Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Rassah]

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?

*shrug* You either don't, back down, go into hiding, and fight a guerilla war, or you get everyone who believes they may be threatened by those hostile groups with nukes together, and you all together raise money to pay for an army to protect yourselves from that group? Same deal, really, except you'll be paying the army directly instead of the money coming from taxation. Of course, people who live on the border with the hostile group will be screwed, since they will likely be the only ones paying for the army, while the people further away will think it's not their problem.
Other option may be to, instead of wage a full-on war, hire an assassination group against the leaders or owners of those nukes. Cheaper and more precise, though may fail more spectacularly. Again, similar to current government setup, with only differentce being direct payment.

[1713290296]

1713290296

[1713290296]

1713290296

[1713290296]

1713290296

[Hunterbunter]

oh now there's a thought.

I suppose you could consider the new world voluntarily if you "Voluntarily agree to have your brain physically rewired to make you non-aggressive", such that you could join the non-aggression society and naturally agree on most things anyway (similar brains minus the irrational  part?).

That doesn't help you if another country decides what's yours is theirs, though...but that's your right to choose I guess.

[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?

*shrug* You either don't, back down, go into hiding, and fight a guerilla war, or you get everyone who believes they may be threatened by those hostile groups with nukes together, and you all together raise money to pay for an army to protect yourselves from that group? Same deal, really, except you'll be paying the army directly instead of the money coming from taxation. Of course, people who live on the border with the hostile group will be screwed, since they will likely be the only ones paying for the army, while the people further away will think it's not their problem.
Other option may be to, instead of wage a full-on war, hire an assassination group against the leaders or owners of those nukes. Cheaper and more precise, though may fail more spectacularly. Again, similar to current government setup, with only differentce being direct payment.

Would this all be necessary if the current world governments stopped doing major things you didn't agree with? Or would you still encourage this on principle?

Armies usually require training - militia aren't really much good against a standing army. Why would the army exist when you need it? Although if enough people wanted to join the army reserve (national guard in the US?), I suppose they could suffice for a while.

[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.

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.

I believe it has a lot of interesting, and possibly valid ideas, and while I was on SecondLife (before the admins cracked down on free markets by banning all in-world banks and financial services) had a lot of fun watching and participating in it, but there are still a whole lot of issues within that system that I don't know the answers to, and that I don't yet understand myself, and thus can't support the system, not can be sure it will succeed (or fail). In short, I find it interesting and like it, but can't fully support it.
In this discussion I was just trying to ask questions of the people who are against it to see if they can reason out the answers to the issues they were bringing up themselves. Some of their points were somewhat blatantly obviously answerable, and I wanted them to figure out the answers. I believe that if you tell someone the answer, they will be skeptical, but if they come up with the answer themselves, they will trust it. For the most part, I believe that you can't argue against something you don't even understand, and was hoping to get them to at least understand their own points before bringing actual valid concerns about them. It got rather immature rather quick though.

[Rassah]

Would this all be necessary if the current world governments stopped doing major things you didn't agree with? Or would you still encourage this on principle?

Not sure what you're asking...

Armies usually require training - militia aren't really much good against a standing army. Why would the army exist when you need it? Although if enough people wanted to join the army reserve (national guard in the US?), I suppose they could suffice for a while.

True. Thus as mentioned, it would be more efficient to maintain small strike teams and weaponised robots. I think armies are a waste of money, though people and militias still train on their own "for fun."
Actually, forgot, there is another factor as a defence against warring invaders. I mentioned earlier in this discussion that just a few years ago, hostilities between India and Pakistan rose to the point where they were pretty much ready to go to all out war. However, since in the last decade India became the word's tech support and outsourcing district, India as a whole couldn't just take a few days off to go to war. As a result, the business community slapped the government and army down HARD, and basically forced them to avoid war. Hopefully as things progress this way globaly, invading hordes will all start to agree that it's cheaper and more profitable to trade with people and get their finished products and knowledge than just go in and take their raw resources.

[Hunterbunter]

Would this all be necessary if the current world governments stopped doing major things you didn't agree with? Or would you still encourage this on principle?

Not sure what you're asking...

Ah, well I was asking whether libertarianism would still be "the way forward" if the current governments behaved differently (as in, still coercive, but no more Iraq, no more bailouts, etc), to those who supported it...related to my prior comment about it sounding a bit like a tantrum.

True. Thus as mentioned, it would be more efficient to maintain small strike teams and weaponised robots. I think armies are a waste of money, though people and militias still train on their own "for fun."

The people would still need to be doing this full time...who would pay for their living while they kept up to scratch?

As for business stopping war...I remember Asimov used that in one of the parts of his Foundation book...control by trade...certainly possible (and as you say has happened). Advanced Tech is a tough one, though, considering necessity (assuming there were resources left over after all the feeding, security etc - why it helps having larger population vs small).

[FirstAscent]

I wholeheartedly encourage certain individuals here to publish their ideas in a respectable peer reviewed political science journal.

[NghtRppr]

I wholeheartedly encourage certain individuals here to publish their ideas in a respectable peer reviewed political science journal.

If you're looking for something to read start with Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block and Stephan Kinsella, in that order.

[FredericBastiat]

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.

+1!

AyeYo knows this, he's just trying to goad you. His last 100 rants have demonstrated that enough. They're trollish and nonsensical. I can explain it to my 16 year old, and he can get to the answer faster than AyeYo can, and I don't even have to finish my sentences. Common sense isn't so common after all.

[NghtRppr]

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.

+1!

AyeYo knows this, he's just trying to goad you. His last 100 rants have demonstrated that enough. They're trollish and nonsensical. I can explain it to my 16 year old, and he can get to the answer faster than AyeYo can, and I don't even have to finish my sentences. Common sense isn't so common after all.

The difference between me and AyeYo is that when I was finally shown to be wrong, I admitted it and became a libertarian.

[Rassah]

I can explain it to my 16 year old, and he can get to the answer faster than AyeYo can, and I don't even have to finish my sentences. Common sense isn't so common after all.

Ack! No, no no. It's "common sense is just common, not sensible." What AyeYo was saying is the generally understood common sense. It just didn't make any.

[Rassah]

Ah, well I was asking whether libertarianism would still be "the way forward" if the current governments behaved differently (as in, still coercive, but no more Iraq, no more bailouts, etc), to those who supported it...related to my prior comment about it sounding a bit like a tantrum.

For some people, I would suspect very much so. I must admit the idea of living in a country/world like that sounds very exciting, and makes me think of the romanticised versions of such places, such as the outer worlds of the Firefly TV show, or the fairly exciting world that SecindLife used to be, where if you have the drive and the time, you can learn fun trade and skills, travel around the world, compete with others, fight off and outsmart trolls and pirates, make lots of money, be defeated temporarily by a bout of bad luck, and come roaring back on your own wits and determination. Granted if I was living in that world and was stuck with some disease in some crappy location with no food, money, or any job prospects, it would all stop being fun very quickly.

True. Thus as mentioned, it would be more efficient to maintain small strike teams and weaponised robots. I think armies are a waste of money, though people and militias still train on their own "for fun."

The people would still need to be doing this full time...who would pay for their living while they kept up to scratch?

That's the part I have no answers to. Perhaps there will be enough of a market for these services that a few people, or small groups of people, will be able to suport themselves and their own training? There are already private security forces used by malls and corporations, almost CIA skill level corporate espionage groups, and now even assassin services available today for Bitcoin I imagine in a more volative world these skills will become more valuable.

[FredericBastiat]

I can explain it to my 16 year old, and he can get to the answer faster than AyeYo can, and I don't even have to finish my sentences. Common sense isn't so common after all.

Ack! No, no no. It's "common sense is just common, not sensible." What AyeYo was saying is the generally understood common sense. It just didn't make any.

I meant common in the prevalent, prevailing and pervasive sort of common, but whatever I guess. I think if the majority of people are violent, you will eventually get what you have now. It is difficult to promote a more just form of governance when the one in which you live has lulled you into believing violence first, ask questions later, is the only way to go or the only one you've experienced. Displaced and delegated violence is very subtle and difficult to unravel, but when you point it out, you have a tendency of "seeing a lot of red" everywhere and often. The NAP opened my eyes. Sad to say I was once apathetic and ignorant too.

Additionally, extreme edge cases don't help, and we don't have many Libertarian examples to go by to prove them out (other than the NAP axiom, and derivative logic), so were kind of the underdogs at the moment. I'd still be willing to give it a try though. I have faith in humanity. If I didn't, I'd probably be finding the biggest gun, just in case it's every man for himself, but I'm not giving up just yet.

[Rassah]

One other point of total weirdness I remembered on the way home that libertyville may have issues with: one totally obnoxious form of trolling in SecondLife was for people to put up ugly or offensive billboards on their own property, which were very visible to the neighbors and passers-by. Stuff like very pornographic photos, aborted fetuses, mutilations, etc. At least in SL you can file a complaint and have the item, as well as the troll, removed. In libertyville, trolling will likely evolve onto a whole new and unpredictable level (though likely also much more physically harmful for the trolls).

[NghtRppr]

One other point of total weirdness I remembered on the way home that libertyville may have issues with: one totally obnoxious form of trolling in SecondLife was for people to put up ugly or offensive billboards on their own property, which were very visible to the neighbors and passers-by. Stuff like very pornographic photos, aborted fetuses, mutilations, etc. At least in SL you can file a complaint and have the item, as well as the troll, removed. In libertyville, trolling will likely evolve onto a whole new and unpredictable level (though likely also much more physically harmful for the trolls).

When I moved into my neighborhood I had to join the local homeowner's association. I voluntarily agreed not to have a different color door or mailbox. I'm pretty sure people will also agree to not post goatse billboards on their property. Likewise there will be freak communities where that sort of thing is welcome. People have no problem associating with those they want to. There will still be rules but they will be set by the property owner and in the case of businesses by their target markets. Smoking will be allowed in bars and bowling alleys but not tofu and grass smoothie restaurants.

[Rassah]

When I moved into my neighborhood I had to join the local homeowner's association. I voluntarily agreed not to have a different color door or mailbox. I'm pretty sure people will also agree to not post goatse billboards on their property. Likewise there will be freak communities where that sort of thing is welcome.

Ah, fair enough (though I flickin HATE those associations with a passion)

[MoonShadow]

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.

+1!

AyeYo knows this, he's just trying to goad you. His last 100 rants have demonstrated that enough. They're trollish and nonsensical. I can explain it to my 16 year old, and he can get to the answer faster than AyeYo can, and I don't even have to finish my sentences. Common sense isn't so common after all.

I tried to warn you all, and yet I can see that many of you still got sucked in.

[Hawker]

We seem to have gotten bogged down in the practicalities of how to buy a nuke.

I think that reveals we all do share at least basic agreement.  It would be a very bad thing if people like Osama bin Ladin or Jared Laughner had access to nukes.

Is there anyone on this forum that disagrees with that?

[fergalish]

Hey Moonshadow, I'm glad you're back.  I wonder do you have the time to answer this question?

@Moonshadow: I'm still waiting for your non-arbitrary definition of "acceptable weaponry", and if it's not a simple static list then please outline the valid circumstances for a few representative weapons.  If it's truly non-arbitrary, then I'm sure myself, FirstAscent, Ayeyo, Hawker *and* bitcoin2cash, Rassah, FredericBastiat will all instantly realise that the definition cannot logically be otherwise - or at least, we will after some (finite) debate.

[fergalish]

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.

+1!

AyeYo knows this, he's just trying to goad you. His last 100 rants have demonstrated that enough. They're trollish and nonsensical. I can explain it to my 16 year old, and he can get to the answer faster than AyeYo can, and I don't even have to finish my sentences. Common sense isn't so common after all.

I tried to warn you all, and yet I can see that many of you still got sucked in.

Here are the problems:

1. NONE of you (pro-libertarianists) have yet explained how to resolve a conflict which is not somehow addressed by a contract, and therefore for which no court of arbitration is specified.
2. NONE of you seem to see that, under the same circumstances of (1), it is contradictory to allow arbitrary behaviour, NAP notwithstanding.  One person's right will infringe another's.
3. Libertarianism has failed in the past and will fail again because other nations will exploit its vulnerabilities.  Now this has no bearing on whether lib. is admirable or not, just whether it's practical or not.
4. Libertarianism enshrines money and wealth as the ultimate source of power.  Power begets wealth, weath begets power.  All the things you don't like about government will be the same, if not worse, in libertyland; and there would be no public accountability.
5. Libertarianism requires cooperation from everyone everywhere and, by definition, cannot demand that cooperation without hypocrisy.  Again, no bearing on whether it's admirable or not, just its practicality.