Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 101. (Read 105875 times)

The Shankill butchers believed they were defending their community.  Does that belief entitle them to nukes?

If someone says, "Wait until I get a gun, so I can kill you." then that's an argument for not allowing them to have a gun. If someone says, "Wait until I get a gun, so I can defend myself from attackers." then you have no right to stop them. Likewise, you have no right to stop someone from owning nukes if they haven't made any threats. These "Shankill Butchers" obviously wouldn't get to own nukes. The only thing wrong with them was that they weren't given the same treatment after they were caught.

Be honest; if you have your way and individuals have the right to posses nuclear weapons, there won't be many full or happy lives. 

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

Here are some pleasant characters from my childhood.  They liked to kidnap Catholics, pull their teeth out with pliers, chop their faces up and then cut their throats.  They killed over 30 innocents before the law caught up with them.  It baffles me that you think all that was wrong with them was that they didn't have nukes. 

Viewpoints are malleable, and seldom remain static over the course of one's life. The catalyst for changing one's worldview is typically experience, observation and knowledge. To love something, or feel a certain way, is but a reflection of who you are now, which in turn is what you've thus far experienced, and know up until this point.


What am I trying to change?

Those quotations represent a very different kind of thinking from my own. I'm simply not overly concerned with the perpetuation of our species. It's a nice idea but not too important. I want people currently living to have full and happy lives, happy by their own measure and no one else's. I love humans, not humanity. That's not something that can be argued over because it's deeply emotional. It's based on my experiences and my disposition. If that's what you hope to change, I highly doubt you'll have any success.

Here's a short article for starters. I may have linked to it before. It's food for thought. I'll post plenty more. This is just one article - it's the sum of many articles or books taken together that is important.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/starting_over/

Excellent!

I'm sure you can come up with more reading than I have time to read so put your best foot forward. I'll let you know when I've read this and you can quiz me on it if you like.

I can come up with plenty of book and article recommendations - probably more than you have time to take in. Look for a post detailing such recommendations in the near future. Here's one I've mentioned several times, and it's definitely worth reading. I cannot recommend it highly enough:

The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson

Yes. Did you know that I wasn't born a libertarian? In fact, I voted for Obama because I wanted him to give me "free healthcare". I was all for socialized medicine. This whole libertarianism thing is actually kind of new to me. I could be swayed to your position. What's doubtful, however, is that you could sway me to your position. But if you've got some articles or books you'd like to recommend, I'd be happy to read them and I'll give them the same harsh criticism that I gave the libertarian authors, which I ultimately failed to counter and so I begrudgingly joined their ranks.

Can you be swayed to my position? Is that within the realm of possibility?

I can't be defeated because this isn't a fight. I can only be swayed to your position. Calling me names and speaking in riddles isn't going to work. You should try something else.

You're half correct. It is about defeating you, because of how you believe your ideas can be applied to the real world. But you're incorrect if you don't think it's about ideas. Because it is about ideas - very important ideas, and their need to be addressed and understood, in all their complexities and subtleties.

Yes, because it all about defeating me personally. Who cares if any ideas get challenged or examined. It's all about me knowing that I've been vanquished and that you get the last word. That's so important.

*face palm*

Please stop obsessing over me. I really don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

That's your typical exit from a topic.

BLAH BLAH BLAH INSULT INSULT BLAH BLAH

That's all I read. Get back to me when you can control your temper.

You're just unbelievable. What part of scarce leads you to believe that the supplier has one million units? He doesn't.

You have the nerve to suggest that I have yet to make a point because what I'm saying does not fit with how you want economics to apply to scarce natural resources. I don't even think you know what a scarce natural resource is. Nor do you understand the dynamics of culture and varying wealth. Look at what you've just stated above.

Read the wikipedia article that you so smugly cited. First sentence, in the Supply Schedule section:


You're obviously woefully ignorant of real world dynamics, and unable to distinguish between a theory meant to apply to goods available in a market, and finite resources yet to be harvested.

How about you exercise your manners?


That's not how most economists use the term "scarce".


Who said anything about proportionally? That's your straw man, not mine. It depends on how elastic the demand is. However, it's very much the case that as price increases even the most inelastic demands will find substitutes.


Only if demand is fixed, which it never is. As the price goes up, the demand goes down. Focusing solely on the fact that the price is higher neglects the fact that there is a lower demand. Do the math. If a million people want to buy something at ten dollars profit per unit but only one person wants to buy the same thing at one million dollars profit per unit, you make more profit but setting your price at ten dollars. Price is not the only variable. It's also quantity demanded at that price. This is basic economics.


Let me know when you have a point to make.

No. You have it backwards. I've already explained it to you. Recall that I said you're applying the supply/demand curve inappropriately? Try reading what I've written. Need a hint? Read the article you've posted. It's all in there. Here's your hint: Ceteris paribus.

Because I want to give you the chance to exercise your mind. I want to see if you can figure out why.

Your prediction of consumer behavior does not have an effect on demand, despite the fact that you think it does. Recall that we are discussing scarce natural resources, the operative term being scarce. Scarcity implies that only a very small subset of the population can afford the resource, and that subset is the very wealthy. Although the price of the natural resource is astronomical to the average person, it is affordable to the wealthy. As scarcity increases, it's demand relative to supply does not necessarily decrease proportionally. It would if all consumers had the same wealth, but that is not the case.

Regarding harvesters, let's not call them suppliers, as it hinders one's thinking. By using the term harvester, I gave you a big hint as how to rethink the problem, but you opted to insist on the term supply, in hopes that your supply/demand theory would then still be relevant.

Harvesting determines supply. A significant increase in the scarcity of a natural resource drives the price higher. This makes harvesting more appealing. Any and all of the following will typically manifest themselves as the price increases significantly: increased efficiency, increased application of sophisticated technology, criminal activity, unethical activity, immoral activity, and collateral damage. Competition increases. The race to harvest the last remaining quantities of the scarce resource ramps up.

This happens every time in an unregulated market.