Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

I want to live and any proposal that requires me to die is bogus.

Let's say you're dying from organ failure and there's only one donor but performing the transplant would kill her therefore she refuses. I say that you have no right to take those organs from you and I require you to die. Is that bogus or do you admit that in some cases you should die?

Not the same.  

We have a system that works.  It means that a nuclear holocaust is unlikely.  You are proposing a system that guarantees a nuclear holocaust.  In your vision, both I and the donor die and we have to die for the right to a nuclear weapon that neither of us really wants.  And most likely, we will be killed by someone who doesn't know we exist.

Can you see the difference?

[NghtRppr]

Not the same.

So you admit it then.

You are proposing a system that guarantees a nuclear holocaust.

That's simply not true. The problem is that you don't understand libertarianism. All that it implies is that all human interactions should be voluntary. There's nothing stopping a million land owners in a contiguous geographical region from voluntarily saying "no nukes allowed on our land without special permission". It's actually very likely that would happen because who wants to live in an area where live nuclear weapons are going to be around. There's nothing stopping any and all regulations as long as they are voluntary.

[Hawker]

Not the same.

So you admit it then.

You are proposing a system that guarantees a nuclear holocaust.

That's simply not true. The problem is that you don't understand libertarianism. All that it implies is that all human interactions should be voluntary. There's nothing stopping a million land owners in a contiguous geographical region from voluntarily saying "no nukes allowed on our land without special permission". It's actually very likely that would happen because who wants to live in an area where live nuclear weapons are going to be around. There's nothing stopping any and all regulations as long as they are voluntary.

Um no - you don't understand libertarianism.  You are saying that one guy who wants to have a nuke of his own would have the right to it regardless of what a million landowners around him say.  You are saying he doesn't have to tell anyone its there.  And if he commits suicide with the nuke, well its tough luck for the million around him.  They either die in the blast or move away to escape the radiation.

Can you not see that is a bad idea? There is nothing libertarian about saying people have to sit around and wait to be killed.  Libertarianism would suggest that we should pro-actively defend ourselves.

[NghtRppr]

You are saying that one guy who wants to have a nuke of his own would have the right to it regardless of what a million landowners around him say.

Not if he signs a contract saying that he agrees not to posses any such devices. There are so many reasons why nuclear weapons wouldn't be available to any suicidal nut but you're too busy looking for problems, not solutions.

Libertarianism would suggest that we should pro-actively defend ourselves.

You can only defend yourself against a threat or an attack. A knife is my drawer isn't a threat. A gun in my safe isn't a threat. A bomb in my shed isn't a threat, unless of course, it could accidentally detonate at any time. You have to wait until there is an actual threat before you can defend yourself.

[FirstAscent]

Not if he signs a contract saying that he agrees not to posses any such devices. There are so many reasons why nuclear weapons wouldn't be available to any suicidal nut but you're too busy looking for problems, not solutions.

Stupid. Signs the contract with whom? What if he signs it but then does nefarious things anyway? Who enforces what the contract says?

You can only defend yourself against a threat or an attack. A knife is my drawer isn't a threat. A gun in my safe isn't a threat. A bomb in my shed isn't a threat, unless of course, it could accidentally detonate at any time. You have to wait until there is an actual threat before you can defend yourself.

Stupid. A knife in your drawer isn't a threat because it's in your drawer. A bomb in your shed doesn't get the "isn't a threat" status because it's in your shed.

[Hawker]

You are saying that one guy who wants to have a nuke of his own would have the right to it regardless of what a million landowners around him say.

Not if he signs a contract saying that he agrees not to posses any such devices. There are so many reasons why nuclear weapons wouldn't be available to any suicidal nut but you're too busy looking for problems, not solutions.

Libertarianism would suggest that we should pro-actively defend ourselves.

You can only defend yourself against a threat or an attack. A knife is my drawer isn't a threat. A gun in my safe isn't a threat. A bomb in my shed isn't a threat, unless of course, it could accidentally detonate at any time. You have to wait until there is an actual threat before you can defend yourself.

What you are saying is that if he doesn't sign any contract he can have the bomb.  If he does and changes his mind, he can have the bomb.   If its stolen by someone who hates your race or religion, they have the bomb.  Keep in mind that you can't take it off a person or stop them once he has it.  And you have no way to check if it will accidentally detonate - its on his property and you may not even know its there.

The odd thing here is that you assume my right to life is less important than a random stranger's right to a nuke and I have to be prepared to die in order that they have their "liberty".    

[FirstAscent]

The odd thing here is that you assume my right to life is less important than a random stranger's right to a nuke and I have to be prepared to die in order that they have their "liberty".    

It's actually very sick and disgusting. I accused him of being "overly principled" and he couldn't understand how being overly principled is not necessarily a good thing.

[Hawker]

The odd thing here is that you assume my right to life is less important than a random stranger's right to a nuke and I have to be prepared to die in order that they have their "liberty".    

It's actually very sick and disgusting. I accused him of being "overly principled" and he couldn't understand how being overly principled is not necessarily a good thing.

It is bizarre.  He says I have to risk death and my property rendered uninhabitable and calls it libertarianism.  Ron Paul would be shocked

[FirstAscent]

It is bizarre.  He says I have to risk death and my property rendered uninhabitable and calls it libertarianism.  Ron Paul would be shocked

People by and large would never ultimately be convinced of such insanity, so it's kind of pointless to argue with him. I mean, it would be like wasting your time and energy arguing with someone who says everyone has a right to hijack airliners and fly them into densely populated areas.

Oh wait. That's basically what he's arguing for. Could you imagine him presenting his ideas at a town hall meeting, or to Congress, or just about any group of people?

Like I've stated several times in the past, I wish there were more people in this forum who wanted to engage in discussing real stuff that would make a difference.

[NghtRppr]

The odd thing here is that you assume my right to life is less important than a random stranger's right to a nuke and I have to be prepared to die in order that they have their "liberty".

You have the right to not be threatened or attack. How exactly is someone merely possessing a bomb a threat to you? The same logic applies to guns, knives, heavy objects. Shall we just cover the planet in foam padding for you? No, wait. You could choke on the padding. I guess nothing is safe.

[FirstAscent]

You have the right to not be threatened or attack. How exactly is someone merely possessing a bomb a threat to you? The same logic applies to guns, knives, heavy objects. Shall we just cover the planet in foam padding for you? No, wait. You could choke on the padding. I guess nothing is safe.

Talk about taking the slippery slope argument and abusing it. I mean, the slippery slope argument is a good argument, but this is just abuse of it.

[FredericBastiat]

Talk about taking the slippery slope argument and abusing it. I mean, the slippery slope argument is a good argument, but this is just abuse of it.

I'd rather slip in the direction of Libertarianism with much of it's uncertainty, than slip in the direction of Tyranny with a known outcome we've seen time and time again.

[Hawker]

The odd thing here is that you assume my right to life is less important than a random stranger's right to a nuke and I have to be prepared to die in order that they have their "liberty".

You have the right to not be threatened or attack. How exactly is someone merely possessing a bomb a threat to you? The same logic applies to guns, knives, heavy objects. Shall we just cover the planet in foam padding for you? No, wait. You could choke on the padding. I guess nothing is safe.

I am treating you as an adult capable of reasoned discussion.  There is no comparison between someone committing suicide with a gun and someone committing suicide with a nuclear weapon.  One is a private tragedy and the other kills everyone for miles about.  You know this; so why are you making arguments you don't believe yourself?

[Hawker]

Talk about taking the slippery slope argument and abusing it. I mean, the slippery slope argument is a good argument, but this is just abuse of it.

I'd rather slip in the direction of Libertarianism with much of it's uncertainty, than slip in the direction of Tyranny with a known outcome we've seen time and time again.

You are not a libertarian.  You want to enforce an ideology that will deny people the right to life and the right to security in their own property.  Call yourself something else that takes into account that you want people to die for your ideology.

[FredericBastiat]

You are not a libertarian.  You want to enforce an ideology that will deny people the right to life and the right to security in their own property.  Call yourself something else that takes into account that you want people to die for your ideology.

My ideology is not to deny individuals their right to life or security in their property. Au contraire, I consider any suicidal person whose intent it is to take out innocents, as wrong and unjustified. I don't appreciate your connotation that I don't respect property and life. You make absurd conclusions, false dichotomies, logical fallacies, and you abound in ad hominem and straw man arguments. It doesn't help your cause/ideology at all.

If a person is suicidal and intends to use a nuclear bomb and take everybody with him, that's more than sufficient threat; enough for me to attempt to stop him, regardless of how he acquired said nuke.

Besides, how is it that if any person who of sound mind (intent) and body, and wanted to possess a nuke, any different than anybody else you have chosen to possess/regulate said nuke? Why are your people any better at tending to a nuke than he is?

You elevate yourself or your government upon a very high pedestal, and yet your government is still comprised of people who have similar characteristics as any other man, except in your case, they have privilege via force and everybody else does not. Privilege does not make a better man; it merely gives him a title no one else can claim.

The title of 'nuke protector/destroyer' changes nothing inherent in the person.

[Hawker]

You are not a libertarian.  You want to enforce an ideology that will deny people the right to life and the right to security in their own property.  Call yourself something else that takes into account that you want people to die for your ideology.

My ideology is not to deny individuals their right to life or security in their property. Au contraire, I consider any suicidal person whose intent it is to take out innocents, as wrong and unjustified. I don't appreciate your connotation that I don't respect property and life. You make absurd conclusions, false dichotomies, logical fallacies, and you abound in ad hominem and straw man arguments. It doesn't help your cause/ideology at all.

If a person is suicidal and intends to use a nuclear bomb and take everybody with him, that's more than sufficient threat; enough for me to attempt to stop him, regardless of how he acquired said nuke.

Besides, how is it that if any person who of sound mind (intent) and body, and wanted to possess a nuke, any different than anybody else you have chosen to possess/regulate said nuke? Why are your people any better at tending to a nuke than he is?

You elevate yourself or your government upon a very high pedestal, and yet your government is still comprised of people who have similar characteristics as any other man, except in your case, they have privilege via force and everybody else does not. Privilege does not make a better man; it merely gives him a title no one else can claim.

The title of 'nuke protector/destroyer' changes nothing inherent in the person.

Fred; people committing suicide don't advertise the fact.  Suicide is often a spur of the moment thing where a guy finds out the missus is cheating and kills her and then himself.  While thats sad for all involved, I see no reason why a million people in the same town should die as well.

The existing system works.  You want to replace it.  Offer something better.  In this context, better means less likely to result in nuclear detonations.

[FirstAscent]

Besides, how is it that if any person who of sound mind (intent) and body, and wanted to possess a nuke, any different than anybody else you have chosen to possess/regulate said nuke? Why are your people any better at tending to a nuke than he is?

Ummm, probably because of the infrastructure in place, the history behind the motivation, etc. I'm not advocating nukes, here. But given a choice, I'd rather see nukes in the hands of the US government than some rogue individual who lives in his parents' basement.

[FirstAscent]

Talk about taking the slippery slope argument and abusing it. I mean, the slippery slope argument is a good argument, but this is just abuse of it.

I'd rather slip in the direction of Libertarianism with much of it's uncertainty, than slip in the direction of Tyranny with a known outcome we've seen time and time again.

I'd rather fall off a twenty foot cliff than a thousand foot cliff. But you don't see me actively seeking out either scenario, do you?

[NghtRppr]

I am treating you as an adult capable of reasoned discussion.  There is no comparison between someone committing suicide with a gun and someone committing suicide with a nuclear weapon.  One is a private tragedy and the other kills everyone for miles about.  You know this; so why are you making arguments you don't believe yourself?

I wasn't referring to suicide. I was referring to the fact that people go on shooting rampages all the time. I figured that much was obvious but for some reason it wasn't...

[FredericBastiat]

Ummm, probably because of the infrastructure in place, the history behind the motivation, etc. I'm not advocating nukes, here. But given a choice, I'd rather see nukes in the hands of the US government than some rogue individual who lives in his parents' basement.

The infrastructure didn't exist until it did, of course; same as the government, motivation and the history behind all of it. What's to say in a "Libertopia" a similar scenario or provision couldn't come about?