Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Rassah]

Here's my train of thought on private ownership of nukes in a libertarian society:

When you own land, you will likely also have a contract with a private security company. That company will make to keep the territories under its contract safe, and will likely either directly own, or contract out, an insurance policy for your property as a service. That way they will both cover you should you get robbed or have your house burn down, and have an incentive to make sure that never happens to you in the first place, since insurance costs money.
Should some nutcase manage to sneak in and detonate a nuke on one of the properties protected by this company, the company will get have its reputation severely damaged, and will lose a lot of money paying for insurance claims and litigation (lawsuits). If nukes blowing up is something that is considered a serious problem in that area, the security company will likely step up to create methods and technologies to help prevent that from happening.
Other security companies may also exist that to allow the ownership of nukes, though they will very likely require you to show that you have a good reason for owning it (likely industreal one only), will very likely require you to pay much higher insurance fees on it, and will probably register you on a publically shared list as a nuke owner. Now, if someone does manage to get one in secret and blow it up somewhere, it again goes back to the security company being accused of failing to monitor for nukes and nutcases, resulting in litigation against the company, and the company trying to find the culprit to either sue them in turn or at least bring them to justice.
As for what if someone decides to not have security company contract? That will mean that the person's property is practically defenseless, and they have no recourse against anything that happens to it, so will likely be considered as a very stupid thing to do.


I guess bottom line is, whether government or private, regulation will happen. Question is whether it will happen due to majority-rule imposed government legal sanctions, or through privately owned contract agreements.

Start shooting holes in my idea... now.

[1713561399]

1713561399

[1713561399]

1713561399

[1713561399]

1713561399

[1713561399]

1713561399

[Hawker]

Lets move from theoretical to something we both know works.

In Ireland and the UK, we regulate fertiliser sales to avoid the making of huge truck bombs.   I'm guessing the US does something similar after Oklahoma.  It has saved thousands of lives.  Empirically we know this works.

Do you feel that regulation is legitimate?

No regulations are legitimate. Only self-defense is legitimate. This is getting tedious.

Thats fine.

We are human and we have the ability work together as a society to protect ourselves.  In this case, we have got together and saved 1000s of lives in one small country by regulating bomb making materials.  You feel this is not legitimate.  Do you feel you have a right to stop us?  If yes, what is the basis of that right?

[fergalish]

Stop avoiding the main issue; if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?

It depends on what you mean by threat. If you simply mean that it's dangerous then no.

So a mad crackpot umbrella maker *can* bring his raindrop-triggered nuclear device into a crowded city.  In fact, any *arbitrarily* dangerous item can now be freely handled by any *arbitrarily* incompetent person, as long as they do not intend to use it, or to threaten to use it.  Is that so?

The mere existence of a gun doesn't show intent to cause you harm. Pointing it at you does.

You didn't answer my hypothesis of a child pointing his toy gun at you.  Would you like to try?  Here's the link.

Nobody said nothing bad would happen in a Libertarian world. It's just the only ideology that has the fewest 'is-ought' constructs and logical incompatibilities. Your Socialist/Communist/Oligarchy/Fascist/Name-you-flavor-of-might-makes-right world isn't perfect either, in fact, far from it. I can point out more logical inconsistencies in your ideology than you can in mine. Libertarianism starts with the NAP and builds on that, yours is just majority rules, personal liberties be damned.

But of course you will say that libertarian ideas are too "simplistic" and we must "complicate" them because of the "real world", and due to these supposed "real world" problems, it's just easier to threaten violence upon your neighbor to achieve your goal, than envision some other way. There's more than one way to "skin a cat", and thus, not all means to an end should be justified. I know of one too many politicians, dictators, kings, princes, and thugs that espouse that sort of poppycock.

Once again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PERSONAL LIBERTY EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THOSE AROUND YOU PERMIT IT.  You have been proposed simple problems to solve, and you cannot solve them with your idealogy.  Just in case you've fogotten, here they are again:

If I am obliged to allow you to bring your normal nuclear weapon into a crowded city, even though I consider it to be extremely risky and hazardous, are you then obliged to allow some crackpot umbrella-maker to bring his raindrop-triggered nuclear weapon into the city, even though *you* consider *that* to be extremely risky and hazardous?
To put it another way: is "freakishly absurd" just how *you* define it, or should we come up with a common definition that we all can understand and agree with?

• Do I, or do I not, have the right to immediately defend myself, with mortal violence if necessary, as soon as I perceive a threat to my life?
• Do you, or do you not, have the right to carry a gun into a room where you and I are discussing the solution to a mutual conflict? [assuming guns are in no way regulated by any contract in the given circumstances]

CAN YOU RESOLVE THESE PROBLEMS OR NOT?

It's not like we're giving you complicated problems to solve.  If you make any problem complicated enough, then no political philosophy will solve it.  But THESE ARE PROBLEMS THAT CONCERN THE VERY FOUNDATION STONES OF LIBERTARIANISM ITSELF.  To wit: your liberty and my liberty ARE NOT COMPATIBLE, and I'm using the word 'liberty' in your sense of the word; that is, something I define for me, you for you, Hawker for Hawker, and so on.  How can you "build on top" of something that is fundamentally flawed?

If you cannot or will not solve those simple problems, then answer this: should your ideology be capable of solving real-world problems that real people face, or is it only for imaginary problems faced by imaginary ideal people in imaginary ideal worlds?

[Hawker]

Here's my train of thought on private ownership of nukes in a libertarian society:

When you own land, you will likely also have a contract with a private security company. That company will make to keep the territories under its contract safe, and will likely either directly own, or contract out, an insurance policy for your property as a service. That way they will both cover you should you get robbed or have your house burn down, and have an incentive to make sure that never happens to you in the first place, since insurance costs money.
Should some nutcase manage to sneak in and detonate a nuke on one of the properties protected by this company, the company will get have its reputation severely damaged, and will lose a lot of money paying for insurance claims and litigation (lawsuits). If nukes blowing up is something that is considered a serious problem in that area, the security company will likely step up to create methods and technologies to help prevent that from happening.
Other security companies may also exist that to allow the ownership of nukes, though they will very likely require you to show that you have a good reason for owning it (likely industreal one only), will very likely require you to pay much higher insurance fees on it, and will probably register you on a publically shared list as a nuke owner. Now, if someone does manage to get one in secret and blow it up somewhere, it again goes back to the security company being accused of failing to monitor for nukes and nutcases, resulting in litigation against the company, and the company trying to find the culprit to either sue them in turn or at least bring them to justice.
As for what if someone decides to not have security company contract? That will mean that the person's property is practically defenseless, and they have no recourse against anything that happens to it, so will likely be considered as a very stupid thing to do.

Start shooting holes in my idea... now.

What you have done is say "If its dangerous, the private security companies should regulate nukes."  There is no real difference between that and saying "If its dangerous, the state security services should regulate nukes."   If the power to control access to nukes is there, private or state is just a distinction between badges.

[Rassah]

Fergalish, I think your problem is that you are assuming your questions are security-based, when they are much more cultural in nature. If we lived in a different culture , where carrying a gun and defending oneself is to be expected, people would be taught how to behave themselves accordingly from a young age, and the two questions you asked wouldn't even be relevant.

[Rassah]

What you have done is say "If its dangerous, the private security companies should regulate nukes."  There is no real difference between that and saying "If its dangerous, the state security services should regulate nukes."   If the power to control access to nukes is there, private or state is just a distinction between badges.

That's true, but that is practically the only outcome I can see in a fully privitized society. At the least, you still have a choice if your security options, have some recourse should they screw up, and may still have the freedom to own dangerous materials like nukes if you need them. That's not an option with government.

[Hawker]

Fergalish, I think your problem is that you are assuming your questions are security-based, when they are much more cultural in nature. If we lived in a different culture , where carrying a gun and defending oneself is to be expected, people would be taught how to behave themselves accordingly from a young age, and the two questions you asked wouldn't even be relevant.

I don't know where you live but I started shooting when I was 11.  Fergalish questions are spot on.  I've had a guy hold a gun to my chest after a few drinks and believe me the fact that he should know better and that he had no hostile intention was no comfort at all.

[NghtRppr]

Do you feel you have a right to stop us?  If yes, what is the basis of that right?

If I want to buy something from a second party that they rightfully own, third parties have no right to interfere.

[Rassah]

Fergalish, I think your problem is that you are assuming your questions are security-based, when they are much more cultural in nature. If we lived in a different culture , where carrying a gun and defending oneself is to be expected, people would be taught how to behave themselves accordingly from a young age, and the two questions you asked wouldn't even be relevant.

I don't know where you live but I started shooting when I was 11.  Fergalish questions are spot on.  I've had a guy hold a gun to my chest after a few drinks and believe me the fact that he should know better and that he had no hostile intention was no comfort at all.

I live in a big socialist city, and am rather far from American Wild West culture. I don't know the answer to this. Would that guy have survived if his actions were considered wildly inappropriate, and everyone else was armed as well?

[Hawker]

What you have done is say "If its dangerous, the private security companies should regulate nukes."  There is no real difference between that and saying "If its dangerous, the state security services should regulate nukes."   If the power to control access to nukes is there, private or state is just a distinction between badges.

That's true, but that is practically the only outcome I can see in a fully privitized society. At the least, you still have a choice if your security options, have some recourse should they screw up, and may still have the freedom to own dangerous materials like nukes if you need them. That's not an option with government.

With respect, if you have a gun held to my face, I am entitled to stop you as there is no reason why I should allow you to have the decision about whether I live or die.  IF you have a nuke and I am within range, again I am entitled to stop you for the exact same reason.  

I'm sure you agree with that.

It doesn't really matter to me whether the means of stopping you are wearing a state or a private badge or no badge at all.  What counts is that the person who has assumed the power to decide if I live or die has that power taken off him.

Does that strike you as fair?

[Hawker]

Fergalish, I think your problem is that you are assuming your questions are security-based, when they are much more cultural in nature. If we lived in a different culture , where carrying a gun and defending oneself is to be expected, people would be taught how to behave themselves accordingly from a young age, and the two questions you asked wouldn't even be relevant.

I don't know where you live but I started shooting when I was 11.  Fergalish questions are spot on.  I've had a guy hold a gun to my chest after a few drinks and believe me the fact that he should know better and that he had no hostile intention was no comfort at all.

I live in a big socialist city, and am rather far from American Wild West culture. I don't know the answer to this. Would that guy have survived if his actions were considered wildly inappropriate, and everyone else was armed as well?

I grew up in an Irish country town.  Shooting foxes for fur was a tidy earner

[Rassah]

With respect, if you have a gun held to my face, I am entitled to stop you as there is no reason why I should allow you to have the decision about whether I live or die.  IF you have a nuke and I am within range, again I am entitled to stop you for the exact same reason.  

I'm sure you agree with that.

Yes? Though if I own nukes for the purpose of mining or launching things into space, and you mistakenly believed my purpose was to harm you and came to stop me, wouldn't I also have the right to stop you too, either by diplomatic of forceful means?

It doesn't really matter to me whether the means of stopping you are wearing a state or a private badge or no badge at all.  What counts is that the person who has assumed the power to decide if I live or die has that power taken off him.

Does that strike you as fair?

Is the question about the amount of power that the person has? I have the power to decide if someone lives every time I get behind the wheel of my car...

[Hawker]

With respect, if you have a gun held to my face, I am entitled to stop you as there is no reason why I should allow you to have the decision about whether I live or die.  IF you have a nuke and I am within range, again I am entitled to stop you for the exact same reason.  

I'm sure you agree with that.

Yes? Though if I own nukes for the purpose of mining or launching things into space, and you mistakenly believed my purpose was to harm you and came to stop me, wouldn't I also have the right to stop you too, either by diplomatic of forceful means?

It doesn't really matter to me whether the means of stopping you are wearing a state or a private badge or no badge at all.  What counts is that the person who has assumed the power to decide if I live or die has that power taken off him.

Does that strike you as fair?

Is the question about the amount of power that the person has? I have the power to decide if someone lives every time I get behind the wheel of my car...

So we are in agreement that we have the right to decide who has the power to kill us.  The specific details over under what circumstances its OK to possess a nuke are implementation issues.  The important thing is that we already have the capacity to control how many people have that power to kill and now you and I are agreed there are circumstances where it is OK to use that capacity.

[fergalish]

Fergalish, I think your problem is that you are assuming your questions are security-based, when they are much more cultural in nature. If we lived in a different culture , where carrying a gun and defending oneself is to be expected, people would be taught how to behave themselves accordingly from a young age, and the two questions you asked wouldn't even be relevant.

ABSOLUTELY!  Where there is a cultural precedent AND everybody has similar ideas of what is and is not acceptable, then libertarianism would be great - like in a small isolated country village perhaps.  But people travelling from far and wide, with different ideas of what is acceptable, would almost certainly feel threatened by normal behaviour for the place, or would make the inhabitants feel threatened by simply doing what they feel is normal.  My questions are: how can we resolve this conflict?  Fred insists he has the right to carry a gun around unless otherwise prohibited.  I insist he does not, and would be willing to engage in mortal violence if necessary to defend myself.  I come from a country where guns are outlawed, but I've been in Texas - all I could do was take a big gulp, keep my head down, and try not to piss anyone off.

Start shooting holes in my idea... now.

At your service...

When you own land, you will likely also have a contract with a private security company.

Lucky you said "likely", otherwise I would have asked:  Who decrees that you should do so?  Who enforces you to do so if you choose not to?

That company will make to keep the territories under its contract safe

Who 'awards' territories to a private security company?  What if there some people, e.g. nuclear bomb holders, there do not wish to adhere to the contract?

Should some nutcase manage to sneak in and detonate a nuke on one of the properties protected by this company, the company will get have its reputation severely damaged, and will lose a lot of money paying for insurance claims and litigation (lawsuits). If nukes blowing up is something that is considered a serious problem in that area, the security company will likely step up to create methods and technologies to help prevent that from happening.

Or alternatively the security company could just shut up shop and run with the money.  Unless, of course, everyone in that territory, now dead or dying, happens to have been all along secretly paying another honourable security company to hunt down the first, just in case the first one should run away from its responsibilities.

Other security companies may also exist that to allow the ownership of nukes, though they will very likely require you to show that you have a good reason for owning it (likely industreal one only),

So what if you don't pay for security and to hell with the consequences - not having to pay for security or insurance will also enable you to provide a cheaper product than your competitors.  [sarcasm] Ohhhhhh, of course, people will buy the more expensive product because they'll ALL know that you don't have insurance and they'll really disapprove of that even though your factory is thousands of miles from your market. [/sarcasm]

As for what if someone decides to not have security company contract? That will mean that the person's property is practically defenseless, and they have no recourse against anything that happens to it, so will likely be considered as a very stupid thing to do.

So MightMakesWinnerMakesRight?  I can freely invade and take control of defenceless property and no-one other than the miserable owners will try to stop me?

[AyeYo]

You're right though.  If everyone in the world magically turned into perfect, god-like beings with ZERO variance in opinion, it would work.  And if everyone in the world grew wings we could fly.  But what do those idiotic fantasies have to do with discussing real-world issues?  They can't seem to see the irrelevance.

Nobody said nothing bad would happen in a Libertarian world. It's just the only ideology that has the fewest 'is-ought' constructs and logical incompatibilities. Your Socialist/Communist/Oligarchy/Fascist/Name-you-flavor-of-might-makes-right world isn't perfect either, in fact, far from it. I can point out more logical inconsistencies in your ideology than you can in mine. Libertarianism starts with the NAP and builds on that, yours is just majority rules, personal liberties be damned.

But of course you will say that libertarian ideas are too "simplistic" and we must "complicate" them because of the "real world", and due to these supposed "real world" problems, it's just easier to threaten violence upon your neighbor to achieve your goal, than envision some other way. There's more than one way to "skin a cat", and thus, not all means to an end should be justified. I know of one too many politicians, dictators, kings, princes, and thugs that espouse that sort of poppycock.

Might makes right is in it's purest form in a libertarian society. In a democratic society, we have the means to get all voices heard and a centralized power that prevents strong individuals or groups from exploiting people. In libertarian society the man with the biggest gun makes all the rules, which is why this non aggression bull shit is.... Well... bull shit.

[Rassah]

So we are in agreement that we have the right to decide who has the power to kill us.  The specific details over under what circumstances its OK to possess a nuke are implementation issues.  The important thing is that we already have the capacity to control how many people have that power to kill and now you and I are agreed there are circumstances where it is OK to use that capacity.

I guess my point was that this capacity will very likely exist under both, democratic government, and private libertarian systems, and thus the argument of which system is better is somewhat moot for this specific example.

[Hawker]

So we are in agreement that we have the right to decide who has the power to kill us.  The specific details over under what circumstances its OK to possess a nuke are implementation issues.  The important thing is that we already have the capacity to control how many people have that power to kill and now you and I are agreed there are circumstances where it is OK to use that capacity.

I guess my point was that this capacity will very likely exist under both, democratic government, and private libertarian systems, and thus the argument of which system is better is somewhat moot for this specific example.

Yes.  The key thing is that whatever system is used, it needs to provide the safety that society demands

[FredericBastiat]

...My questions are: how can we resolve this conflict?  Fred insists he has the right to carry a gun around unless otherwise prohibited.  I insist he does not, and would be willing to engage in mortal violence if necessary to defend myself.  I come from a country where guns are outlawed, but I've been in Texas - all I could do was take a big gulp, keep my head down, and try not to piss anyone off.

Funny how that quote (in bold) sounds awful Libertarian-like. As in, the right to defend oneself. I would carry a gun if necessary, so that at a moments notice, should someone threaten my life, I could defend myself. Taking the right to defend myself from me equates to unprovoked violence or threat thereto. Do you agree that you have a right to self-defense and ownership of a gun (among other things), or am I missing something? Seemingly you have no problem "engaging in mortal violence", so what's the problem?

[Rassah]

Where there is a cultural precedent AND everybody has similar ideas of what is and is not acceptable, then libertarianism would be great - like in a small isolated country village perhaps.  But people travelling from far and wide, with different ideas of what is acceptable, would almost certainly feel threatened by normal behaviour for the place, or would make the inhabitants feel threatened by simply doing what they feel is normal.  My questions are: how can we resolve this conflict?  Fred insists he has the right to carry a gun around unless otherwise prohibited.  I insist he does not, and would be willing to engage in mortal violence if necessary to defend myself.  I come from a country where guns are outlawed, but I've been in Texas - all I could do was take a big gulp, keep my head down, and try not to piss anyone off.

I would guess that tourists wishing to travel to those places would hear lots of stories about other tourists being shot for stupid reasons, and would make sure to study up on the culture of the place they are going. Likewise, the natives may be able to recognize the out-of-place tourists and act accordingly. Perhaps it will become common to just simply rent a gun when you arrive, too. It's not much different from current tourists traveling to Somalia or UAE.

When you own land, you will likely also have a contract with a private security company.

Lucky you said "likely", otherwise I would have asked:  Who decrees that you should do so?  Who enforces you to do so if you choose not to?

No one. As mentioned below, just personal financial consequences. In extreme cases, perhaps even litigation from neighbors who believe you are negligently endagering them by having flamable property close to theirs without means of securing it if it starts to burn?

That company will make to keep the territories under its contract safe

Who 'awards' territories to a private security company?  What if there some people, e.g. nuclear bomb holders, there do not wish to adhere to the contract?

Properties contracts are awarded by residents who will hopefully have a choice of security companies, with security companies having incentive to fight for customers by providing better service. Admittedly, that may require the customers/land owners to be a bit more mobile....
If someone does not wish to adhere, see above/below.

Should some nutcase manage to sneak in and detonate a nuke on one of the properties protected by this company, the company will get have its reputation severely damaged, and will lose a lot of money paying for insurance claims and litigation (lawsuits). If nukes blowing up is something that is considered a serious problem in that area, the security company will likely step up to create methods and technologies to help prevent that from happening.

Or alternatively the security company could just shut up shop and run with the money.  Unless, of course, everyone in that territory, now dead or dying, happens to have been all along secretly paying another honourable security company to hunt down the first, just in case the first one should run away from its responsibilities.

They could. There could also be a secondary overseeing body, like a BBB for security companies, that oversees multiple territories, helps enforce secority company contracts, and which the security company would have to be a member of if it wants to have any hope of doing business. The security BBB is not tied to any specific company or territory, and is not directly responsible for security, and thus will have incentive to keep all of the other companies in check (unless all of them colude, if which case the company exposing that collusion will likely end up with all the contracts)

Other security companies may also exist that to allow the ownership of nukes, though they will very likely require you to show that you have a good reason for owning it (likely industreal one only),

So what if you don't pay for security and to hell with the consequences - not having to pay for security or insurance will also enable you to provide a cheaper product than your competitors.  [sarcasm] Ohhhhhh, of course, people will buy the more expensive product because they'll ALL know that you don't have insurance and they'll really disapprove of that even though your factory is thousands of miles from your market. [/sarcasm]

That's true. Though you're still exposing yourself to massive litigation risk, and as mentioned, people paying security companies to keep them safe will very likely expect that company to protect them from outside threats, not just from threats on their own property. If you own a nuke, and are not paying anyone for security, you should probably expect to have random companies to come by to try to extort you mafia-style, or have private contracts placed on obtaining either your nukes or your head, since, technically, neither one is well protected.

As for what if someone decides to not have security company contract? That will mean that the person's property is practically defenseless, and they have no recourse against anything that happens to it, so will likely be considered as a very stupid thing to do.

So MightMakesWinnerMakesRight?  I can freely invade and take control of defenceless property and no-one other than the miserable owners will try to stop me?

Yes. Unless the owner is paying someone else to stop you. As far as i understand it, the main source of all might in libertarian society would come from customers handing out money. Voting is essentially done by whoever can get paid the most.

P. S. This is not something that I know or studied. I actually know very little about libertarian beliefs, and aside from a few books and documents have read little about it. I am quite literally just thinking through these things and making them up on the spot. Thus, I fully expect to be wrong in either my reasoning, or my understanding of libertarian beliefs.

[FredericBastiat]

Once again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PERSONAL LIBERTY EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THOSE AROUND YOU PERMIT IT.  You have been proposed simple problems to solve, and you cannot solve them with your idealogy.  Just in case you've fogotten, here they are again:

So if there was nobody around me, or I was the last living human, I would become incapacitated, supposedly because I'm only enabled by those who permit me to have "personal liberty"?

It's not like we're giving you complicated problems to solve.  If you make any problem complicated enough, then no political philosophy will solve it.  But THESE ARE PROBLEMS THAT CONCERN THE VERY FOUNDATION STONES OF LIBERTARIANISM ITSELF.  To wit: your liberty and my liberty ARE NOT COMPATIBLE, and I'm using the word 'liberty' in your sense of the word; that is, something I define for me, you for you, Hawker for Hawker, and so on.  How can you "build on top" of something that is fundamentally flawed?

I am at liberty to do everything insomuch as it only concerns me and my things (excepting mutual contract), but I am not at liberty to prohibit you from the equal supremacy to act upon you and yours. Liberty is justifiably constrained by the NAP. Nothing particuarly difficult to understand about that.

Give or take a few far-fetched edge cases where it takes a little more imagination, it works pretty well.