Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[AyeYo]

the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out

You mean like your fantasy objections to libertarianism?

There's a difference between fixable flaws cropping up in implimentation (due to human nature) and inherent, systemic flaws in the idealogy itself.

You mean like concentrating power in the hands of a few people and hoping the bad guys won't make a grab for it and abuse it?

No, I mean like having a system based on a principle that doesn't allow you to impliment your system unless 100% of the population is 100% in agreement (thus an impossibility) otherwise making the system completely contradictory, hypocritical, and arbitrary.

I mean like having a system based on non-aggression and no coercion, even though aggression and coercion are facts of life simply because 100% of the people will not agree on 100% of the issues 100% of the time.

That's an inherently flawed system that CANNOT exist in the real world, not just because I don't want it to, but because it's a physical impossibility.



So we better get to work on improving what we have.

[1714057857]

1714057857

[1714057857]

1714057857

[1714057857]

1714057857

[NghtRppr]

the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out

You mean like your fantasy objections to libertarianism?

There's a difference between fixable flaws cropping up in implimentation (due to human nature) and inherent, systemic flaws in the idealogy itself.

You mean like concentrating power in the hands of a few people and hoping the bad guys won't make a grab for it and abuse it?

No, I mean like having a system based on a principle that doesn't allow you to impliment your system unless 100% of the population is 100% in agreement (thus an impossibility) otherwise making the system completely contradictory, hypocritical, and arbitrary.

I mean like having a system based on non-aggression and no coercion, even though aggression and coercion are facts of life simply because 100% of the people will not agree on 100% of the issues 100% of the time.

That's an inherently flawed system that CANNOT exist in the real world, not just because I don't want it to, but because it's a physical impossibility.



So we better get to work on improving what we have.

You're only demonstrating that you don't understand libertarianism. You don't need 100% agreement on a single issue much less all of the issues for it to be implemented.

[NghtRppr]

You're only demonstrating that you don't understand libertarianism. You don't need 100% agreement on a single issue much less all of the issues for it to be implemented.

That's because you're a raging hypocrite, something we established and moved past over twenty pages ago.

Yet a further demonstration of your ignorance. Self-defense is not aggression therefore it can't be a violation of the non-aggression principle.

[AyeYo]

You're only demonstrating that you don't understand libertarianism. You don't need 100% agreement on a single issue much less all of the issues for it to be implemented.

That's because you're a raging hypocrite, something we established and moved past over twenty pages ago.

Yet a further demonstration of your ignorance. Self-defense is not aggression therefore it can't be a violation of the non-aggression principle.

That's because you're a raging hypocrite, something we established and moved past over twenty pages ago.

Self-defense isn't aggression, but once again you're playing a semantics game.  What you're saying ("self-defense") and what you actually plan to do (force people to follow your beliefs) are worlds apart.

[Hawker]

...snip...
So you don't own you, then.  So who does?  As noted above, someone owns you.  Either you own you, or society does; so which is it?  Are you your own, or are you slave to the collective?  It pretty much answers itself, because there can be no middle ground.

Is slavery allowed?  

If yes and you are free, then you own yourself.  If yes and someone owns you, well then someone owns you.

If slavery is not allowed, since you can't sell yourself and since society can't sell you, then you don't have an owner.  You are truly free.

[Hawker]

You're only demonstrating that you don't understand libertarianism. You don't need 100% agreement on a single issue much less all of the issues for it to be implemented.

That's because you're a raging hypocrite, something we established and moved past over twenty pages ago.

Yet a further demonstration of your ignorance. Self-defense is not aggression therefore it can't be a violation of the non-aggression principle.

Didn't you say that you don't believe we are allowed to defend ourselves against someone with a nuke?  Or are we now allowed to intervene before they detonate it?

[FredericBastiat]

Self-defense isn't aggression, but once again you're playing a semantics game.  What you're saying ("self-defense") and what you actually plan to do (force people to follow your beliefs) are worlds apart.

Yea!!! I want to say it first. AyeYo, that's correct: self-defense is different than being forced to believe something. You got it. Good for you (applause).

I'd give you a standing ovation, but that might be overdoing it. Now for the next baby step.

[NghtRppr]

hat you're saying ("self-defense") and what you actually plan to do (force people to follow your beliefs) are worlds apart.

Give me one example of something I would force people to do that doesn't boil down to self-defense of my person or property.

[Hawker]

hat you're saying ("self-defense") and what you actually plan to do (force people to follow your beliefs) are worlds apart.

Give me one example of something I would force people to do that doesn't boil down to self-defense of my person or property.

You would force people to leave cities since your scheme has no way to prevent nukes in apartment blocks.

[NghtRppr]

hat you're saying ("self-defense") and what you actually plan to do (force people to follow your beliefs) are worlds apart.

Give me one example of something I would force people to do that doesn't boil down to self-defense of my person or property.

You would force people to leave cities since your scheme has no way to prevent nukes in apartment blocks.

That's not forcing people. Forcing is me using aggression or the threat thereof. As long as you make arguments from ambiguity we will get nowhere.

[Hawker]

hat you're saying ("self-defense") and what you actually plan to do (force people to follow your beliefs) are worlds apart.

Give me one example of something I would force people to do that doesn't boil down to self-defense of my person or property.

You would force people to leave cities since your scheme has no way to prevent nukes in apartment blocks.

That's not forcing people. Forcing is me using aggression or the threat thereof. As long as you make arguments from ambiguity we will get nowhere.

I'll stop.  I don't think your position is a good one but we've flogged that horse to death.

[MoonShadow]

You're only demonstrating that you don't understand libertarianism. You don't need 100% agreement on a single issue much less all of the issues for it to be implemented.

That's because you're a raging hypocrite, something we established and moved past over twenty pages ago.

Yet a further demonstration of your ignorance. Self-defense is not aggression therefore it can't be a violation of the non-aggression principle.

Didn't you say that you don't believe we are allowed to defend ourselves against someone with a nuke?  Or are we now allowed to intervene before they detonate it?

Let's look at it from a smaller scale.  If your neighbor packs heat, whether or not you are aware of it, it should not be a threat to yourself; until the day comes that he either actually threatens you, or he pulls out his weapon in your presence with the pretense of pointing it at you.  If he has ever threatened you before buying a gun, it would be reasonable for you to appeal to your neighbors (or elected reps, or local sherriff, whatever) that his aquiring a gun, in light of his prior inclinations towards violence, constitutes a threat upon yourself.  The same can be said for nukes or the materials and expertise to produce them at the nation-state level.  I'm not making up anything novel here, this is the way it actually is presently.  The only difference in how a lib looks at the situation is that there is no inherent difference between an individual and a group of people large enough to be considered an independent and soverign nation.  Groups don't have rights that individuals do not have.

[MoonShadow]

...snip...
So you don't own you, then.  So who does?  As noted above, someone owns you.  Either you own you, or society does; so which is it?  Are you your own, or are you slave to the collective?  It pretty much answers itself, because there can be no middle ground.

Is slavery allowed?  

If yes and you are free, then you own yourself.  If yes and someone owns you, well then someone owns you.

If slavery is not allowed, since you can't sell yourself and since society can't sell you, then you don't have an owner.  You are truly free.

Slavery is not allowed under libertarian ideals, because no one can own you but you.  However, you can sell yourself, lease your time, or even kill yourself; because the fundamental concept of ownership is the right to destroy, not to utilize.

[Hawker]

...snip...
So you don't own you, then.  So who does?  As noted above, someone owns you.  Either you own you, or society does; so which is it?  Are you your own, or are you slave to the collective?  It pretty much answers itself, because there can be no middle ground.

Is slavery allowed?  

If yes and you are free, then you own yourself.  If yes and someone owns you, well then someone owns you.

If slavery is not allowed, since you can't sell yourself and since society can't sell you, then you don't have an owner.  You are truly free.

Slavery is not allowed under libertarian ideals, because no one can own you but you.  However, you can sell yourself, lease your time, or even kill yourself; because the fundamental concept of ownership is the right to destroy, not to utilize.

Then libertarianism will never be more than an intellectual exercise.  There is no way that people will ever tolerate the idea that if someone is a danger to themselves, they'd just be allowed to get on with killing themselves.  That's a lot of babies without mothers due to postnatal depression.  Which usually lasts only a few weeks...

[Rassah]

...snip...
So you don't own you, then.  So who does?  As noted above, someone owns you.  Either you own you, or society does; so which is it?  Are you your own, or are you slave to the collective?  It pretty much answers itself, because there can be no middle ground.

Is slavery allowed?  

If yes and you are free, then you own yourself.  If yes and someone owns you, well then someone owns you.

If slavery is not allowed, since you can't sell yourself and since society can't sell you, then you don't have an owner.  You are truly free.

Slavery is not allowed under libertarian ideals, because no one can own you but you.  However, you can sell yourself, lease your time, or even kill yourself; because the fundamental concept of ownership is the right to destroy, not to utilize.

Then libertarianism will never be more than an intellectual exercise.  There is no way that people will ever tolerate the idea that if someone is a danger to themselves, they'd just be allowed to get on with killing themselves.  That's a lot of babies without mothers due to postnatal depression.  Which usually lasts only a few weeks...

Is there a law in your country that states that a police officer is assigned to the mother for two weeks after she gives birth, to keep an eye on her? How is such a thing monitred and prevented?

[MoonShadow]

Then libertarianism will never be more than an intellectual exercise.

Perhaps so.  But the right to self-terminate is one that is recognized in a few nations these days, after judicial review.  If you are terminal, and can show a court that you're not simply depressed, there are things that can be done.  Regardless, it's a matter of reality that most any adult has self-ownership under the concept of 'right to destroy', because no one is held responsible should you kill yourself.  And most everyone has both the chance and resources to do themselves in, and there isn't usually much a law against suicide can do about that. 

[NghtRppr]

Slavery is not allowed under libertarian ideals, because no one can own you but you.  However, you can sell yourself, lease your time, or even kill yourself; because the fundamental concept of ownership is the right to destroy, not to utilize.

Right, you can sell or donate yourself into slavery but you can't be enslaved against your will.

[Hawker]

Then libertarianism will never be more than an intellectual exercise.

Perhaps so.  But the right to self-terminate is one that is recognized in a few nations these days, after judicial review.  If you are terminal, and can show a court that you're not simply depressed, there are things that can be done.  Regardless, it's a matter of reality that most any adult has self-ownership under the concept of 'right to destroy', because no one is held responsible should you kill yourself.  And most everyone has both the chance and resources to do themselves in, and there isn't usually much a law against suicide can do about that.  

Under rare circumstances and with a guardian appointed to make sure that you are not being manipulated, I see suicide is a valid option.  But the vast majority of suicide attempts are due to temporary issues and it makes sense to me that we stop the person and give them a chance to see the bigger picture.  The suicide of a woman who has just given birth will have devastating impact on her family and if the reason for it is postnatal depression, then its well worth restraining/medicating her a few weeks.  

I guess I don't think her life is just her own - its also partly her baby's as the baby depends on her.  So that means your person is not wholly your own to dispose of as the mood takes you.

EDIT:  I still think ownership is the wrong concept here.  Hospitals pump out people's stomachs all the time.  I only know one person who had this done and she was saved a few times.  She never complained about people "owning" here or violating the "ownership" of her stomach.  Its just the wrong language to describe helping someone at the time they need it most.

[Rassah]

So, how does the government prevent suicide? Punish those who commit the crime with fines or jail sentence? Post guards to watch over people the government believes are suicidal?

And, again, in regards to regulation, how do you determine where the line is that separates going too far from not going far enough?

[Hawker]

So, how does the government prevent suicide? Punish those who commit the crime with fines or jail sentence? Post guards to watch over people the government believes are suicidal?

And, again, in regards to regulation, how do you determine where the line is that separates going too far from not going far enough?

Its nice that you don't know.  But I'm sure if you want to know, google will help you.