Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FirstAscent]

This has nothing to do with shark finning, unless someone already owns the sharks.

So an animal (a shark, dog, etc.) is accorded the right to different treatment depending on whether it is owned or not by the one mistreating the animal?

Yes. Can a shark or dog respect your rights? No, they don't know any better. I believe rights can only be afforded where reciprocal behavior is possible.

An arbitrary belief on your part.

[1714033480]

1714033480

[1714033480]

1714033480

[BitterTea]

This has nothing to do with shark finning, unless someone already owns the sharks.

So an animal (a shark, dog, etc.) is accorded the right to different treatment depending on whether it is owned or not by the one mistreating the animal?

Yes. Can a shark or dog respect your rights? No, they don't know any better. I believe rights can only be afforded where reciprocal behavior is possible.

An arbitrary belief on your part.

Show me that your belief is less arbitrary.

At least mine does not justify murder.

[FirstAscent]

This has nothing to do with shark finning, unless someone already owns the sharks.

So an animal (a shark, dog, etc.) is accorded the right to different treatment depending on whether it is owned or not by the one mistreating the animal?

Yes. Can a shark or dog respect your rights? No, they don't know any better. I believe rights can only be afforded where reciprocal behavior is possible.

An arbitrary belief on your part.

Show me that your belief is less arbitrary.

At least mine does not justify murder.

Murder will not go away in your libertarian land. Disputes due to property rights will result in murder from time to time. Please don't tell me that you believe this to not be the case.

Your belief about rights is restrictive to Homo sapiens sapiens. Even if we accept this restriction (and there really is no need to do so), we can still show that destroying sharks for shark fins is a violation of human rights, for do not humans have the right to live in a world that is rich with life, diversity, and filled with productive and balanced ecosystems which will continue to sustain us?

[BitterTea]

I was referring to the institutionalized, "because you didn't pay a fine" type of murder. The kind you call justice.

It's ok, I realize you cannot yet acknowledge this basic fact about your preferred system. Perhaps someday you can be honest wth yourself.

Before you respond, I realize that you cannot imagine any alternatives to killing people for not following your rules. It's not your fault, it's the society in which you were raised.

[FirstAscent]

I was referring to the institutionalized, "because you didn't pay a fine" type of murder. The kind you call justice.

I don't consider murder to be the penalty for shark finning. Nor do I consider auto fatalities to be the penalty for driving dangerously, but there are on occasion consequences to actions.

As for justice in libertarian land, you still have failed to acknowledge that in pursuit of justice regarding property rights violations, murder will happen as well. I suppose I could say something like the following to you, but I try not to be a hypocrite:

"Before you respond, I realize that you cannot imagine any alternatives to killing people in libertarian land for not abiding by your contracts. It's not your fault, it's the way you were brought up."

[Rassah]

The animals are not accorded any rights any more than an owned couch is accorded any rights...

Well, in your idealized world, yes. But here in the real world, there are plenty of laws and regulations to ensure animals' safety, well being, survival, prevent abuse, etc. Not nearly enough, but as society matures, the trend is to increase the rights of animals, not decrease them. Read up on the subject. Your way of thinking is a step backwards.

Those are "laws" and "regulations," not rights. You can't give someone rights by law. You can only take them away.

Though, granted, since you guys still don't even have a concept of "person," or understanding on where rights actually come from or what foundation they are built on, it's no surprise you keep confusing things.

[Rassah]

They've also been extraordinarily successful with regard to eradicating drugs, protecting the environment, curing disease, and bringing the world out of poverty...

In some cases, yes. Your idealized world has no track record at all with regard to the matters, to be honest. It's fun for you to speculate though.

Track record:
USA has very strict laws on underage drinking. Result? Binge drinking, alcohol poisoning, drinking just to get drunk, and general alcoholism issues.
Italy has practically no restrictions on alcohol for minors. Result? Drinking is something done socially and responsibly, getting drunk is considered embarassing and a sign of weakness or lack of control. Alcohol abuse is very rare.

[FirstAscent]

They've also been extraordinarily successful with regard to eradicating drugs, protecting the environment, curing disease, and bringing the world out of poverty...

In some cases, yes. Your idealized world has no track record at all with regard to the matters, to be honest. It's fun for you to speculate though.

Track record:
USA has very strict laws on underage drinking. Result? Binge drinking, alcohol poisoning, drinking just to get drunk, and general alcoholism issues.
Italy has practically no restrictions on alcohol for minors. Result? Drinking is something done socially and responsibly, getting drunk is considered embarassing and a sign of weakness or lack of control. Alcohol abuse is very rare.

Totally agree. And it doesn't change anything I said about animals, property rights, poaching, etc.

[BitterTea]

"Before you respond, I realize that you cannot imagine any alternatives to killing people in libertarian land for not abiding by your contracts. It's not your fault, it's the way you were brought up."

If you insist, I will do the hard thinking for you. Reputation. Shunning. No murder necessary.

[FirstAscent]

The animals are not accorded any rights any more than an owned couch is accorded any rights...

Well, in your idealized world, yes. But here in the real world, there are plenty of laws and regulations to ensure animals' safety, well being, survival, prevent abuse, etc. Not nearly enough, but as society matures, the trend is to increase the rights of animals, not decrease them. Read up on the subject. Your way of thinking is a step backwards.

Those are "laws" and "regulations," not rights. You can't give someone rights by law. You can only take them away.

You're right about the terminology. Cutting off shark fins and tossing the shark back into the water is quite definitely a taking the rights of the shark away.

Though, granted, since you guys still don't even have a concept of "person," or understanding on where rights actually come from or what foundation they are built on, it's no surprise you keep confusing things.

Oh. Okay. I'll keep that in mind while you continue to defend the rights of a person to maim animals.

[Rassah]

They've also been extraordinarily successful with regard to eradicating drugs, protecting the environment, curing disease, and bringing the world out of poverty...

In some cases, yes. Your idealized world has no track record at all with regard to the matters, to be honest. It's fun for you to speculate though.

Track record:
USA has very strict laws on underage drinking. Result? Binge drinking, alcohol poisoning, drinking just to get drunk, and general alcoholism issues.
Italy has practically no restrictions on alcohol for minors. Result? Drinking is something done socially and responsibly, getting drunk is considered embarassing and a sign of weakness or lack of control. Alcohol abuse is very rare.

Totally agree. And it doesn't change anything I said about animals, property rights, poaching, etc.

You said "no track record at all" for our "idealized world." I gave you a track record of an issue that is heavily regulated in this country, and an ideallized world without regulation of that issue for comparison. It didn't matter what the topic is, just that there ARE examples of libertarian ideals which have better results than your pro-regulation ideals.

[FirstAscent]

"Before you respond, I realize that you cannot imagine any alternatives to killing people in libertarian land for not abiding by your contracts. It's not your fault, it's the way you were brought up."

If you insist, I will do the hard thinking for you. Reputation. Shunning. No murder necessary.

Until you catch the guy, you don't know who he is. If you let him go (because you didn't catch him), he'll just move onto another territory. You might want to try catching him. How are you going to do that?

[Rassah]

Though, granted, since you guys still don't even have a concept of "person," or understanding on where rights actually come from or what foundation they are built on, it's no surprise you keep confusing things.

Oh. Okay. I'll keep that in mind while you continue to defend the rights of a person to maim animals.

See? Like I said, you have no idea what rights even are.

[FirstAscent]

Though, granted, since you guys still don't even have a concept of "person," or understanding on where rights actually come from or what foundation they are built on, it's no surprise you keep confusing things.

Oh. Okay. I'll keep that in mind while you continue to defend the rights of a person to maim animals.

See? Like I said, you have no idea what rights even are.

Take your head out of your latest libertarian book for a change, read up on the issue, and get back to me.

[Rassah]

Though, granted, since you guys still don't even have a concept of "person," or understanding on where rights actually come from or what foundation they are built on, it's no surprise you keep confusing things.

Oh. Okay. I'll keep that in mind while you continue to defend the rights of a person to maim animals.

See? Like I said, you have no idea what rights even are.

Take your head out of your latest libertarian book for a change, read up on the issue, and get back to me.

This isn't something that requires a lot of reading; just a lot of introspection and a very good understanding of logic. In the end, it makes sense in the same way as 2+2=4 makes sense, though with many more steps involved. There is a difference between a right and something you are able to do. You are able to shoot someone, you are able to destroy someone's property, and you are able to torture someone else's dog. Those are not rights, even if you are able to perform the actions without consequences.
Regarding what I said earlier about rights not being bestowed by law, as an example, I am able to marry someone of the same sex in any state I want because there are no "rights" to same sex marriage, just no laws respecting the contract from the government point of view. Just because there are no laws specifically making it legal, does not mean that same sex marriage is illegal. There is no need to confer that right to anyone. On the other hand, laws exist to take away rights, such as with the slavery example, where slaves had rights to begin with, and only the laws that punished them from excercising those rights and freedoms were the problem. As I said, laws are only able to take away rights, not give them. In the case of IP laws, it's not that IP laws give you rights to your own or someone else's intellectual property, as is often assumed. I have a right to use my own property, including data I bought and paid for, in any way that I choose. What IP laws actually do is prevent me from exercising that right. It's not that they give you rights to your IP, it's that they prevent me from doing things to your IP despite my ownership and posession of it. No laws give you rights to maim or torture animals. Laws just attempt to prevent you from doing so. Them able to do so does't necessarily make it a right of theirs either.
Ideally, I would love to see you guys go through these steps:

Define what a person is (I'll grant you the line is somewhat blurry, and even I'm not completely confident in my definition)
From that deduce what the most basic foundations of rights are
From that build upon the basic concepts of property rights
Finally, from that, deduce and expand the concept into more complex issues such as mutual respect, incentives through mutual benefits, etc.

I'm not going to hold my breath for even the first step though.

[MoonShadow]

They've also been extraordinarily successful with regard to eradicating drugs, protecting the environment, curing disease, and bringing the world out of poverty...

In some cases, yes. Your idealized world has no track record at all with regard to the matters, to be honest. It's fun for you to speculate though.

Track record:
USA has very strict laws on underage drinking. Result? Binge drinking, alcohol poisoning, drinking just to get drunk, and general alcoholism issues.
Italy has practically no restrictions on alcohol for minors. Result? Drinking is something done socially and responsibly, getting drunk is considered embarassing and a sign of weakness or lack of control. Alcohol abuse is very rare.

Japan also treats underage drinking in like manner.

[FirstAscent]

I have a right to use my own property, including data I bought and paid for, in any way that I choose.

So much here to discuss. Maybe later. But for now, why are you under the opinion that you bought and paid for the data on a cinematic DVD when you walked out of Walmart with the 'True Grit' DVD in your bag? This is what I don't get about you libertarians. You make these assumptions to support your views.

You paid for a piece of plastic which affords you the ability to use the data on the DVD which represents 'True Grit', which you do not own. Let's say I sell you a cage, and inside the cage is a parrot which will entertain you while you own the cage. Just because you bought the cage (a necessary item to transport the bird), does not mean you bought the bird. The bird is only provided to you for certain use provided you buy the cage.

Let's be clear. The parties involved in making the movie did not sell you their movie. They sold you a vessel which contains their data, which they still own and retain rights to.

So many assumptions on your part, and so many erroneous conclusions.

By the way, I can think of a way that you can legally own the data of all movies. Build your own Library of Babel, as in the short story by Jorge Luis Borges. But as soon as you understand that story, you'll then realize why the movie is valued to the point that you can never own it in the sense that you assume you can by purchasing the DVD.

[Hawker]

The animals are not accorded any rights any more than an owned couch is accorded any rights...

Well, in your idealized world, yes. But here in the real world, there are plenty of laws and regulations to ensure animals' safety, well being, survival, prevent abuse, etc. Not nearly enough, but as society matures, the trend is to increase the rights of animals, not decrease them. Read up on the subject. Your way of thinking is a step backwards.

Those are "laws" and "regulations," not rights. You can't give someone rights by law. You can only take them away.

Though, granted, since you guys still don't even have a concept of "person," or understanding on where rights actually come from or what foundation they are built on, it's no surprise you keep confusing things.

All rights come from law.

[MoonShadow]

The animals are not accorded any rights any more than an owned couch is accorded any rights...

Well, in your idealized world, yes. But here in the real world, there are plenty of laws and regulations to ensure animals' safety, well being, survival, prevent abuse, etc. Not nearly enough, but as society matures, the trend is to increase the rights of animals, not decrease them. Read up on the subject. Your way of thinking is a step backwards.

Those are "laws" and "regulations," not rights. You can't give someone rights by law. You can only take them away.

Though, granted, since you guys still don't even have a concept of "person," or understanding on where rights actually come from or what foundation they are built on, it's no surprise you keep confusing things.

All rights come from law.

Not from the kind of law that you are talking about, and that is the center of your misconception.

[Rassah]

The animals are not accorded any rights any more than an owned couch is accorded any rights...

Well, in your idealized world, yes. But here in the real world, there are plenty of laws and regulations to ensure animals' safety, well being, survival, prevent abuse, etc. Not nearly enough, but as society matures, the trend is to increase the rights of animals, not decrease them. Read up on the subject. Your way of thinking is a step backwards.

Those are "laws" and "regulations," not rights. You can't give someone rights by law. You can only take them away.

Though, granted, since you guys still don't even have a concept of "person," or understanding on where rights actually come from or what foundation they are built on, it's no surprise you keep confusing things.

All rights come from law.

Where's the law that gives me the right to use a keyboard? To trade stuff? To eat? To poop? To make personal choices? To think? If rights come from law, I shouldn't have the right to do either of those. It sounds as if you are suggesting that the default human society has absolutely no right to do anything, and as time progresses, more and more rights are bestowed on the population by government?

Actually that sort reminds me of the bible, where humans (Adam and Eve) were created with some limited rights to begin with,screwed that up and ended up with even fewer rights, and for the next few thousand years had more and more rights and restrictions dictated at them by their creator. Like, in the same way we were born with original sin, we are born with only the rights our creator allows us. Maybe that religious mindset is the physchological block here?