Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[AyeYo]

Yes.  The Troubles in Northern Ireland.  War fought between Catholic and Protestant militias and no power of taxation on either side. 

I'm sure if you cared about the answer, you'd be able to find 100s like it on Google.

Yes, we get it, some people just like to fight. You can't prove your government would be able to handle that issue any better than a libertopia. You just don't want us to try because you don't think it's possible, or maybe the more deep-seated issue here is, you're a attracted by power (most people are) and giving that up requires that you take more responsibility for yourself.

I'll be the first to admit it, LiberLand does require everyone to take more responsibility for themselves.

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

That's a non sequitur and a Straw Man if I've ever seen one. Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. Making a law doesn't make people inherently good. I could just as easily say, when was the last time 6 million Jews were murdered?

Jews have been killed and nukes have been used on people. Your point?

No one ever claimed a perfect world, only a world better than what you're proposing.

[1713447877]

1713447877

[Rassah]

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

When was the last time someone in totally ungoverned Somalia lit off a nuke? If Somalia is what you believe liberland would be like, if lack of government means people will be buying nukes and juggling vials of smallpox, and if Somalia does in fact have religious and tribal infighting by warlords and heavilly armed security companies, then why are your hypothetical not happening there? Is it just a matter of time?

[BitterTea]

Well since no other anarchist can answer, maybe you can help me

We have the capacity to organise society to make life better for its members.  The care of mentally ill, the elimination of smallpox, the reduction of car bombings and the rarity of nuclear deaths and the abundance of movies are examples of what we can achieve if we organise.  These are good things and if we are to lose them we need to be offered something better.

Yes, we do have the capacity to organize to improve the quality of life of individuals. Statists believe that this can only be done by force (through taxation), anti-statists believe that not only can this be done without force, but it can be done better.

You fail to consider the possibility that the positive products of this current society can be provided better without a coercive monopoly on law and law enforcement.

You fail to consider the possibility that the negative products of this current society would be less prevalent without a system of institutionalized violence.

So far, no-one has offered anything better.  Its all moralistic arguments along the lines of "you should do this" and "you ought do that."

I can't change your opinion on morals and you can't change mine.  But is there any real world benefit you can offer in return for the millions of deaths to smallpox, nukes and car bombs?

What's better? A system where your needs may or may not be met, where there may be somebody holding a gun to your head, or a system where your needs may or may not be met, where there is always somebody holding a gun to your head?

[Hawker]

But your way guarantees the millions MORE deaths.  In your vision, people will have free access to the smallpox virus.  Smallpox killed more people in the 20th century that all wars combined.  

Surely there is something you can offer to justify these extra deaths?  Or are you just saying we ought to put up with it?

Guarantees? Thats an assumption. If you're going to assume, say you're going to assume. Libertarianism does not guarantee death. People eventually die, some get killed, that's about all you can say. Saying it any other way and it's a logical fallacy. If however you're going to presume that there is a higher probability of death, then show how that might be.

If I do prove that more people will die, will you agree that libertarianism is not that desirable, regardless of its logical framework?

[FirstAscent]

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

When was the last time someone in totally ungoverned Somalia lit off a nuke? If Somalia is what you believe liberland would be like, if lack of government means people will be buying nukes and juggling vials of smallpox, and if Somalia does in fact have religious and tribal infighting by warlords and heavilly armed security guards, then why are your hypothetical not happening there? Is it just a matter of time?

So you're likening Somalia to your lib-land? That's interesting. Gosh, now I want to go live in lib-land!

[AyeYo]

Jews have been killed and nukes have been used on people. Your point?

Nukes have only been used in an anarchic libertarian context - one member using a nuke against another member within an anarchic libertarian framework. Interpret the result how you wish. The various court systems and privates security firms may not have resolved the matter to your liking.

Great point. It'll be ignored.

[BitterTea]

Jews have been killed and nukes have been used on people. Your point?

Nukes have only been used in an anarchic libertarian context - one member using a nuke against another member within an anarchic libertarian framework. Interpret the result how you wish. The various court systems and privates security firms may not have resolved the matter to your liking.

You can say this, but it is false.

If independent nation states is a "anarchic libertarian context", then why are you defending it and not fighting for a single world government?

Because nation states still have a monopoly on the initiation of violence, and enough people consider it acceptable (and even good!) for them to do things like drop nuclear bombs on civilians.

[Rassah]

There are no real world examples of lib-land, so no real world issues it currently faces

Isn't that because you say that everyone should have free access to nukes and to the smallpox virus?  In the real world, deaths to a hideous disease and to radiation poisoning are considered bad

More fail, though I can see why you'd get confused. I'm not here to argue the points of the other guys. I'm just here to question the validity of your premises.
Would privately owned nukes held by corporations for the purposes of asteroid mining or asteroid defence be out of the question btw?

[FirstAscent]

What's better? A system where your needs may or may not be met, where there may be somebody holding a gun to your head, or a system where your needs may or may not be met, where there is always somebody holding a gun to your head?

Nobody has ever held a gun to my head.

[FredericBastiat]

These sound like laws. Are they uniformly applied to all citizens? Who enforces them? Let's say you and I are neighbors. Must we both abide by that set of laws? If so, who says so?

And what if I don't agree with those rules? Will I be forced by violence to abide by them?

Nobody is going to force you to agree with any rules. Nobody will force you via violence to abide by them. If on the other hand, you initiate violence against another person with no provocation, I'm certainly not going to feel very sorry for you if you get your head handed to you on a platter.

Don't get any ideas from the above that I advocate violence, you'd be assuming (please refrain). To be perfectly blunt, I personally don't find it a useful form of communication, just a last resort when an idiot attacker won't back down.

[Rassah]

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

When was the last time someone in totally ungoverned Somalia lit off a nuke? If Somalia is what you believe liberland would be like, if lack of government means people will be buying nukes and juggling vials of smallpox, and if Somalia does in fact have religious and tribal infighting by warlords and heavilly armed security guards, then why are your hypothetical not happening there? Is it just a matter of time?

So you're likening Somalia to your lib-land? That's interesting. Gosh, now I want to go live in lib-land!

You were. Thanks for avoiding the point.

[FirstAscent]

These sound like laws. Are they uniformly applied to all citizens? Who enforces them? Let's say you and I are neighbors. Must we both abide by that set of laws? If so, who says so?

And what if I don't agree with those rules? Will I be forced by violence to abide by them?

Nobody is going to force you to agree with any rules. Nobody will force you via violence to abide by them. If on the other hand, you initiate violence against another person with no provocation, I'm certainly not going to feel very sorry for you if you get your head handed to you on a platter.

So when I walk from A to B, and it happens to be across land you claim is your own, and you come out yelling and screaming, waving a shotgun around, what am I supposed to do? It seems that you would be threatening me. Why am I supposed to believe it's your land? By what authority is it your land? Maybe I contend it's just land that belongs to nobody.

[FirstAscent]

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

When was the last time someone in totally ungoverned Somalia lit off a nuke? If Somalia is what you believe liberland would be like, if lack of government means people will be buying nukes and juggling vials of smallpox, and if Somalia does in fact have religious and tribal infighting by warlords and heavilly armed security guards, then why are your hypothetical not happening there? Is it just a matter of time?

So you're likening Somalia to your lib-land? That's interesting. Gosh, now I want to go live in lib-land!

You were. Thanks for avoiding the point.

Your point has no basis unless you are admitting that Somalia is like lib-land. Either it is, and we'll have to admit that nobody is detonating nukes (yet). In that case - point in your favor about the nukes (as of now), but point lost in the sense that lib-land isn't so great. If Somalia is not like lib-land, then your point about nukes is irrelevant with regard to lib-land.

[BitterTea]

What's better? A system where your needs may or may not be met, where there may be somebody holding a gun to your head, or a system where your needs may or may not be met, where there is always somebody holding a gun to your head?

Nobody has ever held a gun to my head.

And nobody's ever juggled knives on a life raft, or smallpox on a front lawn.

The gun is metaphorical, until it's not.

Consider that I send you a bill for releasing oxygen in the air for you to breathe (I've got a garden at home). You would consider this ridiculous and dispose of it. So I send a more strongly worded letter, threatening to kidnap you unless you pay up. Again, you ignore this, or perhaps you believe my threat and take measures to protect yourself. So, not having been paid, I send a man to your house to kidnap you. Being the rational individual you are, you defend yourself from this aggression, with the minimum amount of force necessary. My agent escalates the use of force, as I have given him instructions to kidnap you using whatever means necessary. Eventually, it gets to the point where he is pointing a gun at you. Having no recourse left, you also point your gun at him. Fearing for his life, he kills you.

The only way this is different from taxation is that in my scenario, you would be considered a victim, and if I were instead the state, you would be a criminal. I consider that I provided you a service, for which you never asked, but from which you did indeed benefit. Then, I demanded payment. When payment wasn't received, I initiated the use of force against you.

Do you see the gun yet?

[FredericBastiat]

What's better? A system where your needs may or may not be met, where there may be somebody holding a gun to your head, or a system where your needs may or may not be met, where there is always somebody holding a gun to your head?

Nobody has ever held a gun to my head.

I'm glad to see you're going to be so exacting in your wording in the future. Please continue along that line so that when you use metaphors or analogies in the future, we will call you on it too, or ignore them as entirely irrelevant. Don't expect anything less.

[AyeYo]

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

When was the last time someone in totally ungoverned Somalia lit off a nuke? If Somalia is what you believe liberland would be like, if lack of government means people will be buying nukes and juggling vials of smallpox, and if Somalia does in fact have religious and tribal infighting by warlords and heavilly armed security guards, then why are your hypothetical not happening there? Is it just a matter of time?

LOL

Think hard about why that might be. I'll give you a hint: it has to do with the regulation of nukes by the rest of the world that isn't retarded.

[Rassah]

Your point has no basis unless you are admitting that Somalia is like lib-land. Either it is, and we'll have to admit that nobody is detonating nukes (yet). In that case - point in your favor about the nukes (as of now), but point lost in the sense that lib-land isn't so great. If Somalia is not like lib-land, then your point about nukes is irrelevant with regard to lib-land.

Yep, libland isn't necessarily great, and can be dangerous, especially when in its infancy and being established on the base of a very poor and desperate population. So stop with the nuke strawmen.

Here's a WAY better (in my opinion, anyway) question than the stupid, hyperbolic nuke and smallpox strawmen:
Who owns radio spectrums and air space above people's land, and how would things like radio interference or single governing body like FAA preventing planes from crashing midair and causing damage to property below, be addressed in liberland?

[Rassah]

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

When was the last time someone in totally ungoverned Somalia lit off a nuke? If Somalia is what you believe liberland would be like, if lack of government means people will be buying nukes and juggling vials of smallpox, and if Somalia does in fact have religious and tribal infighting by warlords and heavilly armed security guards, then why are your hypothetical not happening there? Is it just a matter of time?

LOL

Think hard about why that might be. I'll give you a hint: it has to do with the regulation of nukes by the rest of the world that isn't retarded.

So, you're saying that if liberland was established somewhere, the rest of the world would stop regulating nukes? And isn't most uranium mined in Africa? Why isn't Somalia making its own nukes from stuff they can easily buy from their neighbors, or possibly dig up from the ground?

[FredericBastiat]

So when I walk from A to B, and it happens to be across land you claim is your own, and you come out yelling and screaming, waving a shotgun around, what am I supposed to do? It seems that you would be threatening me. Why am I supposed to believe it's your land? By what authority is it your land? Maybe I contend it's just land that belongs to nobody.

I can point out a book or two that would answer that quite well if you'd like. The short answer is, if my land gives the appearance of being lived in, the surroundings have been modified from their natural state (human labor applied), or his heavily fenced and labeled with 'no trespass' signs, that should suffice. If it has little to no indication of the above, I'd imagine you could do as you pleased.

By the way, waving a shotgun around may be interpreted as many things, but could be excessive threatening gestures too. You would probably be justified in defending yourself I'd imagine, if it came down to it.

Authority can be presented in many ways. I'd imagine it may not operate in Liberland much differently than in the current society in which we already live. (titles, deeds, local chain-of-custody repository, etc.)

[AyeYo]

When will someone man up and answer my question?