Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

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.

You are still on this idea that you acknowledge that public services are needed but you don't want to have to pay for them.

Do you not see that is unreasonable and that it makes you appear somewhat ridiculous?

[1713557330]

1713557330

[FredericBastiat]

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.

You make it sound as if I pulled the trigger. I may have a laissez-faire attitude towards all types of material possessions, but I certainly am no suicidal bomber. Hardly scary talk. Many of you speak outwardly of killing first and asking questions later. That kind of attitude seems to me, at the very least, arbitrary, capricious and unpredictable. Not exactly the kind of behavior one would like for a orderly society.

Let's suppose you asked your neighbor if he had a nuke. If he said yes, from what I've read here, you'd kill him on the spot. Or alternatively, the second you found out he had a nuke, you'd kill him. Would that be an accurate assessment?

So let's just entertain this a bit further. Suppose you found out he was dismantling the nuke to use the materials in a power plant, how would you feel now? Justified? Maybe a little guilty? Should you be prosecuted? And don't say, wellll... I'd ask a few more questions, ...or... I'd do some more investigating... or... I'd check his criminal record... or... Or nothing, you would do nothing of the kind. Owning a nuke is equivalent to intent to kill. If you did any of the former "investigating" you'd be determining intent, which was the whole point I was trying to make in the first place.

OWNERSHIP DOES NOT EQUAL INTENT. Stop it with the stupidity.

[Hawker]

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.

You make it sound as if I pulled the trigger. I may have a laissez-faire attitude towards all types of material possessions, but I certainly am no suicidal bomber. Hardly scary talk. Many of you speak outwardly of killing first and asking questions later. That kind of attitude seems to me, at the very least, arbitrary, capricious and unpredictable. Not exactly the kind of behavior one would like for a orderly society.

Let's suppose you asked your neighbor if he had a nuke. If he said yes, from what I've read here, you'd kill him on the spot. Or alternatively, the second you found out he had a nuke, you'd kill him. Would that be an accurate assessment?

So let's just entertain this a bit further. Suppose you found out he was dismantling the nuke to use the materials in a power plant, how would you feel now? Justified? Maybe a little guilty? Should you be prosecuted? And don't say, wellll... I'd ask a few more questions, ...or... I'd do some more investigating... or... I'd check his criminal record... or... Or nothing, you would do nothing of the kind. Owning a nuke is equivalent to intent to kill. If you did any of the former "investigating" you'd be determining intent, which was the whole point I was trying to make in the first place.

OWNERSHIP DOES NOT EQUAL INTENT. Stop it with the stupidity.

Ownership and intent don't matter.  If its there, its a threat and must be disarmed.  If you fail to disarm it, you are at the mercy of the person in control.  He doesn't have to leave home but he may as well have a blade at your throat.

You already know this - you agreed that society has the right to use the best way to protect itself from nukes.  I'm not sure why you want me to lead you through the same baby steps to sanity again.

[FredericBastiat]

You are still on this idea that you acknowledge that public services are needed but you don't want to have to pay for them.

Do you not see that is unreasonable and that it makes you appear somewhat ridiculous?

You made certain services, "public services" by mere decree without considering the consequences of your actions. That style of government is stereotypical of totalitarian governments. This being progressive really starts to make sense in that context. That is the 'might makes right' type of governing I loath. You make a law just because you can, not because you should.

I would almost concede that "positive laws" could be made to protect life, liberty and property as a consequence of the physical aggressions induced by others; and that you might tax to intercede for that purpose.

I could barely stomach that, but no...oh no!..., that's not enough, you have to go way beyond that. Give an inch and you take a country mile. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Your "public services" are absolutely and unequivocally unreasonable and ridiculous. Never.

[FredericBastiat]

Ownership and intent don't matter.  If its there, its a threat and must be disarmed.  If you fail to disarm it, you are at the mercy of the person in control.  He doesn't have to leave home but he may as well have a blade at your throat.

You already know this - you agreed that society has the right to use the best way to protect itself from nukes.  I'm not sure why you want me to lead you through the same baby steps to sanity again.

You're a liar. I said if it was the best way, and it was determined that there was intent to do harm. 'And' not 'Or'. Possession and intent is necessary. Discuss intent, or I have nothing more to say to you.

[fergalish]

You make it sound as if I pulled the trigger. I may have a laissez-faire attitude towards all types of material possessions, but I certainly am no suicidal bomber. Hardly scary talk. Many of you speak outwardly of killing first and asking questions later. That kind of attitude seems to me, at the very least, arbitrary, capricious and unpredictable. Not exactly the kind of behavior one would like for a orderly society.

Are you suggesting that orderliness is an important component of an everyone-makes-their-own-rules libertarian society?

Let's suppose you asked your neighbor if he had a nuke. If he said yes, from what I've read here, you'd kill him on the spot. Or alternatively, the second you found out he had a nuke, you'd kill him. Would that be an accurate assessment?

If he'd been my neighbour for 20 years, well, I could assume he wouldn't suddenly detonate it.  Nonetheless I would insist that it be destroyed.  It would be worth losing a 20 year friendship if I knew I wouldn't have to live beside a nuke-wielding maniac.  And don't tell me he might not be a maniac.  *Anyone* who holds a nuke is a maniac.

So let's just entertain this a bit further. Suppose you found out he was dismantling the nuke to use the materials in a power plant, how would you feel now? Justified? Maybe a little guilty? Should you be prosecuted? And don't say, wellll... I'd ask a few more questions, ...or... I'd do some more investigating... or... I'd check his criminal record... or... Or nothing, you would do nothing of the kind. Owning a nuke is equivalent to intent to kill. If you did any of the former "investigating" you'd be determining intent, which was the whole point I was trying to make in the first place.

OWNERSHIP DOES NOT EQUAL INTENT. Stop it with the stupidity.

I think you don't know so much about the differences between the nuclear material you need for a bomb and that which you need for a power plant.  But technical problems aside, if I found out he was trying to build a nuclear power plant beside my land, you're damn right - I'd drive him away and if he resisted, well, it would be...... MMR again!!!!!!  Ask me why?  Ohhhhh, let me think now, what happened recently with a nuclear power plant....
I don't need to establish intent.  Given their inherent danger, there is only one reason to risk holding a nuclear weapon - to detonate it, or at least to threaten to do so.
And I wouldn't have to worry either - who'd prosecute me?  Who cares?  I'd have a nuclear weapon  

Stop it with the stupidity.

Indeed.

edit: fixed quotes.

[FredericBastiat]

Laissez faire, telle devrait être la devise de toute puissance publique, depuis que le monde est civilisé ... Détestable principe que celui de ne vouloir grandir que par l'abaissement de nos voisins! Il n'y a que la méchanceté et la malignité du coeur de satisfaites dans ce principe, et l’intérêt y est opposé. Laissez faire, morbleu! Laissez faire!!

Translation:

"Leave it be, that should be the motto of all public powers, as the world is civilized ... That we cannot grow except by lowering our neighbors is a detestable notion! Only malice and malignity of heart is satisfied with such a principle and our (national) interest is opposed to it. Leave it be, for heaven's sake! Leave it be!

Author, René de Voyer, Marquis d'Argenson (1736)

[fergalish]

• If your widget factory emits too much sulphur, you are threatening my livestock and my livelihood.
• If you fail to pay your tax, you are indirectly infringing on my right to e.g. healthcare, and so threatening my health.

However and considering the above, [sulphur pollution] 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, [failure to pay tax] 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.

I had b2c in mind when I wrote about the pollution.  He seems to think it's fine that anyone can do whatever they like on their own property, neighbours be damned.

I'm not sure I understand your second quoted point here - are you saying failure to pay tax is a threat, or infringing on my right to healthcare is a threat?  In any case, your ideology here would make life very hard for people with disabilities or illnesses.  I feel it would be a sad day for civilisation, the day we start charging them the full cost of their healthcare.  I expect that a majority couldn't afford it, and would succumb.  [sarcasm] But hey, it would improve efficiency, right? [/sarcasm]

But my point is that you're right when you say

...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 point here.  We're just arguing what constitutes a "threat".  I gave you some examples of what many people might consider a threat, some of which you agreed with, some of which you didn't.  We're not talking within the confines of libertarianism, we're defining what constitutes "correct" behaviour towards one another.  Such a discussion is not confined to libertarians, though they, certainly, do discuss it.

Forcing others to pay their tax, because you have, is not sufficient justification.

Again, I'm just trying to point out that some people might consider a tax dodger to be a threat to them and their well-being.

"Leave it be, that should be the motto of all public powers, as the world is civilized ... That we cannot grow except by lowering our neighbors is a detestable notion! Only malice and malignity of heart is satisfied with such a principle and our (national) interest is opposed to it. Leave it be, for heaven's sake! Leave it be!
Author, René de Voyer, Marquis d'Argenson (1736)

Oh, we can all do that:

"During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man. "

Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679.

[fergalish]

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.

You're wrong.  Libertarianism allows me to defend myself from threats, right?  I interpret as a threat anyone carrying nuclear weapons anywhere near enough to affect me.  I am therefore entitled to defend myself.

But, hey, look at you.  You want to threaten everyone for hundreds of miles around with nukes irrespective of their wishes, whereas I would only be threatening you.   Which of us is the narrow-minded totalitarian?

But this business of nukes is tiresome and ridiculous.  Can we please stop?  For a more realistic example, please answer the questions from my previous post (from "Get the idea?" to the end):

Get the idea? ...

It's people like you we should all fear.

In *your* libertarian world, yes, you should fear me, because if you do anything I don't like, anything that I consider an infringement of my rights, then I will seek redress.  In the absence of a contract between us, or a contract not addressing the conflict, yes, I will use all means necessary, including violence, to extract remuneration for losses incurred or, where remuneration is not possible, to inflict equivalent damage.  No contract = no court = no law = MightMakesRight.  I pity you.

[FredericBastiat]

Are you suggesting that orderliness is an important component of an everyone-makes-their-own-rules libertarian society?

Orderly from the standpoint of absence of violence. You could have a disorderly home, I don't care. I do care if you have lack of order and logic in your laws, especially when they commit acts of aggression against me.

If he'd been my neighbour for 20 years, well, I could assume he wouldn't suddenly detonate it.  Nonetheless I would insist that it be destroyed.  It would be worth losing a 20 year friendship if I knew I wouldn't have to live beside a nuke-wielding maniac.  And don't tell me he might not be a maniac.  *Anyone* who holds a nuke is a maniac.

Possession of a nuke equals maniac now? You own it, you're a maniac. I take it from you, now I'm an maniac. Someone takes it from me, they're a maniac...etc, etc., ad nauseum. Brilliant piece of logic. Thanks for that enlightening bit of drivel.

I think you don't know so much about the differences between the nuclear material you need for a bomb and that which you need for a power plant.  But technical problems aside, if I found out he was trying to build a nuclear power plant beside my land, you're damn right - I'd drive him away and if he resisted, well, it would be...... MMR again!!!!!!  Ask me why?  Ohhhhh, let me think now, what happened recently with a nuclear power plant....

Accidents happen. If accidents happen, therefore we should just get rid of the human race. How was that for logic? And yes, it is possible to repurpose nuclear weapons materials for use in nuclear power plants. Look it up.

[fergalish]

Possession of a nuke equals maniac now? You own it, you're a maniac. I take it from you, now I'm an maniac. Someone takes it from me, they're a maniac...etc, etc., ad nauseum. Brilliant piece of logic. Thanks for that enlightening bit of drivel.

In *your* libertarian world, yes.  Possession of a nuclear weapon means you are a maniac.  You might even be qualified, but if anyone other individual can obtain access to it, then you're still a maniac.  In present-day earth, nukes are mostly under the control of qualified people, in installations guarded by qualified people.  I can only hope that they are not maniacs.  The other nukes, if there are any, worry me.

[FredericBastiat]

I'm not sure I understand your second quoted point here - are you saying failure to pay tax is a threat, or infringing on my right to healthcare is a threat?  In any case, your ideology here would make life very hard for people with disabilities or illnesses.  I feel it would be a sad day for civilisation, the day we start charging them the full cost of their healthcare.  I expect that a majority couldn't afford it, and would succumb.  [sarcasm] But hey, it would improve efficiency, right? [/sarcasm]

My ideology just makes it more difficult for you to justify stealing from others to achieve some legal means to an end. It truly is sad if our civilization cares less for the ill and inferm. It's even sadder when we have to steal by covert indirect violence and deception, via unjust laws, in an attempt to try to remedy the situation. All this while trying to appear benevolent and kind. Shame.

[FirstAscent]

My ideology just makes it more difficult for you to justify stealing from others to achieve some legal means to an end. It truly is sad if our civilization cares less for the ill and inferm. It's even sadder when we have to steal by covert indirect violence and deception, via unjust laws, in an attempt to try to remedy the situation. All this while trying to appear benevolent and kind. Shame.

What, exactly is your concern, again? Because it's not clear to me. Share your hardships with us.

[FredericBastiat]

My ideology just makes it more difficult for you to justify stealing from others to achieve some legal means to an end. It truly is sad if our civilization cares less for the ill and inferm. It's even sadder when we have to steal by covert indirect violence and deception, via unjust laws, in an attempt to try to remedy the situation. All this while trying to appear benevolent and kind. Shame.

What, exactly is your concern, again? Because it's not clear to me. Share your hardships with us.

Uhhhh... errrr... ummm... Read above quote. Rinse and repeat as necessary.

[FirstAscent]

My ideology just makes it more difficult for you to justify stealing from others to achieve some legal means to an end. It truly is sad if our civilization cares less for the ill and inferm. It's even sadder when we have to steal by covert indirect violence and deception, via unjust laws, in an attempt to try to remedy the situation. All this while trying to appear benevolent and kind. Shame.

What, exactly is your concern, again? Because it's not clear to me. Share your hardships with us.

Uhhhh... errrr... ummm... Read above quote. Rinse and repeat as necessary.

Uhhh, it's not at all clear to me. How personally is your life in shambles, or unpleasant, and so on because of the present qualities of government or, additionally, due to certain missing things in your life?

[FredericBastiat]

Uhhh, it's not at all clear to me. How personally is your life in shambles, or unpleasant, and so on because of the present qualities of government or, additionally, due to certain missing things in your life?

There are too many things, and I'm not interested in listing any of them. I wouldn't even know where to start. Understand me, I'm not an anarchist per se, but my guess would be 90% of government law is pure unadulterated theft and violence. And besides, just because some of it doesn't directly affect me now, should I want to engage in some future activity that I'm not at the moment, is sufficient enough to give me pause.

You know me well enough. I've spent plenty of time in this forum stating my beliefs and philosophies. Go read up, don't make me regurgitate it.

[FirstAscent]

Uhhh, it's not at all clear to me. How personally is your life in shambles, or unpleasant, and so on because of the present qualities of government or, additionally, due to certain missing things in your life?

There are too many things, and I'm not interested in listing any of them. I wouldn't even know where to start. Understand me, I'm not an anarchist per se, but my guess would be 90% of government law is pure unadulterated theft and violence. And besides, just because some of it doesn't directly affect me now, should I want to engage in some future activity that I'm not at the moment, is sufficient enough to give me pause.

You know me well enough. I've spent plenty of time in this forum stating my beliefs and philosophies. Go read up, don't make me regurgitate it.

I'm just having a really tough time in seeing how your supposed hardships correlate directly with how you think society and government exists today. I'm not buying it. I think many of us would like concrete examples.

[NghtRppr]

Whose definition should we all follow?

Any answer would simply be an opinion.

[fergalish]

But, hey, look at you.  You want to threaten everyone for hundreds of miles around with nukes irrespective of their wishes, whereas I would only be threatening you.   Which of us is the narrow-minded totalitarian?

For a more realistic example, please answer the questions from my previous post (from "Get the idea?" to the end):

Get the idea? ...

In *your* libertarian world, yes, you should fear me, because if you do anything I don't like, anything that I consider an infringement of my rights, then I will seek redress.  [...]  No contract = no court = no law = MightMakesRight.

@FredericBastiat: You have not addressed these above points.  They are succinct and relevant.

Orderly from the standpoint of absence of violence. You could have a disorderly home, I don't care. I do care if you have lack of order and logic in your laws, especially when they commit acts of aggression against me.

I define "carrying a nuclear weapon around" as either violence or intention to engage in violence.  You do not.  Which definition should a libertarian society follow?  One of the problems facing governments of today is inconsistencies in the body of law they enact - flaws, or lack of coherency and logic, you might say.  Others call them "loopholes".  Often loopholes are closed with modified legislation if the loophole becomes problematic.  In this thread it has been *amply* demonstrated that the libertarianism you and b2c propose is full of inconsistencies.  Please try to eliminate these inconsistencies by answering, e.g. the questions in my above-linked post, from "Get the idea?" onwards.  How *exactly* am I permitted to behave in the presence of a person who interprets as a threat when I reach for the banana hidden in my pocket?

Accidents happen. If accidents happen, therefore we should just get rid of the human race. How was that for logic?

Really bad.

And yes, it is possible to repurpose nuclear weapons materials for use in nuclear power plants. Look it up.

It is possible, yes, after suitable, expensive, dangerous reprocessing.  I stand by my statement with an addition: any unregulated person dabbling in nukes either intends to detonate or threaten to detonate it, or presents too great a risk of radiation leak.

Whose definition should we all follow?

Any answer would simply be an opinion.

Exactly!  Any individual's idea of acceptable behaviour is just an opinion.   Now, please provide a better response, or admit that you can offer no alternative to MightMakesRight where any arbitrary conflict is not clearly addressed by some contract between the conflicting parties.

[NghtRppr]

Exactly!  Any individual's idea of acceptable behaviour is just an opinion.   Now, please provide a better response, or admit that you can offer no alternative to MightMakesRight where any arbitrary conflict is not clearly addressed by some contract between the conflicting parties.

Of course there are alternatives. That much is obvious. I just can't say that any alternative is factually true. Asking me whose opinion we should follow is like asking me which football team you should root for. My team, of course.