Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FirstAscent]

Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.

This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

Sorry, but my private notary firm shows the land to be mine. My security force backs me up on it.

[Rassah]

I'm assuming that perhaps you paid for the land and have some type of deed. Who acknowledges the deed's legitimacy?

A private notary, who relies upon his reputation in order to get business.

Are you implying that a state is necessary in order to validate contracts?

Why must I acknowledge the validity of this private notary?

Because private courts and private security forces with guns likely will.

What gives them the right to harass me, threaten me, kidnap me, or kill me?

The fact that the rest of society will consider you a douche for willfully infringing on someone else's property, and will support the desicions of that court and security company.

[Hawker]

Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.

This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

Again, how?  He will have nukes.  If someone disagrees with him about something, his best move is to nuke them before they realise he is angry.

[AyeYo]

I'm assuming that perhaps you paid for the land and have some type of deed. Who acknowledges the deed's legitimacy?

A private notary, who relies upon his reputation in order to get business.

Are you implying that a state is necessary in order to validate contracts?

Why must I acknowledge the validity of this private notary?

Because private courts and private security forces with guns likely will.A

What gives them the right to harass me, threaten me, kidnap me, or kill me?

The fact that the rest of society will consider you a douche for willfully infringing on someone else's property, and will support the desicions of that court and security company.

Omg! Are you saying that what's right is a majority rules popularity contest?!?!

[FirstAscent]

I'm assuming that perhaps you paid for the land and have some type of deed. Who acknowledges the deed's legitimacy?

A private notary, who relies upon his reputation in order to get business.

Are you implying that a state is necessary in order to validate contracts?

Why must I acknowledge the validity of this private notary?

Because private courts and private security forces with guns likely will.

What gives them the right to harass me, threaten me, kidnap me, or kill me?

The fact that the rest of society will consider you a douche for willfully infringing on someone else's property, and will support the desicions of that court and security company.

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

[Rassah]

Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.

This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

Because then our interactions are not voluntary. The man with the biggest gun will make the rules.

Where does that man get the funds to buy a bigger gun?

[AyeYo]

Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.

This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

Because then our interactions are not voluntary. The man with the biggest gun will make the rules.

Where does that man get the funds to buy a bigger gun?

It doesn't matter, what matters is that the man with the biggest gun WILL make the rules.

[Rassah]

Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.

This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

Sorry, but my private notary firm shows the land to be mine. My security force backs me up on it.

Then this is a matter between your notaries and security forces. One of those notaries screwed up, and should not be done business with any more. Likely, whoever sold you that land either scammed you or was negligent in keeping track of their land. The company you hired to check the correct ownership of the land you were purchasing likely screwed up as well. You can take them all to court, and at least one of them has insurance to cover such mistakes. This is already how these things are handled in current governments. The only part the government really plays in land ownership transfer is providing a metal filing cabinet to store documents in.

[Hawker]

Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.

This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

Sorry, but my private notary firm shows the land to be mine. My security force backs me up on it.

Then this is a matter between your notaries and security forces. One of those notaries screwed up, and should not be done business with any more. Likely, whoever sold you that land either scammed you or was negligent in keeping track of their land. The company you hired to check the correct ownership of the land you were purchasing likely screwed up as well. You can take them all to court, and at least one of them has insurance to cover such mistakes. This is already how these things are handled in current governments. The only part the government really plays in land ownership transfer is providing a metal filing cabinet to store documents in.

Again you are avoiding the fact that in your system there is no enforcement and everyone has nukes.  The "security forces" will be in fallout shelters at the first sign of trouble or else vaporised.

[AyeYo]

Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.

This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

Sorry, but my private notary firm shows the land to be mine. My security force backs me up on it.

Then this is a matter between your notaries and security forces. One of those notaries screwed up, and should not be done business with any more. Likely, whoever sold you that land either scammed you or was negligent in keeping track of their land. The company you hired to check the correct ownership of the land you were purchasing likely screwed up as well. You can take them all to court, and at least one of them has insurance to cover such mistakes. This is alreadOooy how these things are handled in current governments. The only part the government really plays in land ownership transfer is providing a metal filing cabinet to store documents in.

No. It provides a central database and only ONE land registry so there are no conflicts and fraudulent claims.

[BitterTea]

No. It provides a central database and only ONE land registry so there are no conflicts and fraudulent claims.

Did you forget where you're posting? Bitcoin is a distributed transaction database/notary.

LOL

It doesn't matter, what matters is that the man with the biggest gun WILL make the rules.

Yes, in the end, might makes rules, but that doesn't mean it's right. Nor does it mean that people will follow the rules.

Against my better judgement, I let you pull me into this meaningless debate. If you want to interpret my refusal to continue participation as a victory for you, feel free enjoy it. Otherwise, I'll just leave you all with this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDVNL0VyaEI

[AyeYo]

Distributed doesn't mean multiple conflicting databases. There's only one database, it's simply distributed. That's in no way like having limitless land registries.

[Rassah]

Omg! Are you saying that what's right is a majority rules popularity contest?!?!

Yes, I am saying that in liberland, what's right is a satisfying a majority of customers to get their dollars contest.

[AyeYo]

Omg! Are you saying that what's right is a majority rules popularity contest?!?!

Yes, I am saying that in liberland, what's right is a satisfying a majority of customers to get their dollars contest.

But liber land hadn't won nearly enough proverbial dollars to actually get implemented. So obviously it's not better than the current system.

[Rassah]

Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.

This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

Again, how?  He will have nukes.  If someone disagrees with him about something, his best move is to nuke them before they realise he is angry.

What company in their right mind would sell him, just a random stranger, nukes, at the expense of liability to millions of people, or risk of having their own facilities blown up? And why would he spend hundrens of millions on a nuke for the purpose of just hiking wherever he wants? Why not just spend those millions to buy the land to hike on outright?

[FredericBastiat]

Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.

This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

If you use a little introspection for a moment, you'd realize that all 'owned' things are privately held. There really is no public and private, that would be IMO, misdirection. The 'real' question is how you arrived at ownership (by what means).

The state (a collective of individuals) uses taxation and eminent domain to acquire their lands. This uses the initiation of force. Most people don't have the wherewithal, the defensive capabilities (either physical or legal), or the willingness to sacrifice their lives, in order to retain what was originally theirs. This initiation of force is not justified, but most will just give up ownership in exchange for their life.

In a free society, ownership of property still exists, it is recognized in a number of ways, but there is no justification for taking another man's property thru the initiation of violence.

Wow, I feel like I'm teaching kindergarten thru 4th grade! Repeat, repeat, "Please pay attention Jonny", repeat, repeat, "Hey Jonny, please keep your hands to yourself", repeat, repeat... Ad nauseum

I'm really beginning to wonder if you're trolling, or if there's more than a thousand ways to say the same thing, and still not get it across.

[Rassah]

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

Do half the people disagree with a government court where you live???  

[FirstAscent]

Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.

This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

Again, how?  He will have nukes.  If someone disagrees with him about something, his best move is to nuke them before they realise he is angry.

What company in their right mind would sell him, just a random stranger, nukes, at the expense of liability to millions of people, or risk of having their own facilities blown up? And why would he spend hundrens of millions on a nuke for the purpose of just hiking wherever he wants? Why not just spend those millions to buy the land to hike on outright?

Who exactly does the company sell to? Security firms? Or maybe the company owner decides that he wants to be the top dog? What now?

[AyeYo]

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

Do half the people disagree with a government court where you live???  

Yes, but they are forced to follow the decisions and can't just run off to a competing court for a favorable decision, so it's not an issue.

[FirstAscent]

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

Do half the people disagree with a government court where you live???  

You're forgetting that there are no laws in your liberland, and everyone has their own idea what the laws should be, and they all use courts which favor their view, and in general, there's lots of courts.