Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[MoonShadow]

At the extreme risk of opening up a huge can of worms, I'm going to flip this regulation thing into the other extreme:

In order to protect a certain class of people, the government passed some laws to make certain types of information illegal to poses. As time progressed, the regulation of this information expanded, the punishments became more and more severe, and the restrictions became more and more limited. At present, this information is considered so dangerous that it can not even be presented in court as evidence, since the very act of owning it or looking at it is illegal. The end result of this regulation is that people can be accused of being in posession of this material, or something that may just resemble it, be charged by the state for it, and tried without any evidence being presented against them. Usually the people still get convicted, and if a jurry is involved in a trial, these people are pretty much guaranteed to be convicted. The sentence is usually at least 5 years in prison, sometimes more. If you are lucky, you are allowed to stay home, but get regular checkups by the FBI, and are required to notify your government handlers if you wish to travel or leave the state. You are also severely restricted in where you are allowed to go. Likewise, your internet and phone conversations are monitored, and you can pretty much assume a total lack of privacy. The crime of possessing these materials is considered so great that it becomes difficult to get a job if you have the charge on your record. And, again, thanks to the strict regulations, you do not actually have to be guilty. Simply being accused and charged with it is enough, since, with the evidence not being admissible in court, it's your word against the police/FBI, and thus you'll very likely lose.

Do you agree with this type of government regulation? Do you believe that it's perfectly fine for regulation to progress to that level, if enough people believe there is a need for it? Why do you believe this regulation is justice, just because it was passed by the government with the people's consent?

I assume by "certain types of information illegal to possess" you mean child porn?  The places you are severely restricted from going to are schools?  

There is an interesting discussion to be had on how much of attraction to kids is learnt and how much is a case of being born that way.  There is also an interesting discussion to be had about what the age of consent should be.  In some countries its as low as 9.  Then there are lots of teenagers who have "sexted" images that are technically child porn to their friends. But I'm not sure where you want to go with this.

 

You assume incorrectly.  Child porn is possessible by authorized agents of the government as well as certain psycologists, medical doctors and other such professionals.  It's also admissible in court, and a jury would be expected to endure the horror of it.  He is describing a general pretext, which can be used to convict any enemy of the state at will.  Once upon a time, a charge of witchcraft was one such type of knowledge.  

EDIT:  Child porn is officially illegal, not because of it's content, but because of the assumption that possesion of it implies that the holder either 1) produced it himself, thus is directly violating a child or 2) purchased it from someone who did, and thus was suppporting a market based upon harming children.  If you understood the NAP, and the logic that supports it, you would understand that child porn is just as much a violation of the NAP by the same exact logic.

[Rassah]

At the extreme risk of opening up a huge can of worms, I'm going to flip this regulation thing into the other extreme:

In order to protect a certain class of people, the government passed some laws to make certain types of information illegal to poses. As time progressed, the regulation of this information expanded, the punishments became more and more severe, and the restrictions became more and more limited. At present, this information is considered so dangerous that it can not even be presented in court as evidence, since the very act of owning it or looking at it is illegal. The end result of this regulation is that people can be accused of being in posession of this material, or something that may just resemble it, be charged by the state for it, and tried without any evidence being presented against them. Usually the people still get convicted, and if a jurry is involved in a trial, these people are pretty much guaranteed to be convicted. The sentence is usually at least 5 years in prison, sometimes more. If you are lucky, you are allowed to stay home, but get regular checkups by the FBI, and are required to notify your government handlers if you wish to travel or leave the state. You are also severely restricted in where you are allowed to go. Likewise, your internet and phone conversations are monitored, and you can pretty much assume a total lack of privacy. The crime of possessing these materials is considered so great that it becomes difficult to get a job if you have the charge on your record. And, again, thanks to the strict regulations, you do not actually have to be guilty. Simply being accused and charged with it is enough, since, with the evidence not being admissible in court, it's your word against the police/FBI, and thus you'll very likely lose.

Do you agree with this type of government regulation? Do you believe that it's perfectly fine for regulation to progress to that level, if enough people believe there is a need for it? Why do you believe this regulation is justice, just because it was passed by the government with the people's consent?

I assume by "certain types of information illegal to possess" you mean child porn?  The places you are severely restricted from going to are schools?  

There is an interesting discussion to be had on how much of attraction to kids is learnt and how much is a case of being born that way.  There is also an interesting discussion to be had about what the age of consent should be.  In some countries its as low as 9.  Then there are lots of teenagers who have "sexted" images that are technically child porn to their friends. But I'm not sure where you want to go with this.

Ignore the details or the psychology, or the causes, or even the crime. Just assume that a cop had something against you, got a warrant to search your house, found a picture of your 5 year old cousin on the beach in swim trunks, and accused you of possessing child porn. You are taken to court, and under current reglations, that evidence can not be shown, so you get convicted. Why is that just? As others asked, where is tehe line where regulation goes too far? Heck, if the point is to protect life, why isn't there regulation to prevent us from driving, from eating what we want, and from leaving our houses, instead forcing us all to live in padded rooms? Don't you agree that that would save even more lives than just bans on nukes?

[Hawker]

Hmmm.

Rassah can you to be more specific.  If I read it as about child porn and Moonshadow read it as about witchcraft, its too unclear.

EDIT: Oh it is child porn.  For a moment there I was wondering if 4chan had poisoned me

Its a horrible area as there are 2 issues:
1. Harm to children which we have to prevent.
2. Foaming at the mouth hysteria that has people afraid to allow their kids walk to school.

I think the ability to make that kind law is fair enough but its implementation is often hysterically overdone.  Moonshadow's comparison to the fear of witches might be a good example of what is going wrong with the system.

[FredericBastiat]

Fred you already made clear that, in your ideal world, the nukes going off is just part of what we have to put up with.  And under the present system, its not an issue because as you said, regulation works in preventing nukes but it restricts your freedom.

I asked Moonshadow his position.

Troll and liar. I didn't say we should put up with nukes going off. Keep your filthy lies to yourself. Thanks

[Rassah]

Hmmm.

Rassah can you to be more specific.  If I read it as about child porn and Moonshadow read it as about witchcraft, its too unclear.

MoonShadow was incorrect on his understanding of child porn laws. Possession is I legal, showing it in sort as evidence is not legal (or can be denied without question), and things like photos of family members can get you convicted for possession if they are presented as such.
What the specific is not important. The other questions asked, such as where do you draw the line, are.

[Hawker]

Fred you already made clear that, in your ideal world, the nukes going off is just part of what we have to put up with.  And under the present system, its not an issue because as you said, regulation works in preventing nukes but it restricts your freedom.

I asked Moonshadow his position.

Troll and liar. I didn't say we should put up with nukes going off. Keep your filthy lies to yourself. Thanks

You say that we can't intervene until the nukes go off if the person has not made a threat.  That means we have to put up with them in your world.  IF you have changed your mind and now think we do have the right to intervene before a threat is made, then I am wrong.  

Otherwise, stand by the consequences of your beliefs.

[FredericBastiat]

Ignore the details or the psychology, or the causes, or even the crime. Just assume that a cop had something against you, got a warrant to search your house, found a picture of your 5 year old cousin on the beach in swim trunks, and accused you of possessing child porn. You are taken to court, and under current reglations, that evidence can not be shown, so you get convicted. Why is that just? As others asked, where is tehe line where regulation goes too far? Heck, if the point is to protect life, why isn't there regulation to prevent us from driving, from eating what we want, and from leaving our houses, instead forcing us all to live in padded rooms? Don't you agree that that would save even more lives than just bans on nukes?

That takes too much effort. I say we enforce lobotomy laws. You spend a lot less time policing it. You're docile thus less violent. No rubber room necessary.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Ignore the details or the psychology, or the causes, or even the crime. Just assume that a cop had something against you, got a warrant to search your house, found a picture of your 5 year old cousin on the beach in swim trunks, and accused you of possessing child porn. You are taken to court, and under current reglations, that evidence can not be shown, so you get convicted. Why is that just? As others asked, where is tehe line where regulation goes too far? Heck, if the point is to protect life, why isn't there regulation to prevent us from driving, from eating what we want, and from leaving our houses, instead forcing us all to live in padded rooms? Don't you agree that that would save even more lives than just bans on nukes?

That is factually incorrect.  The evidence is shown to the jury as part of the process. 

Its a horrible area as there are 2 issues:
1. Harm to children which we have to prevent.
2. Foaming at the mouth hysteria that has people afraid to allow their kids walk to school.

I think the ability to make that kind law is fair enough but its implementation is often hysterically overdone.  Moonshadow's comparison to the fear of witches might be a good example of what is going wrong with the system.

[MoonShadow]

I think the ability to make that kind law is fair enough but its implementation is often hysterically overdone.  Moonshadow's comparison to the fear of witches might be a good example of what is going wrong with the system.

I think we have progress, then.  So, whether the subject is 'child porn' or 'spells' or simply 'thought crime'; in your opinion what has actually gone wrong with the system?  Is there some kind of rational distinction between justifiable prevention of harm to children and thought crime based upon same?  Or is it all just an arbitrary line that we must all respect, once some government body has negotiated the line?

[MoonShadow]

Hmmm.

Rassah can you to be more specific.  If I read it as about child porn and Moonshadow read it as about witchcraft, its too unclear.

MoonShadow was incorrect on his understanding of child porn laws. Possession is I legal, showing it in sort as evidence is not legal (or can be denied without question), and things like photos of family members can get you convicted for possession if they are presented as such.
What the specific is not important. The other questions asked, such as where do you draw the line, are.

Um, no.  Sorry.  Certain officials are exempt from possession, because they are the cops that persue this kind of crime, and must have a base reference that the court has previously declared defines the crime.  Also so that they can actually posses evidence.  Certain professionals have legitimate access to such things, so that they can assess the impact of the crime on both the victims and the pedafile accussed, as well as understand pedafiles and their psycological dysfunctions.  Medical professionals have exemptions, because otherwise some medical photos would fall into the catagory of child porn.

[Rassah]

I won't debate with you whether the evidence is shown or not. You don't know that anyway. That's also not important. Btw, my example also applies to possession of state secrets. Again, where do we draw the line, and how do we determine that?

[Hawker]

I think the ability to make that kind law is fair enough but its implementation is often hysterically overdone.  Moonshadow's comparison to the fear of witches might be a good example of what is going wrong with the system.

I think we have progress, then.  So, whether the subject is 'child porn' or 'spells' or simply 'thought crime'; in your opinion what has actually gone wrong with the system?  Is there some kind of rational distinction between justifiable prevention of harm to children and thought crime based upon same?  Or is it all just an arbitrary line that we must all respect, once some government body has negotiated the line?

We already agree on what constitutes the basics of a decent society - where we disagree is how to implement it and how far beyond the basics we should go

"Is there some kind of rational distinction between justifiable prevention of harm to children and thought crime based upon same?" - leave children out of the sentence.  We prevent infliction of harm on all where we can.  

In the UK, there are indeterminate sentences.  In the US, there is "3 strikes and you are out."  Both address the issue of people who are never going to stop harming others.  I am not comfortable with either idea but I have met someone who does spent his life either in jail or terrorising people and I accept that society needs protection.

[Hawker]

I won't debate with you whether the evidence is shown or not. You don't know that anyway. That's also not important. Btw, my example also applies to possession of state secrets. Again, where do we draw the line, and how do we determine that?

Why do you need to draw a line?  Good laws are tightly drafted to avoid unintended consequences.  There is no way you can make general statements in a law and hope for the best.  

[FredericBastiat]

You say that we can't intervene until they go off if the person has not made a threat.  That means we have to put up with them in your world.  IF you have changed your mind and now think we do have the right to intervene before a threat is made, then I am wrong.  

Otherwise, stand by the consequences of your beliefs.

I think it is more worthwhile determining whether a threat is imminent than proactively commiting violence in advance. Besides, I doubt there will be many in society that would tolerate a nuke in their neighborhood. With that attitude in mind, anyone who would want to occupy or use those private lands would probably be subject to prior search (for nukes) by the owner as a condition of their use. It would take an extensive effort to allude detection if the majority of your neighbors were similarly inclined.

Try using more imagination next time.

[MoonShadow]

I think the ability to make that kind law is fair enough but its implementation is often hysterically overdone.  Moonshadow's comparison to the fear of witches might be a good example of what is going wrong with the system.

I think we have progress, then.  So, whether the subject is 'child porn' or 'spells' or simply 'thought crime'; in your opinion what has actually gone wrong with the system?  Is there some kind of rational distinction between justifiable prevention of harm to children and thought crime based upon same?  Or is it all just an arbitrary line that we must all respect, once some government body has negotiated the line?

We already agree on what constitutes the basics of a decent society - where we disagree is how to implement it and how far beyond the basics we should go

Good, good.  We've had wonderful progress this session.

"Is there some kind of rational distinction between justifiable prevention of harm to children and thought crime based upon same?" - leave children out of the sentence.  We prevent infliction of harm on all where we can.  

Sure, but where is the limit?  Can you cause harm, based upon the belief that your neighbor intends to do harm to youself, your property, or your family; in order to prevent your neighbor from doing harm?  Can you do the same, if your neighbor intends you no harm, but you believe that he is a threat to others?  How can you make such a determination?

In the UK, there are indeterminate sentences.  In the US, there is "3 strikes and you are out."  Both address the issue of people who are never going to stop harming others.  I am not comfortable with either idea but I have met someone who does spent his life either in jail or terrorising people and I accept that society needs protection.

You think that I need protection, or do you think that you need protection?

[Hawker]

You say that we can't intervene until they go off if the person has not made a threat.  That means we have to put up with them in your world.  IF you have changed your mind and now think we do have the right to intervene before a threat is made, then I am wrong.  

Otherwise, stand by the consequences of your beliefs.

I think it is more worthwhile determining whether a threat is imminent than proactively commiting violence in advance. Besides, I doubt there will be many in society that would tolerate a nuke in their neighborhood. With that attitude in mind, anyone who would want to occupy or use those private lands would probably be subject to prior search (for nukes) by the owner as a condition of their use. It would take an extensive effort to allude detection if the majority of your neighbors were similarly inclined.

Try using more imagination next time.

All very imaginative but you are still left with terrorists owning nukes.  No-one has the right to enter their land once they have bought it.  They won't tell you in advance they are making a nuke or that they intend to use it.

It all ends in a lot of mushroom clouds in your utopia.  

Its not just nukes.  You have the same view on smallpox and on fertiliser based bombs.  Yours is a very grim vision of society.  Its your utopia and you are entitled to it but please don't try to pretend that it will be anything other than a return to life being "nasty, brutish and short."

[FredericBastiat]

I say we look at the basics again. Should mere possession of anything, regardless of its composition (patterns, etc.), constitute a crime? Let's assume no crimes have been committed, or are about to be committed by the present owner.

[Rassah]

I won't debate with you whether the evidence is shown or not. You don't know that anyway. That's also not important. Btw, my example also applies to possession of state secrets. Again, where do we draw the line, and how do we determine that?

Why do you need to draw a line?  Good laws are tightly drafted to avoid unintended consequences.  There is no way you can make general statements in a law and hope for the best.  

My law says that if you show signs of anger or aggression, as determined by a law enforcement official, you will be required to pay $100 to attend an anger management class, and will be barred from attending bars and other public venues, as well as buying alcohol, for a month.
My law is good, because it will prevent harm to people and save lives. Aggression will be determined based on specific list of observable actions, such as facial extressions, tone of voice, or threatening actions.
(Should states chose to abuse this law in order to make $100 from a bunch of people, oh well. People can vote to change the law if they want, but hey, if they aren't violent and threatening types, why are they so concerned?)

[Hawker]

...snip...

In the UK, there are indeterminate sentences.  In the US, there is "3 strikes and you are out."  Both address the issue of people who are never going to stop harming others.  I am not comfortable with either idea but I have met someone who does spent his life either in jail or terrorising people and I accept that society needs protection.

You think that I need protection, or do you think that you need protection?

There are specific cases where you do need protection.  Same for me.  There are mad and bad guys who do work as groups and they need to be stopped.

I snipped your question about trying to making general rules.  We protect kids from buggery but not from a smacked ass.  Laws tend to be specific.

[AyeYo]

Sure, but where is the limit?  Can you cause harm, based upon the belief that your neighbor intends to do harm to youself, your property, or your family; in order to prevent your neighbor from doing harm?  Can you do the same, if your neighbor intends you no harm, but you believe that he is a threat to others?  How can you make such a determination?

I'll give you a tip here... you need to stop saying "you" and start saying "society".  Because it's not about ME and YOU, it's about US ALL.  It's not whether I alone believe you to be a threat, it's whether society as a whole believes you to be a threat.

When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.

Gotta give you an A for subtle, manipulative effort though!