Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FredericBastiat]

The regulation simply records who bought the fertiliser.  No farmer loses anything.  The only people disadvantaged are those who want to buy vast amounts of fertiliser for non-agricultural use.  

Can you imagine how such recordation could be applied and enforced entirely in the private sector?

Um, fertiliser is in the private sector.  The role of the state if to make it compulsory.  

If fertilizer is in the private sector, let it remain in the private sector. Keep the state out of the private sector. Duh.

*as the nonsense merry-go-round circles round again*

[1713564373]

1713564373

[1713564373]

1713564373

[1713564373]

1713564373

[Hawker]

Yes.  But we have to make a choice.  Do we value the farmer's ability to buy fertiliser in secret more than the life of a bomb victim.  We don't have the option of pretending the decision does not have to be made.

I'd choose to save the life.  So do most people.  You choose to let the bomb victim's die.  That's your choice - you can always vote that way - but you can't impose that choice on others.

Flip flop. Which side of this argument are on anyway? How about you choose for you, and I'll choose for me? Get you and yours to create regulations for your fertilizer manufacturer, and we'll have regulations for us and ours. There is not such thing as choosing for others, that's an oxymoron. You don't choose for others, you can only force others to your way. Big difference.

It only works if it applies to everyone.  And it does work.  So we do it as we don't like seeing people get killed in bombs.  

Opting out is facilitating the bomb makers.  That's aggression.

[MoonShadow]

You don't choose for others, you can only force others to your way. Big difference.

This reminded me of an article I read once, had to search for it...

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly civilized society, people interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the firearm, as crazy as it may sound to some.

When I carry my gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act. "

- Author Unknown

[Hawker]

MoonShadow - guns are essentially harmless compared to what we are talking about.  I'm puzzled why you;d compare a terrorist with a nuke to a mugger with a gun.

[MoonShadow]

Opting out is facilitating the bomb makers.  That's aggression.

Opting out is never aggression, no matter what risks that creates for others.  You have a strange concept of the term.

[AyeYo]

My rights come from my head.

And you'll need to present an argument for them beyond "because I said so" or they'll never become a reality.

[Hawker]

Opting out is facilitating the bomb makers.  That's aggression.

Opting out is never aggression, no matter what risks that creates for others.  You have a strange concept of the term.

Sorry if you do something that results in deaths, that is aggression.  

[FredericBastiat]

Yes.  But we have to make a choice {appeal to ignorance}.  Do we value the farmer's ability to buy fertiliser in secret more than the life of a bomb victim {false dilemma}.  We don't have the option of pretending the decision does not have to be made {false dilemma}.

I'd choose to save the life.  So do most people.  You choose to let the bomb victim's die {begging the question}.  That's your choice - you can always vote that way - but you can't impose that choice on others.

[Rassah]

The thing I was trying to drive at here is have hawker at least attempt to consider how regulation can be handled and done in the private sector, with the main core of the compulsory mechanism being financial incentive. To be blunt, I was going after the "you must understand your opponent's position before you can effectively argue against them" idea. I don't think Hawker understands his opponent's position, and thus it's just all going in circles...

Also, I prefer swords (2 tests away from black belt in Iaido and Kendo)

[Hawker]

You haven't answered the question of where you think your "rights" come from.

Where do your rights come from? Let me guess, society? So if society declares you don't have the right to speak freely that's just too bad?

Please answer my question.  I'm not trying to ridicule your position - I'm genuinely curious. 

My rights come from my head. Rights are theoretical fictions. They don't exist as concrete things. They don't come from some divine mandate.

Can you point out where bitcoin2cash, or anyone else, said that there should be no badges, public or private, to keep fertilizer bombers under control? I still can't find that.

I'm all for private security.

OK thats clear.  So you want us to choose between your rights that come from your head with the lives of people that get killed in bomb explosions if we don't regulate explosives.  

Sometimes you will be supported.  Fred's example of lobotomies is a good example of something that seems totally out of proportion to the risk of being killed by a bomb.  sometimes you won't. The right to buy fertiliser in secret doesn't seem to outweigh the lives lost if purchases are not recorded.  

The key thing is that we have to choose.  The ability to make the decision exists and its a question of what appears most sensible.

[Hawker]

Yes.  But we have to make a choice {appeal to ignorance}.  Do we value the farmer's ability to buy fertiliser in secret more than the life of a bomb victim {false dilemma}.  We don't have the option of pretending the decision does not have to be made {false dilemma}.

I'd choose to save the life.  So do most people.  You choose to let the bomb victim's die {begging the question}.  That's your choice - you can always vote that way - but you can't impose that choice on others.

You don't actually understand the phrases you are adding.

We exist.  Our societies exist. We have the power to decide and we know the consequences of failing to act.  The knowledge is based on experience of real bombing campaigns that were brought to an end. To call acting based on facts "appeal to ignorance" suggests you are trying to change the subject.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Then stay on topic please.

[MoonShadow]

MoonShadow - guns are essentially harmless compared to what we are talking about.  I'm puzzled why you;d compare a terrorist with a nuke to a mugger with a gun.

Oh, I wasn't.  I didn't really know what the topic was, other than legitimate consumer products that have the potential to be used as ingredients in a bomb.  I was just noting that it came to mind.

But the extreme case of the privately owned nuke obscures a valid concern for any civil society.  Namely, where do we, collectively, draw the line between a weapon that can be 'borne' a la the 2nd Amendment and a weapon (or hazardous device/material whether or not it is already intended to be a weapon by design) of such great destructive power that the mere ownership of one constitutes a threat to those around you?

I have my own answer to this, but I'm curious, among the following list of items, which should be regulated or completely prohibited from civilian ownership?  Which do you believe already are or are not prohibited in the US?

a shotgun shorter than 16 inches

Automatic pistol

detachable handgun silencer

A rifle with a permantly afixed silencer, too long to hide on one's person.

a concealed pistol.

a military grade anti-personnel mine.

a hand grenade.

a rocket launcher and ammo.

a rifle capable of lethal power at distances over three miles.

a fully automatic machine gun.

explosives

a tank

a hand crank 'gatling' type gun, whether or not it's modern or an antique.

 

[AyeYo]

The thing I was trying to drive at here is have hawker at least attempt to consider how regulation can be handled and done in the private sector, with the main core of the compulsory mechanism being financial incentive.

Suicidal people don't care about financial incentives.

Voluntary rules are not rules.  Voluntary regulation is not regulation.  The very definitions of rules and regulations require them to be compulsory.  A voluntary law is an oxymoron.

[MoonShadow]

Opting out is facilitating the bomb makers.  That's aggression.

Opting out is never aggression, no matter what risks that creates for others.  You have a strange concept of the term.

Sorry if you do something that results in deaths, that is aggression.  

Only if you do something that is intended to result in deaths.  Intent matters.  It may, or may not, be predictable.  But if the person doing the action of opting out does not do it with the intent of causing harm, and does not agree with your opinion that people will be killed as a direct consequence, it's not aggression.

[Hawker]

Moonshadow you do like long posts  

Even in the hands of terrorists, firearms are essentially just a nuisance.  In the UK, they are banned and the main effect is that people who commit suicide use ropes.  In the US, you have guns and from what I hear, they do less harm than road traffic accidents.  Correct me if I am wrong.  In Ireland I had guns; here I don't; its not a big deal for me to be honest as there is almost no access to land to shoot on here unless you are really prepared to spend money.

Bombs are different as a bomber can plant his weapon, drive off and kill 20 or so people at a time.  Often you'll never know who planted it.  Look at the Omagh bombing - no-one has ever been jailed for killing 29 people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing

Bombs make trips to schools, churches, bars, hospitals and the like all into high risk locations.  So I'd prefer people not have access to bombs.  This applies with even greater force to nukes, biological weapons like smallpox and chemical weapons.

[AyeYo]

Opting out is facilitating the bomb makers.  That's aggression.

Opting out is never aggression, no matter what risks that creates for others.  You have a strange concept of the term.

Sorry if you do something that results in deaths, that is aggression.  

Only if you do something that is intended to result in deaths.  Intent matters.  It may, or may not, be predictable.  But if the person doing the action of opting out does not do it with the intent of causing harm, and does not agree with your opinion that people will be killed as a direct consequence, it's not aggression.

So if I shoot you in the head without the intent to kill you, it's not aggression.

If I detonate a nuke on my front lawn to make a hole for a koi pond, it doesn't matter that I killed 15 million people, it's not aggression.


What you do idiots don't seem to realize about deontology is that intent is not the ONLY thing that matters.  Drowning your kids because you think it'll make them all go to heaven (true story) is NOT ok just because you had good intentions.  Intent should be considered, but results are ultimately what determines whether the right thing or wrong thing was done.

[Hawker]

Opting out is facilitating the bomb makers.  That's aggression.

Opting out is never aggression, no matter what risks that creates for others.  You have a strange concept of the term.

Sorry if you do something that results in deaths, that is aggression.  

Only if you do something that is intended to result in deaths.  Intent matters.  It may, or may not, be predictable.  But if the person doing the action of opting out does not do it with the intent of causing harm, and does not agree with your opinion that people will be killed as a direct consequence, it's not aggression.

Intent matters - and the intent to live matters a lot.  If you are going to take an action that facilitates the killing of people, those people might well feel that their intent to live matters more than your intent to ignore the consequences of your actions.  They are within their rights to stop you if that is that it takes to avoid being killed.

Or do you think people should simply wait for the killers to have their wicked way?

[MoonShadow]

Moonshadow you do like long posts  

Even in the hands of terrorists, firearms are essentially just a nuisance.  In the UK, they are banned and the main effect is that people who commit suicide use ropes.  In the US, you have guns and from what I hear, they do less harm than road traffic accidents.  Correct me if I am wrong.

You are not wrong.  I, for one, have never harmed any living thing with thousands of fired rounds, excluding plantlife and the occasional earthworm in my target background.

 In Ireland I had guns; here I don't; its not a big deal for me to be honest as there is almost no access to land to shoot on here unless you are really prepared to spend money.

Bombs are different as a bomber can plant his weapon, drive off and kill 20 or so people at a time.  Often you'll never know who planted it.  Look at the Omagh bombing - no-one has ever been jailed for killing 29 people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing

They make trips to schools, churches, bars, hospitals and the like all into high risk locations.  So I'd prefer people not have access to bombs.  This applies with even greater force to nukes, biological weapons like smallpox and chemical weapons.

You avoided the question completely.  Where does a civil society draw the line?  Is it arbitrary, or is there some kind of natural principle that defines the differences between a weapon such as a shotgun and a home defense system that involves lethal & automatic traps, such as a miltary grade anti-personnel mine?  If you say that bombs that are made for that purpose are prohibited, such as the above mine; what about materials that hold the potential to make make-shift bombs?   Can such things be reasonablely regulated?  Would doing so actually prevent bombmakers from obtaining said materials?  Has the prohibition on handguns in the UK actually prevented criminals in the UK from obtaining them?  Has it prevented criminals from committing violent crimes, or have those same criminals just switched to other weapons such as blugeons and knives?  Would a prohibition on (nitrogen based) fertilizer in the UK prevent car bombs, or just lead to their construction from other available materials?  Should high school chemistry (where anyone paying enough attention can learn how to make a bomb from many common materials) be prohibited?  Would it help?

[MoonShadow]

Opting out is facilitating the bomb makers.  That's aggression.

Opting out is never aggression, no matter what risks that creates for others.  You have a strange concept of the term.

Sorry if you do something that results in deaths, that is aggression.  

Only if you do something that is intended to result in deaths.  Intent matters.  It may, or may not, be predictable.  But if the person doing the action of opting out does not do it with the intent of causing harm, and does not agree with your opinion that people will be killed as a direct consequence, it's not aggression.

So if I shoot you in the head without the intent to kill you, it's not aggression.

Did you shoot me in the head by accident?  Or are you some kind of mentally challenged person that I was stupid enough to hand my shotgun?  Watch the straw burn, isn't it pretty.

If a four year old finds his dad's pistol, already loaded, and shoots his brother in the head, he wasn't agressing him.  It's tragic, and a terrible breech of adult responsibility; but no, it's not aggression.

If I detonate a nuke on my front lawn to make a hole for a koi pond, it doesn't matter that I killed 15 million people, it's not aggression.

Burn, baby burn.  Straw makes such a pretty glow.

What you do idiots

You've been treading this line again, as of late.  Don't forget our prior conversations on this topic.  I will only suffer your breeches of civil speech for so long.

don't seem to realize about deontology is that intent is not the ONLY thing that matters.  Drowning your kids because you think it'll make them all go to heaven (true story) is NOT ok just because you had good intentions.  Intent should be considered, but results are ultimately what determines whether the right thing or wrong thing was done.

And you may be able to predict some outcomes, but you are not a prophet.  If I disagree with your rules that say that I can't have fertilizer because I might make a bomb, you lose the argument.  If there can be any dissent, you lose.  The real world isn't so black and white as your strawmen.

[FredericBastiat]

So if I shoot you in the head without the intent to kill you, it's not aggression.

If I detonate a nuke on my front lawn to make a hole for a koi pond, it doesn't matter that I killed 15 million people, it's not aggression.


What you do idiots don't seem to realize about deontology is that intent is not the ONLY thing that matters.  Drowning your kids because you think it'll make them all go to heaven (true story) is NOT ok just because you had good intentions.  Intent should be considered, but results are ultimately what determines whether the right thing or wrong thing was done.

Both intent and outcome matter. The results are matter of fact. Whether that outcome (the resultant) is right or wrong is what deontology addresses. They are 'is-ought' concerns.