Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

Back on topic, if your neighbor has a history of mental illness or a strong propensity towards violence; it is within the right of the community to collectively choose to restrict that neighbor's

Jared Laughner had no known history of mental illness though the poor man suffering from constant vivid hallucinations if his Youtube video about "conscious dreaming" is anything to go by.

Do you think Jared Laughner should have had access to a nuke?

[1713923421]

1713923421

[1713923421]

1713923421

[FirstAscent]

What you idiots don't realize is that all the corruption you hate in government is due to human nature. Human nature doesn't go away in liber tard land. The corruption will still be there, it will merely be in new, more sinister and less accountable forms.

Even worse, very large populations mixed with extraordinary technology mixed with libertarianism is just a recipe for disaster.

In the 16th century, in the frontier, and a total world population of less than half a billion people, libertarianism is not so unreasonable.

[Rassah]

Let me say it again: Your philosophy is inadequate to discussing this topic and will not be taken seriously.

Taking the time to reply, in a thread about libertarianism, on a forum about a very libertarian currency, kinda suggests you're taking it seriously.

It's not about whether they would or wouldn't. It's the fact that it's too important of an issue to sit back just watch to see if people can behave themselves.

People behaved themselves when first building the things, and they behaved themselves, and continue to behave themselves now. Why do you think they will stop behaving themselves? Is it because the consequences/punishment will be different? Or the rewards?

What you idiots don't realize is that all the corruption you hate in government is due to human nature. Human nature doesn't go away in liber tard land. The corruption will still be there, it will merely be in new, more sinister and less accountable forms.

I don't know about others, but I think the corruption has way more to do with misaligned incentives than with bad human nature. If I work for government security protecting nukes, I'm not the expert, and don't know what to do. That's the government's job to figure out, and I just follow a set of standards drawn up by some guy who hopes he knows everything and covered every angle. My only job is to perform the bare minimum required. If that bare minimum isn't enough to stop a nuke from being stolen, not my problem. I did my job and I followed the rules. Not like I'll get fired. OK, maybe I'll get fired. But after my severance runs out, I'll just get another job.

The most ridiculous thing about this nuke business though is that in libtardland, no one would even need a nuke. Why do dem governments have nukes?

[FirstAscent]

Let me say it again: Your philosophy is inadequate to discussing this topic and will not be taken seriously.

Taking the time to reply, in a thread about libertarianism, on a forum about a very libertarian currency, kinda suggests you're taking it seriously.

The sub forum is entitled "Politics and Society". I did not see anywhere that specified it was discussion of libertarian policies. The thread is currently about nuclear arms, and in large part, the failings of libertarians to provide a method to address their management. The arguments put forth by the libertarians are amusing, and many people spend quite a bit of time each day in engaging in amusing activity.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that my time spent here is because I take the ideas in this thread seriously.

[Rassah]

The thread is currently about nuclear arms, and in large part, the failings of libertarians to provide a method to address their management. The arguments put forth by the libertarians are amusing, and many people spend quite a bit of time each day in engaging in amusing activity.

Wait, self-imposed regulation under threat of retaliation from customers and people with guns being pissed at you is a fail?

Don't delude yourself into thinking that my time spent here is because I take the ideas in this thread seriously.

Oh, never mind. Ignore whatever I said then. I certainly will.

[AyeYo]

Yes. Vigilanty justice and mob rule is indeed fail.

[FirstAscent]

Oh, never mind. Ignore whatever I said then. I certainly will.

You will ignore whatever you say?

Anyway, how long until your ideas are implemented, do you think? What are the roadblocks?

[Rassah]

Oh, never mind. Ignore whatever I said then. I certainly will.

You will ignore whatever you say?

Anyway, how long until your ideas are implemented, do you think? What are the roadblocks?

:|


As i said, already being implemented as we speak. First roadblock being worked on is a more standardised system of international arbitrage law, and reconciling accounting standards between American and European systems.
Yeah, businesses and corps aren't waiting for one world government to form, or have UN declare laws. Yet, somehow, they're managing on...

[FirstAscent]

Yeah, businesses and corps aren't waiting for one world government to form, or have UN declare laws. Yet, somehow, they're managing on...

So you admit the world is basically a libertarian model then? Then you admit that the only time a nuke was ever detonated against others was in a libertarian model.

[Rassah]

Yeah, businesses and corps aren't waiting for one world government to form, or have UN declare laws. Yet, somehow, they're managing on...

So you admit the world is basically a libertarian model then? Then you admit that the only time a nuke was ever detonated against others was in a libertarian model.

Yeah, sure, why not.

[MoonShadow]

Yeah, businesses and corps aren't waiting for one world government to form, or have UN declare laws. Yet, somehow, they're managing on...

So you admit the world is basically a libertarian model then? Then you admit that the only time a nuke was ever detonated against others was in a libertarian model.

I don't agree with this.  Basicly national government act as individuals of different levels of wealth, resources and trustworthyness within an anarchy, not a libertarian model.  It's an anarchy because 1) there can be no higher appeal to authority and 2) individuals don't have any common agreement on the rights of individials and thus 3) conflicts that cannot be resolved by reason or politics can only be resolved by violence.

[AyeYo]

Yeah, businesses and corps aren't waiting for one world government to form, or have UN declare laws. Yet, somehow, they're managing on...

So you admit the world is basically a libertarian model then? Then you admit that the only time a nuke was ever detonated against others was in a libertarian model.

I don't agree with this.  Basicly national government act as individuals of different levels of wealth, resources and trustworthyness within an anarchy, not a libertarian model.  It's an anarchy because 1) there can be no higher appeal to authority and 2) individuals don't have any common agreement on the rights of individials and thus 3) conflicts that cannot be resolved by reason or politics can only be resolved by violence.

Someday you'll realize that libertarianism IS anarchy, because voluntary laws are not laws.

[MoonShadow]

Back on topic, if your neighbor has a history of mental illness or a strong propensity towards violence; it is within the right of the community to collectively choose to restrict that neighbor's

Jared Laughner had no known history of mental illness though the poor man suffering from constant vivid hallucinations if his Youtube video about "conscious dreaming" is anything to go by.

Do you think Jared Laughner should have had access to a nuke?

Asked and answered.  Did you not bother to read what I wrote.  Classic troll behavior, simply not interested in what I write, only interested in responding to what you think that I might write and burning straw.

[Hawker]

Back on topic, if your neighbor has a history of mental illness or a strong propensity towards violence; it is within the right of the community to collectively choose to restrict that neighbor's

Jared Laughner had no known history of mental illness though the poor man suffering from constant vivid hallucinations if his Youtube video about "conscious dreaming" is anything to go by.

Do you think Jared Laughner should have had access to a nuke?

Asked and answered.  Did you not bother to read what I wrote.  Classic troll behavior, simply not interested in what I write, only interested in responding to what you think that I might write and burning straw.

Forgive me - its a big thread.

What is your answer?  Do you think Jared Laughner should have had access to a nuke?

[MoonShadow]

Back on topic, if your neighbor has a history of mental illness or a strong propensity towards violence; it is within the right of the community to collectively choose to restrict that neighbor's

Jared Laughner had no known history of mental illness though the poor man suffering from constant vivid hallucinations if his Youtube video about "conscious dreaming" is anything to go by.

Do you think Jared Laughner should have had access to a nuke?

Asked and answered.  Did you not bother to read what I wrote.  Classic troll behavior, simply not interested in what I write, only interested in responding to what you think that I might write and burning straw.

Forgive me - its a big thread.

What is your answer?  Do you think Jared Laughner should have had access to a nuke?

Short answer; no, of course not.

Longer answer, not unless he had the skills to build it himself and the trust of his neighbors in his abilities to contain the risks.  If he had the skills, even the current model doesn't prevent such an event anyway.  The materials required to build such a device are expensive, difficult to handle, and require much expertise to utilize; but have legitimate civil uses.  Thus the materials should be available to anyone without a need to seek community permission to anyone without a history of misbehavior.

[AyeYo]

Short answer; no, of course not

And you would prevent him getting one, how?

[MoonShadow]

Short answer; no, of course not

And you would prevent him getting one, how?

That's the core of the disconnect, isn't it?  You assume that the primary reason that those who might wish to do you harm cannot get a nuke is the result of some act of government.  In fact, the primary deterents are not governments at all, but natural limitations.  First off, much of the threats of the modern world wouldn't even exist without governments venturing off into other places searching for monsters to destroy; so by hamstringing governments down to their core functions as servants of civil society, we would be preventing future 'blowback'.  Of course, this does not address the truly insane loner; but how, then, would an insane loner actually aquire a working nuclear weapon?  If it is not the government in America that prevents the (previously unknown) psycopath from aquiring a nuke, or even a common bomb, why are such things so rare in the US?  Every case of a bombing in the US involves the bomber receiving outside help and financing, with the intent of causing harm to the US via a nutjob.  In a libertarain society, it's reasonable to assume that foreigners wouldn't have a grievence to motivate supporting a local extremist.  So the crazy person is left to his own devices.  Would Tim McVey had the resources or the knowledge to follow through with his plan, if he had to do it without external support?  Certainly he had accesss to all of the materials, since he did anyway.  This is still true, and yet such bombings remain uncommon in the US, putting the lie to the idea that regulations on bomb making materials in the UK are directly responsible for the reduction of such events in the UK.  To this day, I can go buy dynamite with an instant background check; but if I were to use that dynamite in a crime, they would be on my ass in hours.  I can buy two part explosives such as this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

...in an unmixed and unfinished format exactly the same way.  Literally with no questions asked beyond "Can I see your ID?".  They are commonly used to make reactive targets, like the kind seen on the cable TV reality show Top Shot.  Likewise, I can go buy all the materials Tim McVey (and company) used to make the fertilizer bombs without any kind of background check or limitations whatever, if I have the money.  But I don't, and neither would have Jared Laughner.  The scope of his crime was limited to what he could aquire with his own resources.  A satchel nuke is out of the question.

[AyeYo]

That's the core of the disconnect, isn't it?  You assume that the primary reason that those who might wish to do you harm cannot get a nuke is the result of some act of government.  In fact, the primary deterents are not governments at all, but natural limitations.

That exist because of the synthetic limitations. 

[MoonShadow]

That's the core of the disconnect, isn't it?  You assume that the primary reason that those who might wish to do you harm cannot get a nuke is the result of some act of government.  In fact, the primary deterents are not governments at all, but natural limitations.

That exist because of the synthetic limitations. 

I should follow my own advice, and just ignore you.  I wish that I could just hit the 'ignore' button on you altogether, but that would be shirking my responsibilites as moderator.  How does it make you feel when your posts disappear?  Most of that is me, BTW.

[Rassah]

How does it make you feel when your posts disappear?  Most of that is me, BTW.

Claims of Constitutional rights to free speech being infringed on in 3... 2... 1...