Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

Most can't govern themselves but they can all govern others? No, if few can govern themselves then even fewer can govern others.

Does it matter?  You are OK with millions dying as long as the right to a nuke is upheld.  In your world, there will be no people so how can there be society?

[NghtRppr]

I don't let argumentum ad consequentiams dissuade me from sticking to my principles.

[Hawker]

I don't let argumentum ad consequentiams dissuade me from sticking to my principles.

Exactly.  Your principles live in dreamland forever while their consequence is a nuclear wasteland.  

And that's fine.  Just stop posting about  intellectual property, private roads and stuff.  In your vision, nuclear bombs are going off every day, there is no cure for cancer due to massive radiation dosages and road maintenance is not going to matter.

BTW: I don't know if you were trying to be clever with "argumentum ad consequentiams" but its a perfectly valid argument in ethics which is what we are talking about. 

[NghtRppr]

So, your argument is that we need intellectual property laws and public roads or else we'll be living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? That's a bit of a reach isn't it?

[Hawker]

So, your argument is that we need intellectual property laws and public roads or else we'll be living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? That's a bit of a reach isn't it?

Stop being silly.  Just because you have taken your argument to absurdity doesn't mean you have to wallow in it.

You argue that you don't care about the consequences of implementing your ideas.  So you are perfectly OK with human extinction provided the right to a nuke is respected before extinction takes place. 

I believe that we can decide what would be a nice society to live in and we can assign rights accordingly.  So I like films and support intellectual property rights.  I like being alive and support the non proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

See - no reach.  Simple clear logic and no need to have nukes going off every day.  You should try it.

[deuxmill]

Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty.  The design of the original abombs is widely available.

Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Really, the non-proliferation treaty makes producing materials difficult does it? Right... Go read a wikipedia article on how much energy it takes to purify Uranium coke (gas centrifuges being the prime reason). It ain't easy. Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it. That would be true of any endeavor government wants to intervene in. Look at the war on drugs as a obvious example.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Yes . If regulation says no one can have them. If it says dangerous/peaceful can/can't have them then i'l treat it as if it doesn't exist.

Consider why some nations have them and others don't. Consider why the world can't seem to get this right. It's because the world doesn't run the world. The world is actually like the libertarians want a community to be. The world, in its current state is an example of how messed up a libertarian community is. Self regulation (the world model) doesn't work. But regulation within a nation does work. The key is to choose the proper country to live in.

hmm seems it didn't quite work here.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?4436-Moldova-seizes-%EF%BF%BD7-million-worth-of-enriched-uranium

http://www.theonion.com/video/report-finds-troubling-rise-in-teen-uranium-enrich,19175/

[NghtRppr]

So, your argument is that we need intellectual property laws and public roads or else we'll be living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? That's a bit of a reach isn't it?

Stop being silly.  Just because you have taken your argument to absurdity doesn't mean you have to wallow in it.

You argue that you don't care about the consequences of implementing your ideas.  So you are perfectly OK with human extinction provided the right to a nuke is respected before extinction takes place.  

I believe that we can decide what would be a nice society to live in and we can assign rights accordingly.  So I like films and support intellectual property rights.  I like being alive and support the non proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

See - no reach.  Simple clear logic and no need to have nukes going off every day.  You should try it.

So you admit that having intellectual property and public roads are separate issues from not living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Maybe we should focus on those things then instead of "what if you could buy nukes like you can guns"?

[FirstAscent]

So you admit that having intellectual property and public roads are separate issues from not living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Maybe we should focus on those things then instead of "what if you could buy nukes like you can guns"?

Give bitcoin2cash a prize! He has now entered into the dawn of understanding. He's now fully comprehending that there are many complex issues out there, and each bears addressing with knowledge applicable to the nature of the issue, and that the solution shouldn't be burdened with the one size fits all idealism that he has been preaching since he read a book on libertarianism and got all starry eyed with it.

[FirstAscent]

Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty.  The design of the original abombs is widely available.

Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Really, the non-proliferation treaty makes producing materials difficult does it? Right... Go read a wikipedia article on how much energy it takes to purify Uranium coke (gas centrifuges being the prime reason). It ain't easy. Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it. That would be true of any endeavor government wants to intervene in. Look at the war on drugs as a obvious example.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Yes . If regulation says no one can have them. If it says dangerous/peaceful can/can't have them then i'l treat it as if it doesn't exist.

Consider why some nations have them and others don't. Consider why the world can't seem to get this right. It's because the world doesn't run the world. The world is actually like the libertarians want a community to be. The world, in its current state is an example of how messed up a libertarian community is. Self regulation (the world model) doesn't work. But regulation within a nation does work. The key is to choose the proper country to live in.

hmm seems it didn't quite work here.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?4436-Moldova-seizes-%EF%BF%BD7-million-worth-of-enriched-uranium

http://www.theonion.com/video/report-finds-troubling-rise-in-teen-uranium-enrich,19175/

Huh? Do you understand what I said?

[deuxmill]

Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty.  The design of the original abombs is widely available.

Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Really, the non-proliferation treaty makes producing materials difficult does it? Right... Go read a wikipedia article on how much energy it takes to purify Uranium coke (gas centrifuges being the prime reason). It ain't easy. Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it. That would be true of any endeavor government wants to intervene in. Look at the war on drugs as a obvious example.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Yes . If regulation says no one can have them. If it says dangerous/peaceful can/can't have them then i'l treat it as if it doesn't exist.

Consider why some nations have them and others don't. Consider why the world can't seem to get this right. It's because the world doesn't run the world. The world is actually like the libertarians want a community to be. The world, in its current state is an example of how messed up a libertarian community is. Self regulation (the world model) doesn't work. But regulation within a nation does work. The key is to choose the proper country to live in.

hmm seems it didn't quite work here.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?4436-Moldova-seizes-%EF%BF%BD7-million-worth-of-enriched-uranium

http://www.theonion.com/video/report-finds-troubling-rise-in-teen-uranium-enrich,19175/

Huh? Do you understand what I said?

Wheal . Guess i didn't . I thought you said regulation within a nation works. they almost got the Nuke , but (fortunately) they didn't wanted one , they wanted money . regardless of the regulations .

[FirstAscent]

I said that each nation on this planet does what it wants, mostly, and it's hard to get a supervising authority that regulates (the UN?) effectively, since each nation does what it wants, except when coerced or ganged up on by others. If you think of each nation as an individual or a business which owns property, then you have the exact model of libertarianism. The population within any given nation generally operates under house rules (i.e. a household) - one nation (or nations) generally can't tell another nation how to run their own household or tell them what to do on their land.

The world is kind of fucked up. Look no further than that to understand libertarianism.

As for your links, it appears that laws guided by regulation within the given nation aided in catching the uranium smugglers. Is something wrong with that?

[NghtRppr]

Give bitcoin2cash a prize! He has now entered into the dawn of understanding. He's now fully comprehending that there are many complex issues out there, and each bears addressing with knowledge applicable to the nature of the issue, and that the solution shouldn't be burdened with the one size fits all idealism that he has been preaching since he read a book on libertarianism and got all starry eyed with it.

Are you serious? I can spot a slippery slope fallacy when I see one. There's nothing complex about that. Don't mistake me pointing out that one thing doesn't necessarily lead to another for your constant arguments for special pleading. "The world is complex so let's just throw principles out the window." Even if the world ends up as a nuclear wasteland, I would choose that over violating a single person's rights. Let justice be done though the heavens may fall. One ideology does fit all. That's kind of the point. I didn't just read a single book either. I've read dozens. I'm not starry-eyed. I'm a sober realist. I understand that authority needs to be decentralized. Want to see someone like you describe? Take a look around at the people that think they can concentrate authority into the hands of a few people and not have it eventually wind up being abused. Take a look around at the people that think that "might makes right" and somehow people can give others rights which they do not have themselves. Engage in cheap-shot insults if you want. I really think it's funny how I admit I wasn't always a libertarian and you throw that back in my face as if its a bad thing to change ones mind. But don't fool yourself into thinking I'm anything but a stark realist that understands no system is ideal. At least libertarianism is justice. One last thing, keep insulting me personally and you will find yourself being ignored again.

[FirstAscent]

Give bitcoin2cash a prize! He has now entered into the dawn of understanding. He's now fully comprehending that there are many complex issues out there, and each bears addressing with knowledge applicable to the nature of the issue, and that the solution shouldn't be burdened with the one size fits all idealism that he has been preaching since he read a book on libertarianism and got all starry eyed with it.

Even if the world ends up as a nuclear wasteland, I would choose that over violating a single person's rights.

I stopped reading right there. Idiot.

[deuxmill]

I said that each nation on this planet does what it wants, mostly, and it's hard to get a supervising authority that regulates (the UN?) effectively, since each nation does what it wants, except when coerced or ganged up on by others. If you think of each nation as an individual or a business which owns property, then you have the exact model of libertarianism. The population within any given nation generally operates under house rules (i.e. a household) - one nation (or nations) generally can't tell another nation how to run their own household or tell them what to do on their land.

The world is kind of fucked up. Look no further than that to understand libertarianism.

As for your links, it appears that laws guided by regulation within the given nation aided in catching the uranium smugglers. Is something wrong with that?

And every country should do as it wants . UN/US/France/etc. should not interfere because they are SOVEREIGN and the people there are responsible for their well/worst governance. And every country is responsible for it's own citizens. EVEN when you go free the Libyans or the Yugoslavians you are practicing aggression on a sovereign state.

Let me ask you this: If for example USA would end up in a revolution now. A real revolution that would have proof that it can change the country for the better , it succeeds but the supporters of the past governance are heavily affected by the reform and revolt violently. What should the government do? Fight? Then should China/Iran/other choose parts ? And if they do which should they choose? Or should they just start bombing the government forces because it represses it's own citizens? OR should the new, better government just give up the power?

I think they should stay put. And i think the revolutionaries should just fight the system from within not revolt. You revolt , you accept the risk , you are repressed you find ways to fight overtly , from within , You can't expect any government or power pillar to just give up it's grips without a fight , and it shouldn't give up without a fight.

And no the law didn't aided in catching the uranium smugglers PEOPLE DID . The law is just words on a paper. If you obey it or not , or enforce it or not is purely a choice , you make base on your moral values , religious beliefs , scientific believes/proofs , etc. You can continue to believe in the power of law , but always remember there are some , that don't , and then we go back to the only law that counts survival of the fittest/smartest/richest.

I'm not against law (agreement to use force) , but regulations that give birth to monopolies , or support failing business models , or save failing business , or repress "thieves" that don't deprive anyone of anything are regulations that i will never make the choice of obeying or enforcing.

[NghtRppr]

Even if the world ends up as a nuclear wasteland, I would choose that over violating a single person's rights.

I stopped reading right there. Idiot.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

I'll be ignoring you now. Good luck convincing people to change their minds when you can't even show them basic respect. I'm sure you'll go far with that kind of attitude.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Even if the world ends up as a nuclear wasteland, I would choose that over violating a single person's rights.

So, your argument is that we need intellectual property laws and public roads or else we'll be living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? That's a bit of a reach isn't it?

Stop being silly.  Just because you have taken your argument to absurdity doesn't mean you have to wallow in it.

You argue that you don't care about the consequences of implementing your ideas.  So you are perfectly OK with human extinction provided the right to a nuke is respected before extinction takes place.  

I believe that we can decide what would be a nice society to live in and we can assign rights accordingly.  So I like films and support intellectual property rights.  I like being alive and support the non proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

See - no reach.  Simple clear logic and no need to have nukes going off every day.  You should try it.

So you admit that having intellectual property and public roads are separate issues from not living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Maybe we should focus on those things then instead of "what if you could buy nukes like you can guns"?

Actually no.  The problem here is that your logic is fundamentally flawed and leads to absurd results.  And you pointed to the reason your logic fails yourself when you said you don't consider argumentum ad consequentiams - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

"In law, an argument from inconvenience or argumentum ab inconvenienti, is a valid type of appeal to consequences. Such an argument would seek to show that a proposed action would have unreasonably inconvenient consequences, as for example a law that would require a person wishing to lend money against a security to first ascertain the borrower's title to the property by inquiring in every single courthouse in the country."

Fundamentally this is a conversation about law and ethics.  Your argument  has always been that you don't care about the consequences of your position.   Your position leads us to a post-apocalyptic wasteland.  We both agree that's a bad consequence so the logic says your position needs to change.

[NghtRppr]

"In law, an argument from inconvenience or argumentum ab inconvenienti, is a valid type of appeal to consequences. Such an argument would seek to show that a proposed action would have unreasonably inconvenient consequences, as for example a law that would require a person wishing to lend money against a security to first ascertain the borrower's title to the property by inquiring in every single courthouse in the country."

That doesn't apply here. This isn't a matter of making a law that requires too much effort to follow.

[Hawker]

"In law, an argument from inconvenience or argumentum ab inconvenienti, is a valid type of appeal to consequences. Such an argument would seek to show that a proposed action would have unreasonably inconvenient consequences, as for example a law that would require a person wishing to lend money against a security to first ascertain the borrower's title to the property by inquiring in every single courthouse in the country."

That doesn't apply here. This isn't a matter of making a law that requires too much effort to follow.

That example doesn't not apply but the general principle it illustrates does apply.  Read the whole page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

A nuclear explosion is a bad or inconvenient consequence.  We agree on that I assume?  Your position that everyone should have personal access to nuclear weapons will lead to explosions.  We also agree on that I assume?  Since that is a bad thing, you should change your position.  Or else admit you are being illogical.

[AyeYo]

http://www.theonion.com/video/report-finds-troubling-rise-in-teen-uranium-enrich,19175/

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Dear god, PLEASE tell me you're being sarcastic.  Do you realize that The Onion is a fake news site?

Wow, you idiots have sunk to a new level of stupid.

[FredericBastiat]

That example doesn't not apply but the general principle it illustrates does apply.  Read the whole page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

A nuclear explosion is a bad or inconvenient consequence.  We agree on that I assume?  Your position that everyone should have personal access to nuclear weapons will lead to explosions.  We also agree on that I assume?  Since that is a bad thing, you should change your position.  Or else admit you are being illogical.

All interventions have consequences in and of themselves. You can't say that the ownership of any nuclear weapon will lead to a nuclear explosion. To say that access nukes will lead to explosions is a non sequitur. The likelihood is higher, but not absolute. Just like owning a handgun will lead to dead children is a certainty, is also a logical fallacy. I'm not supposing no intervention is necessary, just a different form of intervention from the one your suggesting.

I have no problem "regulating" violent criminals, or individuals who are about to become criminals thru threatening acts. Those are all appropriate interventions. But to regulate the materials, if that's what you're suggesting, is wrongheaded in my opinion.

One could logically argue that a nuke could be regulated because it has a fuse, has purified uranium in it, and has the shape of a bomb. If we regulate the fuse, then the materials in the fuse become illicit materials. Likewise for the uranium and the spherical "bomb" shape. Working your way backwards, you arrive at the possibility that my back yard may have sufficient trace elements of uranium that could be refined into a super-critical mass of "bomb grade" explosives.

Now it seems were getting somewhere (sarcasm). At that point, you could decide to justify rooting around in my backyard. See how my liberties are slowly being eroded? It's only a matter of time before you apply it to just about everything. I'm tiring of all the "doogooders" deciding they have higher and loftier reasons for intruding on my life because they're so much more "divinely inspired" than the rest of us.

It appears to be the reason why we have so many laws against things and not persons who use things to cause crimes. It's very disarming, no pun intended. What you need to do is stop regulating the materials themselves, and determine the intent of the user. Is the user's intent to kill and maim or possess and defend. That may take more effort, but I think it's worth trying.