Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

Everything is voluntary, therefore laws are useless. They may exist, but no one can be forced to follow then or be punished for not following them, therefore they are useless and effectively do not exist.

If you are found guilty of stealing my property and refuse to turn it over, you will be forced to do so. It's a shame you don't even understand the system you're criticizing. You'll never convince any libertarians that they are wrong until you can at least make a cogent argument.

If I have my own court, It won't find me guilty.  For example, I you are a woman and I choose a Sharia court, I get a better divorce deal that you. 

And even if I refuse to attend any court, if I have a nuke, how will you force me to turn over any property?

[Hawker]

Any state, individual, or collective, is corrupt if it violates the NAP. Pretty obvious. No need to doll it all up with fancy words like Nation, Society, State, Government, Modernity, Advanced, or Leadership etc.

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

[NghtRppr]

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

[Hawker]

Then, if i am still alive, I go after whoever sold him that nuke, and/or whoever helped him to raise the money to buy it. Why, what would your government do if a nuke was detonated, if its regulations that failed to stop fertilizer bombs and terrorism fail to prevent a nuke too?

What a stupid argument.  Millions die and you say you will sue someone?

BTW, my government would not allow a terrorist access to nukes.  Unlike you.  

Please, tell me that you have something to offer to balance the lives of the millions that die as a result of your deciding to give everyone nukes.  There must be some benefit - or why are you advocating it?

[NghtRppr]

There must be some benefit - or why are you advocating it?

Justice.

[Hawker]

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

I have a nuke.  Unless you want to die, you will leave the country.  Once I find your address, I'll have a nuke in a truck parked a mile from your house and you'll be dead in less than 10 seconds.

I know your estate will sue me but I can nuke them too.  Provided I keep my address secret, I win.

[Hawker]

There must be some benefit - or why are you advocating it?

Justice.

I don't accept your idea of justice.  Nor will people getting nuked or smallpox as a result of your generous distribution of access to nukes and the smallpox virus. 

I think you meant "Justice for you and the sword of death for everyone else - assuming you don't get nuked as well."

That's not a benefit.

[NghtRppr]

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

I have a nuke.  Unless you want to die, you will leave the country.  Once I find your address, I'll have a nuke in a truck parked a mile from your house and you'll be dead in less than 10 seconds.

I know your estate will sue me but I can nuke them too.  Provided I keep my address secret, I win.

Cool story, bro. Got anything else aside from rambling fantasies?

There must be some benefit - or why are you advocating it?

Justice.

I don't accept your idea of justice.  Nor will people getting nuked or smallpox as a result of your generous distribution of access to nukes and the smallpox virus. 

I think you meant "Justice for you and the sword of death for everyone else - assuming you don't get nuked as well."

That's not a benefit.

Everyone gets the same justice as me.

[Hawker]

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

I have a nuke.  Unless you want to die, you will leave the country.  Once I find your address, I'll have a nuke in a truck parked a mile from your house and you'll be dead in less than 10 seconds.

I know your estate will sue me but I can nuke them too.  Provided I keep my address secret, I win.

Cool story, bro. Got anything else aside from rambling fantasies?

There must be some benefit - or why are you advocating it?

Justice.

I don't accept your idea of justice.  Nor will people getting nuked or smallpox as a result of your generous distribution of access to nukes and the smallpox virus.  

I think you meant "Justice for you and the sword of death for everyone else - assuming you don't get nuked as well."

That's not a benefit.

Everyone gets the same justice as me.

"Cool story, bro. Got anything else aside from rambling fantasies?"

You are fantasising about being able to use aggression on someone who has a nuke.  It won't happen.  The guy with a nuke who is willing to strike first will win every time.  so there is no need for courts or private police.  Get a nuke and you win.  

Now please stop avoiding the logic of your position.  Explain how your NAP protects people from bad guys with nukes.  Or else admit what you mean is that there is going to be no justice for anyone.

[NghtRppr]

Explain how your NAP protects people from bad guys with nukes.

I've explained it once before. It's pretty simple. Every landowner in an entire geographical area forms an organization. They all sign a contract that delegates all regulation of nuclear weapons on their respective private properties to said organization. Anyone making, or transporting nuclear weapons in those areas is subject to those voluntary regulations. In other words, the same laws that exist now will exist under libertarianism, the only difference is that people will voluntarily agree to them.

[Hawker]

Explain how your NAP protects people from bad guys with nukes.

I've explained it once before. It's pretty simple. Every landowner in an entire geographical area forms an organization. They all sign a contract that delegates all regulation of nuclear weapons on their respective private properties to said organization. Anyone making, or transporting nuclear weapons in those areas is subject to those voluntary regulations. In other words, the same laws that exist now will exist under libertarianism, the only difference is that people will voluntarily agree to them.

Voluntary.  And if someone disagrees, or has stolen his Dad's nuke or simply has changed his mind, how do you stop them?  For example, if Jared Laughner had a nuke in his car instead of a gun, how would you protect the people in the within 25 miles of his car?

[AyeYo]

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

And if you don't accept the rules, regulations, and taxation of current society, the state is free to use aggression on you too!  But yet you call that extortion!  hahahahahah

Double standards FTMFW.

[fergalish]

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

And there it is, folks.  The ultimate double standard.

Reminds me of a couple of recent wars supposedly aimed at liberating oppressed peoples - bringing them 'democracy' on the point of a gun, and stuffing it down their throats.  And that's just in recent times.

[Rassah]

Then, if i am still alive, I go after whoever sold him that nuke, and/or whoever helped him to raise the money to buy it. Why, what would your government do if a nuke was detonated, if its regulations that failed to stop fertilizer bombs and terrorism fail to prevent a nuke too?

What a stupid argument.  Millions die and you say you will sue someone?

Millions will die and your government will... what? Go to war with a neighboring country that had nothing to do with it?

BTW, my government would not allow a terrorist access to nukes.  Unlike you.  

BTW, neither will any other government where its citizens value their own lives. Even a libertarian one. Yours we have yet to see, but it sure is pissing off enough people to make them want to use nukes.

Please, tell me that you have something to offer to balance the lives of the millions that die as a result of your deciding to give everyone nukes.  There must be some benefit - or why are you advocating it?

Everyone getting nukes is your premise, not mine. Please tell me that you have something to offer to balance the lives of the millions that die as a result of the government increasingly cracking down on everyone it deems a terrorist, then anyone it deems a treat, then anyone in possession of anything it deems a threat, or not following the rules designed to limit threats to everyone else, and eradicate anyone who is a threat.
My scenario is exactly as likely as yours, if taken to ridiculous extremes.

[Hawker]

Everyone getting nukes is your premise, not mine. Please tell me that you have something to offer to balance the lives of the millions that die as a result of the government increasingly cracking down on everyone it deems a terrorist, then anyone it deems a treat, then anyone in possession of anything it deems a threat, or not following the rules designed to limit threats to everyone else, and eradicate anyone who is a threat.
My scenario is exactly as likely as yours, if taken to ridiculous extremes.

Oh - my apologies.

If you are a small state Libertarian, then we are broadly in agreement.  There are things that the State should do and then it should do no more unless people vote for it.

Most of the "libertarians" here do not accept that there is any role for the state or any legal system based on enforcement at all.  They believe that nukes should be available to all and that its a restriction of basic human rights that they are restricted.  

[NghtRppr]

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

And there it is, folks.  The ultimate double standard.

Wrong. It would be a double standard to say "I can use aggression but don't force me not to". If you say I can use aggression on you then why wouldn't I? That's what you're doing by saying you reject the NAP.

Explain how your NAP protects people from bad guys with nukes.

I've explained it once before. It's pretty simple. Every landowner in an entire geographical area forms an organization. They all sign a contract that delegates all regulation of nuclear weapons on their respective private properties to said organization. Anyone making, or transporting nuclear weapons in those areas is subject to those voluntary regulations. In other words, the same laws that exist now will exist under libertarianism, the only difference is that people will voluntarily agree to them.

Voluntary.  And if someone disagrees, or has stolen his Dad's nuke or simply has changed his mind, how do you stop them?  For example, if Jared Laughner had a nuke in his car instead of a gun, how would you protect the people in the within 25 miles of his car?

What are you talking about? The regulations would most likely disallow the private owning of nuclear weapons. It would be reserved for large private security firms with measures in place to prevent that from happening.

[Rassah]

If I have my own court, It won't find me guilty.  For example, I you are a woman and I choose a Sharia court, I get a better divorce deal that you. 

If you have your own court, that's fine. My friends and I will simply refuse to sell you anything, buy anything from you,hire you, or work for you. Feel free to bleed money till you starve.
If the dispute is dire enough, you can chose between a court or a gun.
If i am a woman, and you insist on Shari a court, I'll refuse, and stay with you while making your life miserable. Or steal all your stuff and take it to escrow that will release it after settlement by a court we both agree on.

[Hawker]

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

And there it is, folks.  The ultimate double standard.

Wrong. It would be a double standard to say "I can use aggression but don't force me not to". If you say I can use aggression on you then why wouldn't I? That's what you're doing by saying you reject the NAP.

Explain how your NAP protects people from bad guys with nukes.

I've explained it once before. It's pretty simple. Every landowner in an entire geographical area forms an organization. They all sign a contract that delegates all regulation of nuclear weapons on their respective private properties to said organization. Anyone making, or transporting nuclear weapons in those areas is subject to those voluntary regulations. In other words, the same laws that exist now will exist under libertarianism, the only difference is that people will voluntarily agree to them.

Voluntary.  And if someone disagrees, or has stolen his Dad's nuke or simply has changed his mind, how do you stop them?  For example, if Jared Laughner had a nuke in his car instead of a gun, how would you protect the people in the within 25 miles of his car?

What are you talking about? The regulations would most likely disallow the private owning of nuclear weapons. It would be reserved for large private security firms with measures in place to prevent that from happening.

Voluntary regulations.  And if someone disagrees, or has stolen his Dad's nuke or simply has changed his mind, how do you stop them?  There will still be bad people wont' there?  

For example, if Jared Laughner had a nuke in his car instead of a gun, how would you protect the people in the within 25 miles of his car?

[NghtRppr]

If you have your own court, that's fine. My friends and I will simply refuse to sell you anything, buy anything from you,hire you, or work for you. Feel free to bleed money till you starve.

Exactly. The key thing these people are missing is that if you refuse to abide by a respectable court, nobody will do business with you.

[Hawker]

If I have my own court, It won't find me guilty.  For example, I you are a woman and I choose a Sharia court, I get a better divorce deal that you. 

If you have your own court, that's fine. My friends and I will simply refuse to sell you anything, buy anything from you,hire you, or work for you. Feel free to bleed money till you starve.
If the dispute is dire enough, you can chose between a court or a gun.
If i am a woman, and you insist on Shari a court, I'll refuse, and stay with you while making your life miserable. Or steal all your stuff and take it to escrow that will release it after settlement by a court we both agree on.

Come on.  I have friends too and I could care less about you and your friends.  If I have money, I will never lack for people selling me stuff.