Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Rassah]

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.

I have a nuke detection device. If there is a nuke within 5 miles of me, it will warn me and let me know which direction it is in. If you have a nuke and come anywhere near me, I let everyone in the area know about it, and we all go kick your ass.
Childish bs works both ways.

[1713496763]

1713496763

[1713496763]

1713496763

[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.

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?

Why are you repeating yourself? I've already answered this. Nobody will live in a city where some guy's dad has a nuclear bomb that can be stolen like keys to the car. Would you?

[NghtRppr]

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.

Your friends will either be just as dishonest as you or they'll quit being your friends after you screw them over. Also, how are you going to keep making money when nobody trusts you and will do business with you? You won't.

[Hawker]

Why are you repeating yourself? I've already answered this. Nobody will live in a city where some guy's dad has a nuclear bomb that can be stolen like keys to the car. Would you?

So in your scenario, the people of Tuscon would have to up sticks and leave?  Since there would be no way to actually stop someone having a nuke would there?

[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.

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.

You spend 22 hours a day on this site bitching and crying that society forces you with aggression to follow it's beliefs, and that it's immoral and unjust... but then you turn around and say it's perfectly ok for you to use aggression to ram your beliefs down other peoples' throats, and that's called justice.

That's the very defintion of a hypocrite.

[Rassah]

 They believe that nukes should be available to all and that its a restriction of basic human rights that they are restricted.  

Btw, did you know that 747s, and many jetfighters, are also available to all? How many do you or your neighbors own?

[NghtRppr]

Why are you repeating yourself? I've already answered this. Nobody will live in a city where some guy's dad has a nuclear bomb that can be stolen like keys to the car. Would you?

So in your scenario, the people of Tuscon would have to up sticks and leave?  Since there would be no way to actually stop someone having a nuke would there?

No, the people in Tuscon wouldn't move there in the first place if that were a possibility. The only way large cities will form is if the land is already set aside and has rules in place for it. The large land owners and developers will make sure that is the case. It's like the previous issue of "what if the guy that owns the road in front of my house wants a million dollars to use it". That would never happen because people wouldn't be inclined to live there in the first place.

[AyeYo]

Why are you repeating yourself? I've already answered this. Nobody will live in a city where some guy's dad has a nuclear bomb that can be stolen like keys to the car. Would you?

That would first require that everyone in the city knew exactly what everyone else in the city possessed, as well as how securely they stored it.

That would be accomplished how, exactly?

[AyeYo]

Why are you repeating yourself? I've already answered this. Nobody will live in a city where some guy's dad has a nuclear bomb that can be stolen like keys to the car. Would you?

So in your scenario, the people of Tuscon would have to up sticks and leave?  Since there would be no way to actually stop someone having a nuke would there?

No, the people in Tuscon wouldn't move there in the first place if that were a possibility. The only way large cities will form is if the land is already set aside and has rules in place for it. The large land owners and developers will make sure that is the case. It's like the previous issue of "what if the guy that owns the road in front of my house wants a million dollars to use it". That would never happen because people wouldn't be inclined to live there in the first place.

But people already live there.  Cities are already formed.

[Hawker]

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.

Your friends will either be just as dishonest as you or they'll quit being your friends after you screw them over. Also, how are you going to keep making money when nobody trusts you and will do business with you? You won't.

Or they will simply disagree with you.  That is possible too you know.  Just because you think all laws should work your way doesn't mean that my court is wrong to say it has laws that work my way.  There is no standard for divorce or inheritance law in your world so don't accuse me of dishonesty.

[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.

You spend 22 hours a day on this site bitching and crying that society forces you with aggression to follow it's beliefs, and that it's immoral and unjustice... but then you turn around and say it's perfectly ok for you to use aggression to ram your beliefs down other peoples' throats, and that's called justice.

That's the very defintion of a hypocrite.

No it's not. You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm against involuntary actions. Saying you don't care if I use aggression on you makes it voluntary. Therefore I'm free to use aggression on you. Don't like it? Then perhaps you should rethink rejecting the NAP. A hypocrite is someone that says "I reject the NAP, don't force it on me".

[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.

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.

And I and MANY other people will have simply learned their mistake of dealing with you, and will move on, never to deal with you or anyone like you again. How many people still want to use MyBitcoin? How many people are still sticking tens of thousands of dollars into anonymous online wallet services? What government body has set up regulations banning the use of anonymous online Bitcoin wallet services?

[FredericBastiat]

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.

b2c wasn't advocating aggression, just merely stating a fact. It's like saying, here are two objects: one is black, the other is white. You pick black, so the other object must be white. He wasn't stating whether or not black or white was good or bad, only what the other choice was.

Likewise if I say it is not appropriate to aggress, and you say that you disagree, then are you not at least implying that aggressing is okay?

[Hawker]

Why are you repeating yourself? I've already answered this. Nobody will live in a city where some guy's dad has a nuclear bomb that can be stolen like keys to the car. Would you?

So in your scenario, the people of Tuscon would have to up sticks and leave?  Since there would be no way to actually stop someone having a nuke would there?

No, the people in Tuscon wouldn't move there in the first place if that were a possibility. The only way large cities will form is if the land is already set aside and has rules in place for it. The large land owners and developers will make sure that is the case. It's like the previous issue of "what if the guy that owns the road in front of my house wants a million dollars to use it". That would never happen because people wouldn't be inclined to live there in the first place.

What are you talking about?  Tuscon isn't a dream city.  Its real.  It exists.  And you would allow the possession of nukes there.  Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

Or is it possible that giving Jared Laughner the right to own a nuke is just a bad idea?

[NghtRppr]

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.

Your friends will either be just as dishonest as you or they'll quit being your friends after you screw them over. Also, how are you going to keep making money when nobody trusts you and will do business with you? You won't.

Or they will simply disagree with you.  That is possible too you know.  Just because you think all laws should work your way doesn't mean that my court is wrong to say it has laws that work my way.  There is no standard for divorce or inheritance law in your world so don't accuse me of dishonesty.

Yet again you avoid the issue. Nobody will own nuclear bombs because nobody will want to live in areas where that's allowed. Nobody will do business with people that don't abide by respectable courts. This are bullshit fantasy issues inflated way beyond any possibly likelihood of occurring. You've got nothing.

[AyeYo]

No it's not. You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm against involuntary actions. Saying you don't care if I use aggression on you makes it voluntary. Therefore I'm free to use aggression on you. Don't like it? Then perhaps you should rethink rejecting the NAP. A hypocrite is someone that says "I reject the NAP, don't force it on me".

I think you've gone off the deep end, because that post made zero sense.  Let me do another requote and maybe you'll get it this time.

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.

You spend 22 hours a day on this site bitching and crying that society forces you with aggression to follow it's beliefs, and that it's immoral and unjust... but then you turn around and say it's perfectly ok for you to use aggression to ram your beliefs down other peoples' throats, and that's called justice.

That's the very defintion of a hypocrite.

If something is immoral and unjust in your opinion, it's immoral and unjust regardless of what other people think of it.  Your belief system is inherently hypocrtical because it's based on non-aggression and only voluntary actions... but it will involuntarily be aggressively forced on me if I don't agree with it. LOLOL

[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.

And I and MANY other people will have simply learned their mistake of dealing with you, and will move on, never to deal with you or anyone like you again. How many people still want to use MyBitcoin? How many people are still sticking tens of thousands of dollars into anonymous online wallet services? What government body has set up regulations banning the use of anonymous online Bitcoin wallet services?

My friends and a lot of people like me disagree with you.  That is possible too you know.  Just because you think all laws should work your way doesn't mean that my court is wrong to say it has laws that work my way.  There is no standard for divorce or inheritance law in your world so don't accuse me of dishonesty.

[Rassah]

Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?

[Hawker]

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.

Your friends will either be just as dishonest as you or they'll quit being your friends after you screw them over. Also, how are you going to keep making money when nobody trusts you and will do business with you? You won't.

Or they will simply disagree with you.  That is possible too you know.  Just because you think all laws should work your way doesn't mean that my court is wrong to say it has laws that work my way.  There is no standard for divorce or inheritance law in your world so don't accuse me of dishonesty.

Yet again you avoid the issue. Nobody will own nuclear bombs because nobody will want to live in areas where that's allowed. Nobody will do business with people that don't abide by respectable courts. This are bullshit fantasy issues inflated way beyond any possibly likelihood of occurring. You've got nothing.

You are the one fantasising about giving people the right to nukes and as you say yourself "nobody will want to live in areas where that's allowed."

So we at least agree that no-one would want to live in your utopia.

[NghtRppr]

What are you talking about?  Tuscon isn't a dream city.  Its real.  It exists.  And you would allow the possession of nukes there.  Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

Or is it possible that giving Jared Laughner the right to own a nuke is just a bad idea?

The conversion of a city from statism to anarchism rather than the formation of a city under anarchism are completely different things.

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.

Your friends will either be just as dishonest as you or they'll quit being your friends after you screw them over. Also, how are you going to keep making money when nobody trusts you and will do business with you? You won't.

Or they will simply disagree with you.  That is possible too you know.  Just because you think all laws should work your way doesn't mean that my court is wrong to say it has laws that work my way.  There is no standard for divorce or inheritance law in your world so don't accuse me of dishonesty.

Yet again you avoid the issue. Nobody will own nuclear bombs because nobody will want to live in areas where that's allowed. Nobody will do business with people that don't abide by respectable courts. This are bullshit fantasy issues inflated way beyond any possibly likelihood of occurring. You've got nothing.

You are the one fantasising about giving people the right to nukes and as you say yourself "nobody will want to live in areas where that's allowed."

So we at least agree that no-one would want to live in your utopia.

We agree that we don't need laws telling people to wear parachutes when they jump out of planes, just like we don't need laws to tell people not to live near other people that want to own nuclear bombs privately. It's a non-issue.