Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[MoonShadow]

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.

Military conscription is slavery, volunteering to serve is not.  So yes, you can actually accept the dominion of a "superior" by voluntary contract.

[1713531673]

1713531673

[1713531673]

1713531673

[1713531673]

1713531673

[1713531673]

1713531673

[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?

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

Oh I so wish I could have used that line when you were asking how a libertarian society could ensure safety and security against things like nukes  

[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.

Oh I so wish I could have used that line when you were asking how a libertarian society could ensure safety and security against things like nukes  

The difference is that one is a theoretical exercise and you can advocate imaginative solutions.  The other is a very long list of administrative details that would go well over the post limit here. 

[MoonShadow]

Another real world example of a terrorist that couldn't have been in a libertarian society.

"The public was never in danger from any of the explosives, various news sources tell us, because the explosives were at all times under the control of the FBI. It was the bureau who delivered the explosives to Ferdaus…or at least what the patsy believed to be C-4 plastic explosives, six fully automatic AK-47 machine guns and grenades.

It was (once again) the FBI that through one of its 15,000 or so informants goaded Ferdaus along, essentially double-daring him to blow something up.

The FBI has led another Muslim into making the bureau look like it’s effectively stopping terrorist acts.

Are we mad? Are we protesting the arrest of a man who clearly wanted to harm innocents?

Far from it. We merely question how dangerous this man would have been considered if he hadn’t been prodded along and supplied by federal cops trying to look useful in the war on terrorism."

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/more-terrorism-theatre-from-the-fbi/

[MoonShadow]

I noticed how much more civil, and quiet, these political threads seem to have become since AyeYo has been absent.  A single troll can turn an otherwise civil discourse between peers into a caustic argument among many former friends.

[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?

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

Oh I so wish I could have used that line when you were asking how a libertarian society could ensure safety and security against things like nukes  

The difference is that one is a theoretical exercise and you can advocate imaginative solutions.  The other is a very long list of administrative details that would go well over the post limit here. 

I was actually just asking you about your opinion on where the theoretical line/limit for regulation that goes too far is. Or, more specifically, how you believe the line between OK regulation and regulation that goes too far is determined.

[FirstAscent]

I noticed how much more civil, and quiet, these political threads seem to have become since AyeYo has been absent.  A single troll can turn an otherwise civil discourse between peers into a caustic argument among many former friends.

Actually, the thread pretty much died after AyeYo was banned. I left the thread around the same time. Most discussion pretty much ceased. Maybe you're confusing perceived civility with what occurs after a group drowns the one they are in disagreement with? I think the banning of AyeYo exemplifies what he was pointing out about a libertarian society that none of you could see.

"Well, see how civil we all are now, after drowning Joe in the lake. He just didn't agree with our ways."

[MoonShadow]

I noticed how much more civil, and quiet, these political threads seem to have become since AyeYo has been absent.  A single troll can turn an otherwise civil discourse between peers into a caustic argument among many former friends.

Actually, the thread pretty much died after AyeYo was banned. I left the thread around the same time. Most discussion pretty much ceased. Maybe you're confusing perceived civility with what occurs after a group drowns the one they are in disagreement with? I think the banning of AyeYo exemplifies what he was pointing out about a libertarian society that none of you could see.

"Well, see how civil we all are now, after drowning Joe in the lake. He just didn't agree with our ways."

Well, you are entitled to feel that way, but it should prove exactly the opposite.  That a truly libertarian society doesn't actually function significantly different than how it already does in practice.  In fact, the Internet at large is about as close to a functioning anarchy as this world has yet seen; but is limited by agreed upon rules and physical limitations on distance.  One could call those limitations the 'natural laws' of the venue, for if we could never have such heated conversations as we have all seen in person; for it we did, they would inevitablely led to violence.  "Fighting words" are an established defense against the charge of assault, as long established by the SCOTUS; for the uttering of "fighting words" is considered the first strike.  At least as long as a jury would agree that the words used are actually offensive enough in context to have reasonablely enraged the average person.

And it's not like I didn't repeatedly warn him about his use of language.  I didn't lobby for his banishment because of his opinions, for there would be many others on this forum who would have to go with him.  I, as a lib, am accustomed to holding a minority opinion; even on a forum that is established by and policed by libertarian leaning administrators.  My ideology prohibits me from discriminating against those who disagree with me, civilly.  I, in fact, have been lobbying for some form of administrative action against AyeYo for weeks; for mods don't have the power to act alone in the censorship or banishment of forum members on this forum.   I have been doing so because of his aggressive and offensive language, not because of his ideologies.  If I held the opinions of those who disagree with me against them, I would be a sad, bitter and lonely old man.  My wife has never agreed with me, and in fact views my opinions in a similar light as yourself or AyeYo.  However, my wife might view my opinions with contempt; but she doesn't view me with contempt for the crime of holding them.

Furthermore, if you could see some of the mod section forums concerning banning of errant members; you would see that I had to lobby for quite some time about AyeYo, for the very reason that the administration is very libertarian at core and did not wish to take action against AyeYo because his outbursts were viewed as borderline and/or occasional; thus not systemic, and some didn't want to be too aggressive in enforcement of civil discourse.  A few openly expressed the desire to err on the side of under-enforcement, rather than censor a contributing member even if he has a history of outbursts.  All of this is very consistent with a libertarian sense of order and enforcement of same; but in the end, eventually a line is crossed that justifies enforcement even within a libertarian society.

[hmongotaku]

so where's the nazi comment?

[NghtRppr]

"Well, see how civil we all are now, after drowning Joe in the lake. He just didn't agree with our ways."

If you want to troll then you'd better grow some gills.

[hmongotaku]

Ask the Chinese about IP. Back in 2007? only 7 computers in all of china had legit copy of windows vista. They churn out Iphone & android clones out every year. If the wright brothers, could get revenue for every mile every future plan would fly their decendence would be trillionaires now. Not to mention the guy that created the mouse for computers. Too bad they weren't as greedy as Bill Gates.

[FirstAscent]

"Well, see how civil we all are now, after drowning Joe in the lake. He just didn't agree with our ways."

If you want to troll then you'd better grow some gills.

Whatever. Why don't you go moderate somebody who has your own political ideology. I can point you to the trolls in question, if you're interested.

[Hawker]

"Well, see how civil we all are now, after drowning Joe in the lake. He just didn't agree with our ways."

If you want to troll then you'd better grow some gills.

Whatever. Why don't you go moderate somebody who has your own political ideology. I can point you to the trolls in question, if you're interested.

To be fair, AyeYo had this habit of calling everyone he disagreed with names and generally resorting to personal abuse when a logical argument would have done.

The thread died because the ultra-libertarian premise is that all IP is bad and that the consequences don't matter more than their principles.  We diverted to nukes to illustrate the right of society to protect itself.  Several people posted that its better people die than they lose their freedom to have nukes.  If you don't care about people dying, you won't change your view because they lose access to "The Lion King" so there is little point in continuing the effort to persuade. 

[MoonShadow]

Whatever. Why don't you go moderate somebody who has your own political ideology. I can point you to the trolls in question, if you're interested.

I'm willing to check.

[MoonShadow]

so where's the nazi comment?

[Rassah]

We diverted to nukes to illustrate the right of society to protect itself.  Several people posted that its better people die than they lose their freedom to have nukes.  If you don't care about people dying, you won't change your view because they lose access to "The Lion King" so there is little point in continuing the effort to persuade. 

To be fair, it looked more like the argument diverted into one group saying that the other doesn't care if people die from nukes, and the other trying to explain that such deaths wouldn't happen in their system, and thus that argument is irrelevant. After the first group couldn't accept the second group's explanations for why or how self-regulation and market forces would keep the nuke strawman at bay, it just seems like both groups just gave up.
Considering where this all was going (nowhere) I'm kinda glad.

[Hawker]

We diverted to nukes to illustrate the right of society to protect itself.  Several people posted that its better people die than they lose their freedom to have nukes.  If you don't care about people dying, you won't change your view because they lose access to "The Lion King" so there is little point in continuing the effort to persuade. 

To be fair, it looked more like the argument diverted into one group saying that the other doesn't care if people die from nukes, and the other trying to explain that such deaths wouldn't happen in their system, and thus that argument is irrelevant. After the first group couldn't accept the second group's explanations for why or how self-regulation and market forces would keep the nuke strawman at bay, it just seems like both groups just gave up.
Considering where this all was going (nowhere) I'm kinda glad.

Um no.  I asked whether they would change their views if it was proven more people would die.  The answer was "No."  The topics were fertiliser for bombs, smallpox and nukes. 

Which is fine - there is no need to waste time persuading someone of the value of having access to movies when they are not willing to value life itself.

[FredericBastiat]

Um no.  I asked whether they would change their views if it was proven more people would die.  The answer was "No."  The topics were fertiliser for bombs, smallpox and nukes. 

Which is fine - there is no need to waste time persuading someone of the value of having access to movies when they are not willing to value life itself.

Not value life? And we have another burning strawman...ding, ding, ding. A non sequitur if I've ever seen one.

[MoonShadow]

We diverted to nukes to illustrate the right of society to protect itself.  Several people posted that its better people die than they lose their freedom to have nukes.  If you don't care about people dying, you won't change your view because they lose access to "The Lion King" so there is little point in continuing the effort to persuade. 

To be fair, it looked more like the argument diverted into one group saying that the other doesn't care if people die from nukes, and the other trying to explain that such deaths wouldn't happen in their system, and thus that argument is irrelevant. After the first group couldn't accept the second group's explanations for why or how self-regulation and market forces would keep the nuke strawman at bay, it just seems like both groups just gave up.
Considering where this all was going (nowhere) I'm kinda glad.

Um no.  I asked whether they would change their views if it was proven more people would die.  The answer was "No."  The topics were fertiliser for bombs, smallpox and nukes. 

Which is fine - there is no need to waste time persuading someone of the value of having access to movies when they are not willing to value life itself.

It was never a simple "no".  It's always a complex topic, and a common attack vector for others to 'box in' libertarian ideology.  The core principle is that, even though one can show that the risks are greater that any particular group of people could aquire a WMD, the current state of international meddling in other culture's affairs contributes to the growth of those same groupls.  Al Qadia wouldn't even exist if the US military didn't have bases in Saudia Arabia.  That is their founding cause, as they literally (and correctly) view the station of foreign military (ours, from their own perspectives) as an occcupation force.  Although it may be a "soft" occupation force, with the consent of the House of Saud, it maintains the US miltary's capacity to strike any target we wish within a few hundred miles of those bases.  All of that territory is inhabited by people that they identify with, and they don't identify with Americans.  It's a simple concept to understand, for if the role was ever reversed, Americans wouldn't suffer the foreign military to exist to start with, whether they had the welcome of Washington or not.  Which is one reason that UN blue helmets will never station on US soil (although pass through US protectorate bases overseas), even though a large minority percentage of UN forces are, in fact, American born.

Thus, even if regulation can be proven to prevent harm to real people, it can never be proven to be the overall safest path; for enforcements of such regulations and treaties necessarily involve national militaries violating the local soverignties of other nations.  There is no way to avoid this. 

This also doesn't even consider the concept that only a national government can actually enforce such a regulation upon the movements of WMD, but legitimate governments (and only governments) are responsible for the greatest loss of life across the past two centuries.  Over the past century, most of that loss of life was not the result of wars, but the direct result of legitimate governments being overtaken by murderous madmen who proceeded to destroy civilians within the society that created the government in question and/or nearby nations.  Why oon Earth, considering that kind of history, would any rational person wish to grant any government (particularly their own) an exclusive monopoly on the use of force?

[FredericBastiat]

Why on Earth, considering that kind of history, would any rational person wish to grant any government (particularly their own) an exclusive monopoly on the use of force?

Laziness, fear, reprisal, frustration, apathy. Those may sound like irrational reasons for rational thinking persons, but most people despite their ability to discern other topics with alacrity, just don't understand, nor care for, the basic concepts of human law. They spend their time scurrying about just trying to keep from being robbed by their "leaders"; and in an attempt to stem that tide, vote in a fresh group of highwaymen to "represent" them, believing it will actually stop the plunder, when in reality it just feeds the voracious appetite of that self-same beast that consumed them before. Different wolf, same bite.