Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Rassah]

Do libertarian countries have a government? isn't there an oxymoron in there somewhere?

Libertarians aren't against government as long as there is consent to be governed.

Fair enough, but in which universe will people agree on enough things for this to be practical?

Current global international businesses that deal with outsourcing, offshoring, and cloud storage and services, where employees and customers are no longer tied to a specific geographic region, a single country's laws and regulations no longer apply, and contracts between businesses, suppliers, and customers have to depend on trust and mutual benefit, are the infancy stage of that universe.

[1714038417]

1714038417

[1714038417]

1714038417

[1714038417]

1714038417

[NghtRppr]

Do libertarian countries have a government? isn't there an oxymoron in there somewhere?

Libertarians aren't against government as long as there is consent to be governed.

Fair enough, but in which universe will people agree on enough things for this to be practical?

I think we all agree not to murder, rape and rob each other. At some point, we don't need to agree on everything. There can exist competing jurisdictions. If you own property, you set the rules on that property. If you go on someone else's property, you follow their rules. If you don't like it, leave their property. However, don't be confused like AyeYo and think that you can set whatever rules you want for other people and force them to leave their own property if they don't like it.

[Rassah]

YOU CAN'T GET NUKES IN OUR CURRENT WORLD BECAUSE ... THEIR DETAILED MANUFACTURING METHODS ARE HEAVILY, HEAVILY CONTROLLED BY THE HALF-HANDFUL OF NATIONS THAT OWN THEM.

Aka, publicly available on the internet.

It DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER that nukes are unregulated in Sealand BECAUSE SEALAND DOESN'T HAVE ANY NUKES BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED REGULATION.

Either a country without regulations will have a major nuke ownership problem, or a country without regulations will still not have nukes due to outside international regulations and citizens of the country itself will not wanting random people owning nukes. So, either the whole nuke thing was a ridiculous straw man, or the whole nuke thing was a non-issue. Which is it?

[AyeYo]

However, don't be confused like AyeYo and think that you can set whatever rules you want for other people and force them to leave their own property if they don't like it.

Exactly.  We can have lots of suggestions (i.e. voluntary laws), but we can have no real rules and we cannot handle externalities.

I can tell you not to juggle small pox vials on my front lawn, but I can do nothing to stop you from juggling them on your front lawn six inches away... even though the net effect to me if you drop one would be the same.

That's why it's unworkable and delusional.

[AyeYo]

YOU CAN'T GET NUKES IN OUR CURRENT WORLD BECAUSE THEY AND THEIR DETAILED MANUFACTURING METHODS ARE HEAVILY, HEAVILY CONTROLLED BY THE HALF-HANDFUL OF NATIONS THAT OWN THEM.

Aka, publicly available on the internet.

That's why every country that wants nukes has nukes.  

Everyone knows how they work in theory, very few have the experience to actually assemble a working one and to make weapons grade uranium.

It DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER that nukes are unregulated in Sealand BECAUSE SEALAND DOESN'T HAVE ANY NUKES BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED REGULATION.

Either a country without regulations will have a major nuke ownership problem, or a country without regulations will still not have nukes due to outside international regulations and citizens of the country itself will not wanting random people owning nukes. So, either the whole nuke thing was a ridiculous straw man, or the whole nuke thing was a non-issue. Which is it?

God fucking damnit I can't handle the stupid.  Can someone else field this one?

[Rassah]

However, don't be confused like AyeYo and think that you can set whatever rules you want for other people and force them to leave their own property if they don't like it.

Exactly.  We can have lots of suggestions (i.e. voluntary laws), but we can have no real rules and we cannot handle externalities.

I can tell you not to juggle small pox vials on my front lawn, but I can do nothing to stop you from juggling them on your front lawn six inches away... even though the net effect to me if you drop one would be the same.

That's why it's unworkable and delusional.

Glad you let me know that in the country where you live, I can juggle stuff like nitroglycerin or other dangerous explosives or materials six inches away from you, and you can't do anything about it. I'll make sure to stay far away from where you live.

[AyeYo]

However, don't be confused like AyeYo and think that you can set whatever rules you want for other people and force them to leave their own property if they don't like it.

Exactly.  We can have lots of suggestions (i.e. voluntary laws), but we can have no real rules and we cannot handle externalities.

I can tell you not to juggle small pox vials on my front lawn, but I can do nothing to stop you from juggling them on your front lawn six inches away... even though the net effect to me if you drop one would be the same.

That's why it's unworkable and delusional.

Glad you let me know that in the country where you live, I can juggle stuff like nitroglycerin or other dangerous explosives or materials six inches away from you, and you can't do anything about it. I'll make sure to stay far away from where you live.

What the hell are you talking about?

[Hunterbunter]

Argument going on here is government with legal regulation versus libertarian free-market anarchy with voluntary community-imposed regulation. I think you and I are in agreement that government regulation will not stop all instances of "bad," and libertarian organizations (companies, communities) would not sell nukes to random people or use them for same reasons that corrupt unregulated dictators won't.

I see, thanks for clearing that up. Yeah I agree that any police force will never prevent all crime (can happen before they know about it, etc), and neither can a government prevent people outwitting any regulation. That will certainly apply in libertarian societies too. Out of curiosity, do you have a better way to defend against that in a libertarian society? Or will be based on punishment (eg exclusion from the group)?

I don't quite understand how the modern system isn't already the exact natural progression of things from what you describe, though. Governments, regulation, police, armies, all catapulted in size based on transport options and arms races. How do you plan to fundamentally change human psychology to not have the same inevitable outcome?

[Hunterbunter]

Do libertarian countries have a government? isn't there an oxymoron in there somewhere?

Libertarians aren't against government as long as there is consent to be governed.

Fair enough, but in which universe will people agree on enough things for this to be practical?

I think we all agree not to murder, rape and rob each other. At some point, we don't need to agree on everything. There can exist competing jurisdictions. If you own property, you set the rules on that property. If you go on someone else's property, you follow their rules. If you don't like it, leave their property. However, don't be confused like AyeYo and think that you can set whatever rules you want for other people and force them to leave their own property if they don't like it.

Sadly, we don't agree not to do those things. That's why laws were written down and are enforced. There is no difference in what you describe as what is the real world today.

It sounds to me like Libertarianism is nothing but a cry of "I don't like what the current leaders are doing, and I want them to do something else". That's fair enough, I suppose...but this whole voluntary thing will absolutely lead back to where we are today, unless you change human biology.

[Rassah]

YOU CAN'T GET NUKES IN OUR CURRENT WORLD BECAUSE THEY AND THEIR DETAILED MANUFACTURING METHODS ARE HEAVILY, HEAVILY CONTROLLED BY THE HALF-HANDFUL OF NATIONS THAT OWN THEM.

Aka, publicly available on the internet.

That's why every country that wants nukes has nukes.  

Everyone knows how they work in theory, very few have the experience to actually assemble a working one and to make weapons grade uranium.

So, wait, now the reason everyone doesn't have nukes is because it is ridiculously difficult and expensive to manufacture one? I thought the only reason was regulation, and without it anyone would be able to make and sell one?
I'm seriously confused about your claims here. First you say a country without regulations will end up with everyone having nukes. Then you say international regulations will keep even countries without regulations from obtaining them. Then you say that that international regulation is the only thing keeping random people from getting nukes. Now you're saying that getting a nuke requires very specialized and rare knowledge and skills.
It's like every time you come to an impase, you move the limits back a bit. Can you please be consistent?

P.S. if my questions seem really stupid, it may be because I am at times trying to play devil's advocate and am asking you obvious and stupid questions which end up leading you to rather obvious and contradictory answers. See paragraph above.

[NghtRppr]

Sadly, we don't agree not to do those things.

Even murderers don't want to be murdered. Even thiefs don't want to be robbed. We almost all agree on the rules. Not everyone follows them though.

That's fair enough, I suppose...but this whole voluntary thing will absolutely lead back to where we are today, unless you change human biology.

The key difference is that it will be voluntary.

[Rassah]

I don't quite understand how the modern system isn't already the exact natural progression of things from what you describe, though.

Sorry, I don't either. I see a lot of regulation as a result of things that eventually broke and that people believed needed to be fixed, not just random ideas people with hunger for power pulled out of their rear.
Perhaps the diference is the fundamental philosophy on which the laws and society are built? Such as "everyone is forced to do what the majority believed everyone should do" v.s. "I won't screw with you, and likewise won't rely on you helping me?"
I am not against the idea of a libertarian nation forming as an experiment in self-governance, but not sure if i would be able to live there.

[AyeYo]

It sounds to me like Libertarianism is nothing but a cry of "I don't like what the current leaders are doing, and I want them to do something else". That's fair enough, I suppose...but this whole voluntary thing will absolutely lead back to where we are today, unless you change human biology.

Don't give credit where no credit is due.  As we just exposed a few pages back, the "voluntary" thing is absolutely NOT voluntary.  People that disagree with the "voluntary" rules and "voluntary" system will be forced by violence to comply with it.  So it's "voluntary" only if you agree with it - thus not at all voluntary.

[NghtRppr]

It sounds to me like Libertarianism is nothing but a cry of "I don't like what the current leaders are doing, and I want them to do something else". That's fair enough, I suppose...but this whole voluntary thing will absolutely lead back to where we are today, unless you change human biology.

Don't give credit where no credit is due.  As we just exposed a few pages back, the "voluntary" thing is absolutely NOT voluntary.  People that disagree with the "voluntary" rules and "voluntary" system will be forced by violence to comply with it.  So it's "voluntary" only if you agree with it - thus not at all voluntary.

Yes, it's not voluntary only in the sense that you will be forced not to murder, rape or rob people. Boo-fucking-hoo.

[Rassah]

It sounds to me like Libertarianism is nothing but a cry of "I don't like what the current leaders are doing, and I want them to do something else". That's fair enough, I suppose...but this whole voluntary thing will absolutely lead back to where we are today, unless you change human biology.

Don't give credit where no credit is due.  As we just exposed a few pages back, the "voluntary" thing is absolutely NOT voluntary.  People that disagree with the "voluntary" rules and "voluntary" system will be forced by violence to comply with it.  So it's "voluntary" only if you agree with it - thus not at all voluntary.

You forgot the part about where those people will also voluntarily and legally be able to resist that violence with their own violence. Actually, scratch that. You're the ones who keep bringing that up. Annoying that no one bothers to consider that violence isn't the only way to enforce voluntary "agreed upon" laws.

[Hunterbunter]

It sounds to me like Libertarianism is nothing but a cry of "I don't like what the current leaders are doing, and I want them to do something else". That's fair enough, I suppose...but this whole voluntary thing will absolutely lead back to where we are today, unless you change human biology.

Don't give credit where no credit is due.  As we just exposed a few pages back, the "voluntary" thing is absolutely NOT voluntary.  People that disagree with the "voluntary" rules and "voluntary" system will be forced by violence to comply with it.  So it's "voluntary" only if you agree with it - thus not at all voluntary.

Aye I meant it's fair enough that they're not happy with what our leaders are doing. I'm not happy either. Yes, a voluntary system will be eaten alive by a non-voluntary system...which is why we mostly see non-voluntary systems the entire Earth over.

I don't quite understand how the modern system isn't already the exact natural progression of things from what you describe, though.

Sorry, I don't either. I see a lot of regulation as a result of things that eventually broke and that people believed needed to be fixed, not just random ideas people with hunger for power pulled out of their rear.
Perhaps the diference is the fundamental philosophy on which the laws and society are built? Such as "everyone is forced to do what the majority believed everyone should do" v.s. "I won't screw with you, and likewise won't rely on you helping me?"
I am not against the idea of a libertarian nation forming as an experiment in self-governance, but not sure if i would be able to live there.

So wouldn't a more appropriate term for such an ideal be self-absorption?

[Rassah]

Either a country without regulations will have a major nuke ownership problem, or a country without regulations will still not have nukes due to outside international regulations and citizens of the country itself will not wanting random people owning nukes. So, either the whole nuke thing was a ridiculous straw man, or the whole nuke thing was a non-issue. Which is it?

So by that definition a libertarian country will have a major nuke ownership problem...assuming a group can make it themselves within the country? How would a libertarian group disarm with them non-violently? Or are they not a threat?

As you said when you came in, where we are now is the natural result of how people want things to be. I believe thatin a libertarian society people feel the same about nukes as they do now, and voluntarily will not want to have nukes around. The reasons range from nukes being dangerous and difficult to control, to them being a major waste of money with plenty of cheaper and safer alternatives readilly available. Even powerful governments are abandoning nukes and massive armies for strategic mobile units that can move in quick and strike small specific targets. Future isn't nukes, it's drones.

[Hunterbunter]

As you said when you came in, where we are now is the natural result of how people want things to be. I believe thatin a libertarian society people feel the same about nukes as they do now, and voluntarily will not want to have nukes around. The reasons range from nukes being dangerous and difficult to control, to them being a major waste of money with plenty of cheaper and safer alternatives readilly available. Even powerful governments are abandoning nukes and massive armies for strategic mobile units that can move in quick and strike small specific targets. Future isn't nukes, it's drones.

Alright, I can appreciate that. How do you protect yourselves against other hostile groups that want your land for themselves, and have nukes, though?

This isn't really about nukes, come to think of it...it's about another group having more physical power than you. If all you had were knives, what if other groups had guns, and were threatening you? Some people might say yes lets have guns too, others say no even then, we shouldn't...what does the group do? Or do just the individuals that feel threatened get the guns?

[Rassah]

So wouldn't a more appropriate term for such an ideal be self-absorption?

I like to think of it as a possible dynamic economic idea based on people's most primal drivers that would be fun to watch from the outside. I don't really associate good or bad connotations to it.

[Hunterbunter]

So wouldn't a more appropriate term for such an ideal be self-absorption?

I like to think of it as a possible dynamic economic idea based on people's most primal drivers that would be fun to watch from the outside. I don't really associate good or bad connotations to it.

lol...I think I would enjoy watching it too, but I'm probably a little psychopathic. Are you a proponent of libertarianism yourself? I assumed you were on your comments, but I should probably ask.