Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[fergalish]

Is possession of a nuke 'intent equivalent' to the threatening act of pointing a gun at another person?

I would say so, yes.  A gun or a knife is cheap and, at least the knife, easily available; AND they have legitimate personal defence uses, apart from being useful for chopping carrots - again, that's just the knife, unless we're talking about bayonets :-)   A nuclear has no legitimate personal defence use.  Anyone that is willing to go to the extraordinary lengths, expense, and personal danger, required to obtain a nuclear weapon, must be assumed to have an agenda specifying it's eventual detonation.

[1714169463]

1714169463

[fergalish]

We've been living with nukes for a while now, and I'm unaware of any "accidental" detonations lately. To assume that the Non-Proliferation treaty is the sole cause of that "safety" record or that there couldn't be other ways of treating the situation is presumptuous.

That's BECAUSE the people handling them are [highly] qualified nuclear engineers and scientists.  It seems you would have them handled by anyone with enough money to buy one, as long as they didn't seem suicidal or crackpot.
The non-proliferation treaty helps keep nukes only under the control of organisations which possess the expertise to handle them correctly.  But if all the nuclear engineers suddenly disappeared tomorrow, then I'd expect a few accidental detonations pretty soon, treaty or not.

[fergalish]

<snip>
Let's assume I'm a nuclear bomb engineer. [...] That person who killed me, then owns the bomb.

Each individual has their own concept of rights and none of them is the "one true concept". Where they conflict, we can debate it or we can fight over it.

So if we take these two together we can see that whoever wins the fight for ownership becomes the new legitimate owner.  MightMakesRight if ever there was such a thing.  Am I interpreting this correctly, or do you two disagree with each other on this point?

[fergalish]

You know better. b2c is claiming if you're the rightful owner you can defend you and your property. Now who has the facilities of a 4-year old?

I think *you* know better.  We're talking specifically about conflicting claims of ownership or conflicting claimed rights here, and how such conflicts should be resolved.  I claim you may not possess a nuclear weapon in my vicinity, you claim you may.  Neither of us has the "one true concept" and since the debate has not yet produced a concession from either side, we must fight it out.  If that's not MightMakesRight then I haven't understood the meaning of those three words; please enlighten me.

As things are I'd allow you to exist but, in a libertarian world, the moment you sought to bring a nuclear weapon within my vicinity, I would seek to destroy you and disarm the weapon (though I'm no expert on that).  (edit: if it's not clear, my justification is that you are curtailing my right to a peaceful and tranquil existence).

I'd be nervous if you did it even now, but at least I can somehow rely on the NPT and assume you were an authorised expert.  Having said that, I'd probably high-tail it out of there anyway... just to be on the safe side.

[NghtRppr]

Each individual has their own concept of rights and none of them is the "one true concept". Where they conflict, we can debate it or we can fight over it.

Gasp!  Shock!  You're hardly suggesting... m...m...m...MightMakesRight...

No, I'm not. I'm saying those exhaust all the possibilities for settling the dispute. Obviously, I don't think whoever is right is decided over violence.

They believe that even if all humanity is wiped out, human rights will live on without us.

Utter nonsense.

[FredericBastiat]

I think *you* know better.  We're talking specifically about conflicting claims of ownership or conflicting claimed rights here, and how such conflicts should be resolved.  I claim you may not possess a nuclear weapon in my vicinity, you claim you may.  Neither of us has the "one true concept" and since the debate has not yet produced a concession from either side, we must fight it out.  If that's not MightMakesRight then I haven't understood the meaning of those three words; please enlighten me.

As things are I'd allow you to exist but, in a libertarian world, the moment you sought to bring a nuclear weapon within my vicinity, I would seek to destroy you and disarm the weapon (though I'm no expert on that).  (edit: if it's not clear, my justification is that you are curtailing my right to a peaceful and tranquil existence).

I'd be nervous if you did it even now, but at least I can somehow rely on the NPT and assume you were an authorised expert.  Having said that, I'd probably high-tail it out of there anyway... just to be on the safe side.

I do know better and so do you, but I'll play along for the moment. b2c believes in the NAP. He would not aggress another unless he was threatened or aggressed first. "Might makes right", if acting independent of the NAP, indicates that you can aggress for any reason, regardless of the individual rights of others, and solely because of your superior strength.

[FirstAscent]

Why do you think the chances of the new owner disarming the nuke to be zero? That's the first fallacy of your silly argument.

The second fallacy: Let's say, that it's not zero, but one in one million, for the sake of argument. Why would each successive owner instead not choose to either have nearly impregnable security guarding the nuke, or more likely, simply not advertise it's existence, thus ensuring no further exchange?

The third fallacy: you assume the nuke is never detonated as it changes hands. But consider if it does. In that case, the total death toll is all that died in your scenario plus the toll from its detonation.

I'll leave you to ponder the second and third fallacies on your own. Let's revisit the first fallacy. You seem to be indicating that the chance of disarmament is zero upon each exchange of ownership. Assuming that to have a grain of truth to it, then it follows that increasing law enforcement would increase the chance of disarmament from zero to some higher number, as that is generally the case when law enforcement confiscates a gun from a criminal who is waving it about pointing it at people. Now, I can hear it coming: you're going to say that increasing law enforcement engaging in the act of confiscation will increase the chance of it detonating as the owner strives to protect his ownership of the weapon. However, if we examine the behavior of criminals, (cartels, etc.), we can see that owners of weapons generally don't discriminate between law enforcement or other criminals when they are being subdued - they will threaten use of the weapon in either case. Therefore, it stands to reason that the best course of action is to limit the proliferation of such weapons in the first place.

If we're going to include all plausible scenarios, then we have to include the one in which the nuke never gets detonated and the uses beyond defense are various. I'm not a statistician and I don't know of many that could conclude with any degree of accuracy what the possible outcomes of complex scenarios might be. We've been living with nukes for a while now, and I'm unaware of any "accidental" detonations lately. To assume that the Non-Proliferation treaty is the sole cause of that "safety" record or that there couldn't be other ways of treating the situation is presumptuous.

That is a really weak rebuttal, especially when you factor in how implausible your original scenario was. Do I need to remind you what the scenario was in your original rebuttal? I will. It was this: you said that it would change hands one million times, and each time, the prior owner would be killed. Actually, when we think about it, how is that an argument for ownership of nukes? I then presented to you a set of much more likely scenarios, and you then assume that your audience is stupid by suggesting that another scenario in which the nuke never gets detonated somehow renders any other scenario as not significant.

Try harder. Better yet, don't even bother. I have yet to see any theory from you or bitcoin2cash that is plausible or appears to be anything but absolutely absurd.

[FredericBastiat]

That is a really weak rebuttal, especially when you factor in how implausible your original scenario was. Do I need to remind you what the scenario was in your original rebuttal? I will. It was this: you said that it would change hands one million times, and each time, the prior owner would be killed. Actually, when we think about it, how is that an argument for ownership of nukes? I then presented to you a set of much more likely scenarios, and you then assume that your audience is stupid by suggesting that another scenario in which the nuke never gets detonated somehow renders any other scenario as not significant.

Try harder. Better yet, don't even bother. I have yet to see any theory from you or bitcoin2cash that is plausible or appears to be anything but absolutely absurd.

The original line of logic was merely to parrot the logic used in the referent parent thread. I don't claim it as valid, and I don't believe in it. It was used to demonstrate the ridiculousness of that type and line of logic (possession = intent), not to enshrine it. Reread it, I used by your logic not mine, thus a parroting.

[FirstAscent]

That is a really weak rebuttal, especially when you factor in how implausible your original scenario was. Do I need to remind you what the scenario was in your original rebuttal? I will. It was this: you said that it would change hands one million times, and each time, the prior owner would be killed. Actually, when we think about it, how is that an argument for ownership of nukes? I then presented to you a set of much more likely scenarios, and you then assume that your audience is stupid by suggesting that another scenario in which the nuke never gets detonated somehow renders any other scenario as not significant.

Try harder. Better yet, don't even bother. I have yet to see any theory from you or bitcoin2cash that is plausible or appears to be anything but absolutely absurd.

The original line of logic was merely to parrot the logic used in the referent parent thread. I don't claim it as valid, and I don't believe in it. It was used to demonstrate the ridiculousness of that type and line of logic (possession = intent), not to enshrine it. Reread it, I used by your logic not mine, thus a parroting.

By careful to whom you attribute logic. I clearly laid out my logic to you in my reply to you. Nowhere did I imply your scenario. Yes, I declared it a threat and likened it to one million guns pointed simultaneously at one million people, and I stand behind that, but I never would've drawn the conclusion you claim I should logically follow.

On a slightly different note, which of the following are you familiar with?

- Oklahoma city bombing
- The Unabomber
- 9/11
- Post 9/11 Anthrax mailings
- Times Square attempted bombing
- Norway shooter (and bomber)
- Terrorism in general
- School shootings
- Discontents, malcontents and psychos, in general

[Hawker]

Each individual has their own concept of rights and none of them is the "one true concept". Where they conflict, we can debate it or we can fight over it.

Gasp!  Shock!  You're hardly suggesting... m...m...m...MightMakesRight...

No, I'm not. I'm saying those exhaust all the possibilities for settling the dispute. Obviously, I don't think whoever is right is decided over violence.

They believe that even if all humanity is wiped out, human rights will live on without us.

Utter nonsense.

...snip...

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

I agree.  Your position is utter nonsense. 

[NghtRppr]

I'd like to sidestep this argument and just point out that, if I accept, for the sake of argument, that owning a nuclear bomb is analogous to pointing a gun at someone, how exactly is that a blow against libertarianism? The irony here is that we are all arguing inside the framework of libertarianism where it's assumed that, without there being an immediate threat, you have no right to act against me. You aren't arguing against that assumption. You are simply disagreeing with my claim that there isn't an immediate threat. This is really just an argument that a bunch of libertarians would have.

[FirstAscent]

I'd like to sidestep this argument and just point out that, if I accept, for the sake of argument, that owning a nuclear bomb is analogous to pointing a gun at someone, how exactly is that a blow against libertarianism? The irony here is that we are all arguing inside the framework of libertarianism where it's assumed that, without there being an immediate threat, you have no right to act against me. You aren't arguing against that assumption. You are simply disagreeing with my claim that there isn't an immediate threat. This is really just an argument that a bunch of libertarians would have.

Hey, it's not just one gun pointed at one person. It's like one million guns pointed simultaneously at one million people.

[Hawker]

I'd like to sidestep this argument and just point out that, if I accept, for the sake of argument, that owning a nuclear bomb is analogous to pointing a gun at someone, how exactly is that a blow against libertarianism? The irony here is that we are all arguing inside the framework of libertarianism where it's assumed that, without there being an immediate threat, you have no right to act against me. You aren't arguing against that assumption. You are simply disagreeing with my claim that there isn't an immediate threat. This is really just an argument that a bunch of libertarians would have.

Libertarianism is fine.  Your idea that people must sit at home waiting to die is NOT libertarianism.

[AyeYo]

I'd like to sidestep this argument and just point out that, if I accept, for the sake of argument, that owning a nuclear bomb is analogous to pointing a gun at someone, how exactly is that a blow against libertarianism? The irony here is that we are all arguing inside the framework of libertarianism where it's assumed that, without there being an immediate threat, you have no right to act against me. You aren't arguing against that assumption. You are simply disagreeing with my claim that there isn't an immediate threat. This is really just an argument that a bunch of libertarians would have.

And even then you can't provide a coherent argument.

People are arguing inside of your framework to show you how it WON'T work because it's loaded with contradiction.

[FredericBastiat]

By careful to whom you attribute logic. I clearly laid out my logic to you in my reply to you. Nowhere did I imply your scenario. Yes, I declared it a threat and likened it to one million guns pointed simultaneously at one million people, and I stand behind that, but I never would've drawn the conclusion you claim I should logically follow.

On a slightly different note, which of the following are you familiar with?

- Oklahoma city bombing
- The Unabomber
- 9/11
- Post 9/11 Anthrax mailings
- Times Square attempted bombing
- Norway shooter (and bomber)
- Terrorism in general
- School shootings
- Discontents, malcontents and psychos, in general

I'm familiar with all of the above, but fail to see how they differ significantly regarding imminent threat or threat in general, or the consequences that follow a violent act. Am I to assume these differ from possession of a nuclear weapon or related materials. Other than killing more effectively, that's about it.

[fergalish]

People are arguing inside of your framework to show you how it WON'T work because it's loaded with contradiction.

I think it's not so much that libertarianism is loaded with contradiction, but that *people* have conflicting thoughts over what rights they have themselves and what rights they should extend to others.  It seems that b2c and fred think that it's enough for one person to declare "I have the right to do such-and-such" and as long as it doesn't directly physically cause harm to anyone, then that's ok.

But they don't seem to realise that when I demand rights, I am actually demanding them from others.  That is, my "rights" are not decided by me, but are defined by what all the people around me permit me to do.  They don't come from within, but from without.  And, obviously, the rights one person demands of others will often not be what those others will concede to him.  And so, conflict arises.  It can be obvious, like 'who gets to eat the apples from this apple tree', or it can be more subtle, like 'what may I do with this computer'.  It can be balanced, like 'don't walk over my vegetable garden or I'll beat you with this stick', or it could be lopsided in favour of the stronger party like 'don't drive over my vegetable garden with your tank'.

It would be fine if everyone in the libertarian community were of a similar mind, such as a small farming community in the middle ages.  But we're not talking about small farming communities here - we're talking about the internet-enabled, jet-setting, maxi-consumer global village, with people from all walks of life, from all creeds, from all political bents, and from all racial denominations; each with their own opinion of what should, and shouldn't be allowed; hell, many probably wouldn't even know how to formulate a consistent morality.  fr & b2c claim to despise MightMakesRight, but that's what libertarianism would all boil down to in the end.

Each individual has their own concept of rights and none of them is the "one true concept". Where they conflict, we can debate it or we can fight over it.

Gasp!  Shock!  You're hardly suggesting... m...m...m...MightMakesRight...

No, I'm not. I'm saying those exhaust all the possibilities for settling the dispute. Obviously, I don't think whoever is right is decided over violence.

Go on... what are these other possibilities?  If all these other possibilities fail to resolve the conflict, is there an alternative to fighting it out, other than the weaker party simply running for their lives and so losing their claim?

I tell you, if libertarianism comes to pass, and anyone were to come within 100 miles of me with a nuclear weapon, I would do whatever I could to destroy them.  I would neither offer nor wait to negotiate or debate the finer points of political philosophy.  You're already infringing what I consider to be my rights and are already threatening my life, irrespective of what you consider your rights to be.

And as I said in a previous post, it really irritates me when people beep their horn for no good reason.  So, be careful, if you infringe my rights in that way, I'll legitimately go to defend my ears by giving you a sound thump on yours.  If you choose to illegitimately defend yourself, well, WhatWasItThatMakesRight again?

[fergalish]

<snip>
...without there being an immediate threat, you have no right to act against me. You aren't arguing against that assumption.

Nobody is arguing that assumption because it's true today.  It all depends on how you define "threat".  Just to give an example:

• If you point a gun at me, even from your own property, you are threatening me.
• If you shout abuse at me, you are threatening me (hate speech, or inciting others to hatred).
• If your widget factory emits too much sulphur, you are threatening my livestock and my livelihood.
• If you copy my music, you are threatening my music career.
• If you fail to pay your tax, you are indirectly infringing on my right to e.g. healthcare, and so threatening my health.
• etc

Get the idea?  Some people will say just owning a gun implies a threat, and so gun-owning is outlawed, or strictly licensed according to justifiable requirements.  Others will say a gun isn't a threat until it's aimed.  Others might even say that the gun was pointed but not loaded and therefore not a threat.  Everyone has their own idea of what's allowed or not, and unless you actually know *everybody* and whether any given behaviour on their part actually constitutes a threat to you, then there's no way at all you could even walk down the street without being nervous.  Damn, in some places you might even be arrested for looking crossways at a person.

Now, here's the crunch: you have defined "threat" to be "pointing a gun at someone".  Someone else might define it as "looking crossways at someone".  I, for example, could define it as "honking the horn needlessly".  Whose definition should we all follow?  Bear in mind that all three of these transcend borders between property - you can point a gun, look crossways, and honk a horn, right from one property to another.  How many definitions will you allow before there are too many to remember?

But it gets worse.  I don't like people honking the horn needlessly.  But others are ok with it.  Is it ok for me, therefore, to honk the horn needlessly?  Joe doesn't like people looking crossways at him, but can he do it, since others don't mind [i.e. since his action is not interpreted as a threat by anyone, is he permitted to do it]?

[FredericBastiat]

I think it's not so much that libertarianism is loaded with contradiction, but that *people* have conflicting thoughts over what rights they have themselves and what rights they should extend to others.  It seems that b2c and fred think that it's enough for one person to declare "I have the right to do such-and-such" and as long as it doesn't directly physically cause harm to anyone, then that's ok.

Yes that's mostly correct, except to say that libertarians don't extend rights to others, that would imply duty. Duty implies contract. Contract implies consent. If you have no consent, you have no duty to others, unless by duty you mean to say not aggress. As in, "you have a duty in your actions to not aggress another". But that's a bit pedantic I would think.

But they don't seem to realise that when I demand rights, I am actually demanding them from others.  That is, my "rights" are not decided by me, but are defined by what all the people around me permit me to do.  They don't come from within, but from without.  And, obviously, the rights one person demands of others will often not be what those others will concede to him.  And so, conflict arises.  It can be obvious, like 'who gets to eat the apples from this apple tree', or it can be more subtle, like 'what may I do with this computer'.  It can be balanced, like 'don't walk over my vegetable garden or I'll beat you with this stick', or it could be lopsided in favour of the stronger party like 'don't drive over my vegetable garden with your tank'.

Libertarians don't demand rights. That would project an outward action on another to fulfill some promise or agreement of the enforcer. Enforcement may come from without but rights don't, unless you're aggressed, in which case they might. It's contingent on the aggressor. Rights aren't conceded.

It would be fine if everyone in the libertarian community were of a similar mind, such as a small farming community in the middle ages.  But we're not talking about small farming communities here - we're talking about the internet-enabled, jet-setting, maxi-consumer global village, with people from all walks of life, from all creeds, from all political bents, and from all racial denominations; each with their own opinion of what should, and shouldn't be allowed; hell, many probably wouldn't even know how to formulate a consistent morality.  fr & b2c claim to despise MightMakesRight, but that's what libertarianism would all boil down to in the end.

Any conflict not resolved in a non-agressive manner with arbitration will likely result in force and violence. To be explicitly and obviously clear one last time, "might makes right" ignores all actions and reactions, considerations and circumstances, and boils it down to, "I said so, I'm more powerful than you, I win, I'm right, I make the rules, therefore might makes right, no exceptions". If there are any libertarians that believe that way, they aren't libertarian. Socrates said it best, "'Might makes right' has been described as the credo of totalitarian regimes."

I tell you, if libertarianism comes to pass, and anyone were to come within 100 miles of me with a nuclear weapon, I would do whatever I could to destroy them.  I would neither offer nor wait to negotiate or debate the finer points of political philosophy.  You're already infringing what I consider to be my rights and are already threatening my life, irrespective of what you consider your rights to be.

You describe your credo with precision. You believe in totalitarianism. No consideration for intent. You must kill. Disgustingly narrowminded you are. It's people like you we should all fear.

[Hawker]

I tell you, if libertarianism comes to pass, and anyone were to come within 100 miles of me with a nuclear weapon, I would do whatever I could to destroy them.  I would neither offer nor wait to negotiate or debate the finer points of political philosophy.  You're already infringing what I consider to be my rights and are already threatening my life, irrespective of what you consider your rights to be.

You describe your credo with precision. You believe in totalitarianism. No consideration for intent. You must kill. Disgustingly narrowminded you are. It's people like you we should all fear.

Wait, you want him to sit around and wait to be killed?  And you talk about him being someone to fear?  What about people who think that we don't have a right to protect ourselves?  Surely they are far more scary?  Like you for example Fred.  You want people to accept that dying for someone else's right to a nuke is their duty to you.  That is scary talk.

[FredericBastiat]

Nobody is arguing that assumption because it's true today.  It all depends on how you define "threat".  Just to give an example:

• If you point a gun at me, even from your own property, you are threatening me.
• If you shout abuse at me, you are threatening me (hate speech, or inciting others to hatred).
• If your widget factory emits too much sulphur, you are threatening my livestock and my livelihood.
• If you copy my music, you are threatening my music career.
• If you fail to pay your tax, you are indirectly infringing on my right to e.g. healthcare, and so threatening my health.
• etc

As in all things threatening, apply the following:
Act proportionally and appropriately. Try not to escalate the situation. Discern intent if possible. Try to understand.

However and considering the above, 1 is a threat, you might need to pull your gun out too.
However and considering the above, 2 is a threat, you might want to verbally respond in kind. I suggest you not use hate speech.
However and considering the above, 3 is an aggression already (it is an act in progress). Sue to enjoin. Of course, it depends also on the toxicity and concentration of sulphur. Take immediate action if necessary - your life may depend on it.
However and considering the above, 4 is not a threat or an aggression, it's competition. You're only response would be to ask nicely to refrain, contract, or compete in kind.
However and considering the above, 4 is an aggression and threat, but not to you. You have no right to the property of others (taxation), therefore you do not have a right to healthcare unless you specifically paid for it with your own monies.

Forcing others to pay their tax, because you have, is not sufficient justification.
For example, it does NOT follow that:

1) If I do X, you must do X. Likewise,
2) If X is right, you must do X. Likewise,
3) If I was forced to do X, you must be forced to do X.