Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FirstAscent]

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.

From my point of view, you were very clearly hesitant to get involved in posting over there. You can set us straight when you begin posting over there.

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.

I've never advocated any such thing. There are other means to collect money. Do you have first hand experience with the matter?

[NghtRppr]

I've never advocated any such thing. There are other means to collect money. Do you have first hand experience with the matter?

You really know different ways of getting nuclear bomb or my property out of my possession other than with violence? Do tell.

[FirstAscent]

I've never advocated any such thing. There are other means to collect money. Do you have first hand experience with the matter?

You really know different ways of getting nuclear bomb or my property out of my possession other than with violence? Do tell.

Geez. First of all, do you understand that the first goal is to prevent you from ever possessing such a device? Secondly, do you understand that if you willfully engage in risky behavior, bad things can happen?

Suggestion: don't climb El Capitan without a proper belay.

Suggestion: don't handle nuclear weapons.

Suggestion: don't wander around in dark alleys at night.

The key actions listed above, respectively are: climb, handle, wander. You know these things going in. You know the consequences. What happens is in your control.

[NghtRppr]

I've never advocated any such thing. There are other means to collect money. Do you have first hand experience with the matter?

You really know different ways of getting nuclear bomb or my property out of my possession other than with violence? Do tell.

Geez. First of all, do you understand that the first goal is to prevent you from ever possessing such a device? Secondly, do you understand that if you willfully engage in risky behavior, bad things can happen?

Suggestion: don't climb El Capitan without a proper belay.

Suggestion: don't handle nuclear weapons.

Suggestion: don't wander around in dark alleys at night.

The key actions listed above, respectively are: climb, handle, wander. You know these things going in. You know the consequences. What happens is in your control.

Like I said, you advocate violence but you wish to blame others for "making you do it".

[FirstAscent]

Like I said, you advocate violence but you wish to blame others for "making you do it".

I advocate that you use common sense.

Note that you are allowed the first and third action. Why do you suppose that is? What makes the first and third different from the middle? Need a hint? I'll give it to you: "potential harm to others."

[NghtRppr]

Like I said, you advocate violence but you wish to blame others for "making you do it".

I advocate that you use common sense.

You also advocate violence.

[BitterTea]

Like I said, you advocate violence but you wish to blame others for "making you do it".

I advocate that you use common sense.

You also advocate violence.

He's got a blind spot for institutionalized violence. It's not really his fault, it was taught to him as a child and he has yet to be successfully deconverted. I really wonder why it's easier for some to see it than others.

As Monty Python said, "come and see the violence inherent in the system."

[FirstAscent]

He's got a blind spot for institutionalized violence. It's not really his fault, it was taught to him as a child and he has yet to be successfully deconverted. I really wonder why it's easier for some to see it than others.

I can assure you - I don't have a blind spot for chaos, which results in huge death rates.

Do you want a prime example of your libertarian system at work everyday in a really big way? It works exactly as you have specified. It's called the world. It has 192 members, and each claim their own property and do what they wish on their own property. Hands off to anyone else! There is no centralized authority. It's a classic example of "If you're on my property, you follow my rules!" Disagreements are worked out via sanctions, courts, treaties, private security forces, weapons, etc. Many have nuclear weapons! Imagine that. Kind of like your lib-land, eh?

[BitterTea]

He's got a blind spot for institutionalized violence. It's not really his fault, it was taught to him as a child and he has yet to be successfully deconverted. I really wonder why it's easier for some to see it than others.

I can assure you - I don't have a blind spot for chaos, which results in huge death rates.

Do you want a prime example of your libertarian system at work everyday in a really big way? It works exactly as you have specified. It's called the world. It has 192 members, and each claim their own property and do what they wish on their own property. Hands off to anyone else! There is no centralized authority. It's a classic example of "If you're on my property, you follow my rules!" Disagreements are worked out via sanctions, courts, treaties, private security forces, weapons, etc. Many have nuclear weapons! Imagine that. Kind of like your lib-land, eh?

It is true that nation states interact in a way that is anarchic. However, they are still nation states, which are systems of institutionalized violence. They rely upon violence for funding, and all your hand waving will not change the fact that if you ignore the tax man (an act which can only be construed as violent by twisted logic), a man shows up your door with a gun. How do you expect such violent monoplies to act to one another?

It's a system built upon violence. You can see it if you try, but it does call into question everything you think you know. This fact will sit in the back of your mind, nagging you, until one day you see it.

What is your alternative proposal? One world government? One violent state to rule them all?

You really want to stop the violence? Stop paying taxes, starve the beast. Without your money, it has no power.

[FirstAscent]

It is true that nation states interact in a way that is anarchic. However, they are still nation states, which are systems of institutionalized violence.

Did you indicate to me anywhere that in your lib-land, when I venture onto your property, I am not subject to your house rules, not subject to you pointing a gun at me, not subject to paying a tariff, toll, fee or tax, and not subject to who knows what?

It's a system built upon violence. You can see it if you try, but it does call into question everything you think you know. This fact will sit in the back of your mind, nagging you, until one day you see it.

Did you indicate to me that in your lib-land, when I venture onto your property, I don't have a nagging sense that you are in control, might have stockpiled weapons, and might lay down some rules if I choose to remain on your property?

You really want to stop the violence? Stop paying taxes, starve the beast. Without your money, it has no power.

No thanks. Why would I want to starve the beast that keeps wackos from having nuclear weapons in their garden shed?

[BitterTea]

What are you ranting about?

Can you explain how threatening to put someone in jail, or kill them if they resist being taken to jail, if they do not pay you money is not violence?

The state cannot exist without taxation.

Taxation is violent.

Thus, the state is inherently violent.

Yet somehow you believe that an inherently violent organization is the solution to violence?

Can you explain this paradox?

[FirstAscent]

The state cannot exist without taxation.

That's funny. You're kind of admitting the necessity of taxes.

[BitterTea]

The state cannot exist without taxation.

That's funny. You're kind of admitting the necessity of taxes.

No, I do not believe that states are necessary (because humans self-organize) or desirable (because they are inherently violent).

[FirstAscent]

The state cannot exist without taxation.

That's funny. You're kind of admitting the necessity of taxes.

No, I do not believe that states are necessary (because humans self-organize) or desirable (because they are inherently violent).

They self organize into states?

[BitterTea]

The state cannot exist without taxation.

That's funny. You're kind of admitting the necessity of taxes.

No, I do not believe that states are necessary (because humans self-organize) or desirable (because they are inherently violent).

They self organize into states?

Yes, as well as organized crime families, but I don't see anyone arguing they are beneficial to society. They also organize into groups which are not inherently violent because they rely upon voluntary funding rather than coercive funding. I support the latter (voluntary), but neither of the former (coercive).

Do you see the difference?

[FirstAscent]

The state cannot exist without taxation.

That's funny. You're kind of admitting the necessity of taxes.

No, I do not believe that states are necessary (because humans self-organize) or desirable (because they are inherently violent).

They self organize into states?

Yes, as well as organized crime families, but I don't see anyone arguing they are beneficial to society. They also organize into groups which are not inherently violent because they rely upon voluntary funding rather than coercive funding. I support the latter (voluntary), but neither of the former (coercive).

Do you see the difference?

Yes. Some are violent - let's say they're aggressive, even coercive. Shall we conclude that the voluntary groups must somehow muster a pretty formidable defense against the aggressive and violent groups? I think it's likely it will be necessary for the various voluntary groups to merge together to mount a solid defense. Naturally there will be minor disagreements. But some type of army will no doubt be necessary. Can you see where this is going?

States are inevitable. And you yourself said:

The state cannot exist without taxation.

[BitterTea]

Yes. Some are violent - let's say they're aggressive, even coercive. Shall we conclude that the voluntary groups must somehow muster a pretty formidable defense against the aggressive and violent groups? I think it's likely it will be necessary for the various voluntary groups to merge together to mount a solid defense. Naturally there will be minor disagreements. But some type of army will no doubt be necessary. Can you see where this is going?

States are inevitable.

States are only inevitable as long as people allow themselves to be ruled. If everyone (or even just a significant portion) refused to pay taxes, states could not exist.

There are also ways to provide for defense of a group without standing armies. Namely, militias or private defense organizations. Or ownership of nukes

Chew on this... when slavery was considered acceptable, arguing for the abolishment of slavery would have garnered questions like "but how would the cotton be picked?". While a relevant question in some sense, it would not have changed the fact that slavery is immoral.

I cannot tell you how problems (that exist in a society with states, I would argue because of states) would be solved in a stateless society. This is because I am one man, and problems are solved by many. That doesn't change the fact that states are inherently immoral.

[fergalish]

Omg democracy is unworkable because people could vote to allow the juggling of smallpox on front lawns!

That pretty much sums it up.

This is so far beyond absurd that I almost pissed my pants laughing at it.  In liberty land, everyone is intrinsically allowed to juggle smallpox on their lawn, or live grenades on the street, or knives on a life raft.  BUT, because people are not stupid, and because they don't do ridiculous things, well, the pro-libertarianists argue that this is not something we need to worry about.

BUT, suddenly, in democracy-land, where these kind of things are explicitly forbidden, we have to worry that, suddenly, *ALL OF SOCIETY* will want to be allowed to do that AND to expose themselves to the unknown and unknowable dangers.  Not just one crackpot or extremist, but EVERYBODY is a crackpot.

I'll grant that bittertea is probably using sarcasm as a tool to avoid resolving the problem, but, bitcoin2cash, your post has nothing, NOTHING, to suggest anything other than naive sincerity.

[fergalish]

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.

And you're STILL ignoring the crux of the issue - what about where being armed is neither explicitly permitted nor prohibited.  Like on unclaimed territory, or on claimed territory where the owner is a true libertarian and allows people to decide for themselves.  That's what you want, isn't it?  For people to decide for themselves?  How can you justify infringing my right not to be threatened when you declare that "nothing should diminish [a person's rights]"?  Can you answer that without sidestepping the issue?

That's a load of crap.  Boycotts don't work except where the market is close to the production line.  ... People have been boycotting Nestle for at least 20 years now and it's still doing just fine. ...

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.

No, no no no no.  You're wrong.  It's not with government in place, it's with humans in place.  If boycotts really worked in a libertarian society, then they would work in a statist society regardless of government.  You're suggesting that without government, boycotts would work; but we already know they don't BECAUSE when governments don't intervene it doesn't work.  For years people in my country saw plastic bags everywhere, on the street, the sidewalk, the rivers, EVERYWHERE.  Everyone was disgusted and called for everyone else to stop using plastic bags.  Nothing changed.  Nobody stopped.  FOR YEARS.  Then, the government TAXED plastic bags.  The problem disappeared IMMEDIATELY.

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.

Ohhhh, how right you are.  How truly truly right you are.  Perhaps you have finally understood the core problem.

[fergalish]

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.

It doesn't, at least according to b2c & fb.  All a libertarian society could hope for, it seems to me, is that all along the chain from uranium ore mine, to extraction plant, to purifying plant, to weapons assembly, to transport and eventual sale, and re-sale, and re-sale, and resale^N, that EVERYBODY follows a strict voluntary code of conduct consistent with social safety.  And that's everybody - including the malnourished children picking away at the ore, the underpaid worker who needs money to get treatment for his sick child, everybody follows it.  In EVERY mine, EVERY extraction plant, EVERY EVERYTHING.  Is that the answer you're looking for?

edit: and even then, it's enough for a crazy person to *seem* sane, just for long enough to convince the seller that he, for some reason, really needs a nuclear weapon.