Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FredericBastiat]

So HOW can you justify entering armed into a room where I am (where being so armed is not explicitly permitted)?  You are implicitly threatening me with mortal violence, and I have the right not to be threatened.

You already know the answer to this one, but I'll oblige the inaneness of it anyway. If you own the property and don't permit guests to be armed, the guest either agrees, disarms and enters, or doesn't and is denied entry. That isn't giving up ones rights, it's making a decision about the merits of relinquishing a weapon in exchange for entry. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a free choice, not a forced and involuntary one. Weapons regulation is different. It discriminates based on the characteristics and composition of the weapon alone and ignores the title and property rights of the owner. Completely different animals.

That's a load of crap.  Boycotts don't work except where the market is close to the production line.  Globalism and outsourcing ensures that any company now can abuse people in one jurisdiction while it's consumers on the other side of the world blissfully buy buy buy unawares - and a libertarian free market would facilitate that even more.  People have been boycotting Nestle for at least 20 years now and it's still doing just fine.  Look at all the bad publicity about sweatshops, child exploitation, people working with toxic chemicals to recycle computer components, genocide in the Congo to feed the cell-phone market... the list goes on and on and on.  If people don't actually *live* the abuse, they don't give a shit.  Boycotting a company is an irrational economic decision except where the cost-benefit analysis (and that's what we *all* do every time we buy something) indicates that not boycotting will incur greater future cost.  This is not so where an abusive factory is far away from the buyer.

I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the only one that has an imagination around here. Sorry for the rant, but why is it so difficult to find another way but the forceful one? I know that justice is not a primary concern of yours, but I'd like to think there are merits to incorporating justice that are just worth it despite some of the kinks. Here's the thing about Nestle. You just made a point that they aren't changing there ways now; this is with your government in place.

There will always be the underbelly of crime in whatever society you live, but that doesn't mean that the laws or the ideology are necessarily to blame. I could write laws all the day long, and if nobody cares to follow them, nothing I believe in will matter. No ideology at that point would make a difference. Humans have to act humanely first. Try teaching spiders to not cannibalize their own kind. It's impossible. Most governments are just another form of rights cannibalism.

[1713863121]

1713863121

[1713863121]

1713863121

[1713863121]

1713863121

[1713863121]

1713863121

[1713863121]

1713863121

[1713863121]

1713863121

[AyeYo]

people could vote to allow the juggling of smallpox on front lawns!

That's very true.

People most definitely could vote to allow the juggling of small pox on front lawns.  However, that would require more insane people than sane people, so it's never been a problem.  It would also require a majority to vote to allow small pox to be possessed by any random person.  It would then have to stand up to critic by the judicial body.


In libertardland, anyone can possess small pox and they are perfectly within their rights to juggle the vials on their front lawn - no one can stop them.

You have not demonstrated what real-world advantages your system has in this scenario.  No one in their right mind values the right to juggle small pox over the right to life.  So you're going to have to provide some substantial benefits to allowing people to juggle small pox vials or your belief system will never be implimented.

[AyeYo]

You already know the answer to this one,

So, Fred, you never answered his question... what companies are you currently boycotting?  I'm interested in how you're using the free market to shut down gross polluters and employee abusers.

[FredericBastiat]

You already know the answer to this one,

So, Fred, you never answered his question... what companies are you currently boycotting?  I'm interested in how you're using the free market to shut down gross polluters and employee abusers.

All the ones I'm not currently spending my money on. Nyah!

[FredericBastiat]

Also, there are no free markets left.

[FirstAscent]

Quoted for someone to man up and answer the question.

People on this side of the debate need to stop getting distracted by these ridiculous antics and sidestracks.  Stick to the root issues and make them answer the tough questions.

I'll once again quote myself, and will continue to do so until someone steps up to the plate and addresses the issue:

So which is it?  Are you going to bring about change by forcing it on people via violence (just like the state that you hate!) or are you going to win over a majority through superior reasoning and arguments (which will still result in your forcing your opinion on the minority, thus concluding that libertarianism is hypocritical and contradictory no matter what way you slice it, as I've said in a million threads before, you can make EVERYONE happy ALL the time, thus you will ALWAYS have to suppress at least some people via threat of violence)?

Actually, they have four choices: The two you've indicated above, or move to a country like Somalia, or continue their kiddie politics here in their own little playground. I'm guessing they'll opt for the fourth.

[FirstAscent]

I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.

You're going to have to define your version of justice.

Living in a world where millions die for a pulled-from-ass "right" for anyone to own a nuke isn't justice by any definition familar to anyone on this planet.

Living in a world where trivial, pointless "rights" like the "right" to own a nuke and the "right" to juggle knives on a life raft supercede real, substantial rights like the right to life isn't justice by any definition that any mentally stable person is familiar with.

Oh, and you still have answered neither my nor hawker's questions.

Let me spell it out for you.

J-U-S-T-I-C-E

It's worth more than anything.

Explain in detail, please.

[FirstAscent]

You already know the answer to this one,

So, Fred, you never answered his question... what companies are you currently boycotting?  I'm interested in how you're using the free market to shut down gross polluters and employee abusers.

All the ones I'm not currently spending my money on. Nyah!

How's that workin' out for you?

[FredericBastiat]

Actually, they have four choices: The two you've indicated above, or move to a country like Somalia, or continue their kiddie politics here in their own little playground. I'm guessing they'll opt for the fourth.

Oh, and we should'nt question anyone in government. They're so benevolent and kind and honest and forthright and, and... they always have our best interests in mind. Riiiiight....

[FirstAscent]

So then you admit that dumping toxic waste doesn't fall under your criticism? Great, that's one down.

The point is, A, B, and C refer to things you are not aware of.

Like what? Do you have any examples that aren't so unlikely and far removed from reality that they can only referred to as "A, B or C"?

Yes I do. But my point is to demonstrate that you aren't aware of them. It seems that every time I bring up some real issue worth paying attention to, you, in hindsight, make some statement like "Of course I'm aware of such and such..."

So, demonstrate to me that you are aware of a set of real world issues that you haven't yet mentioned. I'll even let you mine my prior posts if you want.

[FirstAscent]

Actually, they have four choices: The two you've indicated above, or move to a country like Somalia, or continue their kiddie politics here in their own little playground. I'm guessing they'll opt for the fourth.

Oh, and we should'nt question anyone in government. They're so benevolent and kind and honest and forthright and, and... they always have our best interests in mind. Riiiiight....

I suggest you do question those in government. For example, a good set of the Republicans in office are quite ridiculous and worth questioning. Same goes for quite a few Democrats. And others.

[FirstAscent]

I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.

Please demonstrate to me, by referencing any post I have ever made here, where I advocate the killing of any person.

[NghtRppr]

Yes I do.

Money. Mouth.

I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.

Please demonstrate to me, by referencing any post I have ever made here, where I advocate the killing of any person.

So what happens when I have a nuclear bomb on my property and I don't just hand it over? What happens when I don't pay my taxes? You're going to send me a nasty letter? Fine, I'll ball it up and toss it in my trashcan. I doubt it will end there though. Ultimately, all laws are threats of imprisonment or death. If you don't understand that then you have no business saying what should and shouldn't be a law.

[FirstAscent]

Yes I do.

Money. Mouth.

I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.

Please demonstrate to me, by referencing any post I have ever made here, where I advocate the killing of any person.

So what happens when I have a nuclear bomb on my property and I don't just hand it over?

What, in general, are your expectations in this world (natural and artificial), and this society, when you engage in extraordinarily risky behavior outside your bounds of expertise? Tell me, do you adjust your behavior and temper your decision making based on outside influences?

Consider that not too long ago, you made the decision to not post over at honda-tech.com. To your credit, you subsequently claimed that you decided to sign up over there, but we do have a post of yours here where you said that you wished to not engage in posting over there. I would qualify that as a decision that you made based on accepting that there are outside forces that you did not wish to risk engagement with.

Tell me now, what kind of rational thought and decision making processes do you apply in this world with regard to acquisition of WMDs? Simultaneously, please indicate to me that in your favored libertarian land, you will be forever free of being confronted with situations that force you to choose a less favorable path than you would ordinarily desire so that you can avoid consequences that are not appealing to you.

What happens when I don't pay my taxes? You're going to send me a nasty letter? Fine, I'll ball it up and toss it in my trashcan. I doubt it will end there though. Ultimately, all laws are threats of imprisonment or death. If you don't understand that then you have no business saying what should and shouldn't be a law.

Well, keep me informed of that one. Once again, I suspect that you won't ever let it come to that. You see, once again, we all find ourselves in reality, and our decisions are guided by reality. Let me know.

[NghtRppr]

we do have a post of yours here where you said that you wished to not engage in posting over there

You're either lying or confused. I offered you a deal in post #882 and I let you run your mouth until post #945 when I finally revealed that I had registered hours earlier when were first discussing it. As I mentioned once but I guess I'll say it again, I can't start a thread or make a post in the politics section anyways so this whole "dare" amounts to absolutely nothing.

Once again, I suspect that you won't ever let it come to that.

So, in other words, you advocate it but you just don't think it will come to that. Much like a mugger doesn't think he'll have to shoot anyone.

[Rassah]

I think unless FirstAscent, AyeYo, or Hawker can themselves explain how exactly a free market libertarian system can address the issues they bring up, and THEN explain why that way of addressing those issues is worse than it's currently done, this whole "debate" will be nothing but a circle-jerk by people who can't even understand what they are talkimg about. "You're wrong, it won't work, because I said so/it's stupid/because it's not how things currently work" is not an argument. You guys have not demonstrated an ability, or willingness, to think things through, and instead are rather quick to let this "debate" degenerate into personal insults.

[FirstAscent]

we do have a post of yours here where you said that you wished to not engage in posting over there

You're either lying or confused. I offered you a deal in post #882 and I let you run your mouth until post #945 when I finally revealed that I had registered hours earlier when were first discussing it. As I mentioned once but I guess I'll say it again, I can't start a thread or make a post in the politics section anyways so this whole "dare" amounts to absolutely nothing.

I'm not confused at all. Here's your post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.msg543311#msg543311

I'll quote it:

The fact that AyeYo has been there five years tells me just about all I need to know about that place. The fact that you seem so keen to change venues seems a little bizarre. Are you incapable of arguing without help? Why does it matter where we debate? Are you incapable of putting my ideas to the test by yourself? I'll let you spin this however you want but the fact remains, I'm here, argue if you want but do so respectfully or you'll be disregarded by me and won't be taken seriously. It's your choice.

That looks like you've made a decision to not go over there based on the environment you'd find yourself in. Welcome to reality.

Once again, I suspect that you won't ever let it come to that.

So, in other words, you advocate it but you just don't think it will come to that. Much like a mugger doesn't think he'll have to shoot anyone.

We're not speaking of the intentions of the mugger. Don't confuse the matter. We're talking about your decision making process. You've made a claim, and I'm calling you on it. You're trying to claim that you're going to end up being killed. I'm calling you on it.

[FirstAscent]

I think unless FirstAscent, AyeYo, or Hawker can themselves explain how exactly a free market libertarian system can address the issues they bring up, and THEN explain why that way of addressing those issues is worse than it's currently done...

Please show us where we have not done that. I'm not a big fan of rewriting 500 word posts.

[Rassah]

I think unless FirstAscent, AyeYo, or Hawker can themselves explain how exactly a free market libertarian system can address the issues they bring up, and THEN explain why that way of addressing those issues is worse than it's currently done...

Please show us where we have not done that. I'm not a big fan of rewriting 500 word posts.

Here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.0

I have yet to see any of you answer the question of how a libertarian free-market society would prevent crazy people from owning nukes, or juggling vials of dangerous bioweapons.

[NghtRppr]

The fact that AyeYo has been there five years tells me just about all I need to know about that place. The fact that you seem so keen to change venues seems a little bizarre. Are you incapable of arguing without help? Why does it matter where we debate? Are you incapable of putting my ideas to the test by yourself? I'll let you spin this however you want but the fact remains, I'm here, argue if you want but do so respectfully or you'll be disregarded by me and won't be taken seriously. It's your choice.

That looks like you've made a decision to not go over there based on the environment you'd find yourself in.

Allow me to quote you.

you said that you wished to not engage in posting over there

Which is clearly a lie. Nowhere in the post that you quoted do I say that. All I say is that, "I'm here, if you want to argue then do it". You might have interpreted it differently and in which case, I can correct your misunderstanding but don't just make up lies and claim I said something I did not. If and when I can make a post in the politics section, I will. I suggest you just wait until then before furthering this pointless derail.

We're not speaking of the intentions of the mugger. Don't confuse the matter. We're talking about your decision making process. You've made a claim, and I'm calling you on it. You're trying to claim that you're going to end up being killed. I'm calling you on it.

You're not even following the argument. I'm calling you on the fact that you do advocate killing people just as much as a mugger does.