon.

You just said that there was no way of knowing he was mentally ill or not. If we knew he was mentally ill then no, he shouldn't be able to buy nukes. It's my position that any adult should be allowed to own nukes as long as they aren't on someone's property that prohibits them, which would likely be the case. Who would want to live in a city or drive on roads where that was just an acceptable everyday thing?

About 30,000 Americans commit suicide every year.  Presumably you'd like every one of them to have access to a weapon that will kill 100,000 people at a time.

Like? No. I would like it if nobody had nukes. This isn't about my preferences. This is about what people's rights are. 

Lets assume that 1% ( very low but we can be conservative here ) use their personal nuke to end it all.  Thats 300 nuclear explosions a year.

There's no way all of those people will be able to buy nukes. Like I said, they wouldn't be something you can just buy at Wal-Mart.

[Hawker]

Its really your position that right of a mentally ill teenager should be able to buy nuclear weapon is more important that the right to life of the 1,020,200 who live in Tuscon.

You just said that there was no way of knowing he was mentally ill or not. If we knew he was mentally ill then no, he shouldn't be able to buy nukes. It's my position that any adult should be allowed to own nukes as long as they aren't on someone's property that prohibits them, which would likely be the case. Who would want to live in a city or drive on roads where that was just an acceptable everyday thing?

About 30,000 Americans commit suicide every year.  Presumably you'd like every one of them to have access to a weapon that will kill 100,000 people at a time.

Like? No. I would like it if nobody had nukes. This isn't about my preferences. This is about what people's rights are.  

Lets assume that 1% ( very low but we can be conservative here ) use their personal nuke to end it all.  Thats 300 nuclear explosions a year.

There's no way all of those people will be able to buy nukes. Like I said, they wouldn't be something you can just buy at Wal-Mart.

You seem to be missing the basics here.  Its a weapon of mass destruction.  Once someone has it, you have no say where they use it.    You can't send them a fine can you?

The upshot of your post is that if Jared Laughner is sane, then he should have had a nuke instead of a gun.  And instead of killing a few people, he could have killed a million or so.