Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 32. (Read 105875 times)

Stop with the straw man. You're the only one (in this discussion) that thinks movies, consumer brands, and product research can only be accomplish through IP law.

To preempt you... "Cotton can't be picked without slavery! If you want to get rid of slavery, you have to give me a good reason why we should do without cotton!"

Someone on the intraweb said it so it must be true?

Seriously, if that is the best you can come up as a reason why we should do without movies, consumer brands, product research and the other benefits of IP law, you may as well give up.

"Daniel Bartels, of the Columbia Business School, found that those who “endorse actions consistent with an ethic of utilitarianism – the view that what is the morally right thing to do is whatever produces the best overall consequences – tend to possess psychopathic and Machiavellian personality traits.”

http://www.strike-the-root.com/prohibition-did-work-sort-of

This stuff is too easy.

"Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police state as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals and makes the executive state the unlimited master of society."

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/how-fascism-kills-the-american-dream/

Is there any objection to this casual definition?

There's a big difference in being capable of committing an act and the consequences related to that act. There is also a difference between freedom and slavery. Your actions define what side of that "line in the sand" you stand on.

Don't confuse freedom and liberty with capability of action. We are all capable of treachery as much as we are acts of kindness. Likewise you are "free" to act upon those persons and things for which you have acquired specific consent to do so, and no more. Without consent, you have lawlessness, violence, and injury, and that eventually leads toward slavery and all the various shades of gray between.

Still not an argument.

Try requiring that dog owners pay a $300 'license' to fund an anti-dog torturing task force and see how much majority you have left.

Saying that all restrictions on freedom are part of a slippery slope to slavery is "something"

Work calls so offline.

For the majority, its an even easier decision.  They find torturing dogs repugnant.

Then, as another already stated, don't open a door you cannot close.  And don't refer to your oppositions' arguments as "silly" sans a counter-argument.

OK - so can we stop the silly arguments?  Its possible to restrict freedom without making a person a slave.  Its possible to give someone freedom without allowing them to have sex with their kids.  Reducing each other's arguments to that level generates heat rather than light.  

Limiting the freedoms of the rare few as a direct consequence of their own actions is entirely a different topic than limiting the freedoms of the majority because of what could be done by the rare few.

It's not impossible, it's just not ideal.  It's like the old argument of the Soviets to the masses when they complained about want.  "When we reach a perfect communism, then we will all have enough".  But it is the process to the prefect that is the issue.  I've pointed this out to you repeatedly before.


It's a silly argument for an entirely different reason.  A child cannot consent, thus sex with children is sex slavery.  Your attempt at equating the argument for freedom for it's own sake with the wish of a predator to force his will upon another human being is not only an epic fail, it's also dishonest.  And trollish.  If we were to stoop to that level, it would be trivial to compare your desires to enforce IP laws for your own gains to taking the food out of a child's mouth because his father couldn't pay the fee you demand for his 'hunting license'.  Do you believe that a government has the right to require permission for subsistance hunting?  After all, if they don't then there is a risk that there won't be any game left for the wealthy hunters who can pay for the game warden's salary.  What if instead of food, it was a generic medicine that said child required to live.  What right do you have, as the patent holder, to deny the child the medicine even if it's made by your competitor in a nation that doesn't honor your pantents?  You try to make the argument that movies wouldn't be made without IP laws, an assertion that I find rediculous, and you never even make an argument as to why this would be the case beyond "some people would get a movie for free, therefore all people would get their movies free".  It doesn't follow.  Regardless, the business model of the entertainment industries is not a valid argument for the injustice of IP laws.  Even if it didn't exist as we now know it, something else would exist.  And even if it didn't, it's entertainment.  Why do you hate the children?

Its not either/or.  Vast numbers of people have dogs.  Only a few get their jollies from torturing dogs.  Since pointless cruelty is something our societies abhor, we take the dogs off that few people.  On a balance of benefits, taking away the freedom to torture dogs is less harmful than leaving the dogs get tortured. 

Total freedom is impossible.   You can choose any human activity and find its possible to take it too far.  There are people who feel sex with children is a good thing and people who don't.  One group is oppressing the other right now.  Do you think that a man who loves sex with boys saying "Restricting my sexual self-expression impinges my freedom and impinging freedom leads to slavery" suddenly makes the problem go away?  Or is it a silly argument?

Did you really write this?  Are you being serious?


Be wary of what you read.  I won't argue that artillery can kill more people, particularly in a war of attritian.  They are a force advantage, but you still require a target.  It's hard to target the enemy discriminately, when they are a minority mixed into the general population.  As for your courts in mortal conflict example, it depends.  If those civilians outnumber the trained professional force by any significant margin, and half or more of those civilians are either former military themselves, or graduates of 'Appleseed' your mercs are going to have much to consider concerning their loyalties after contact with the enemy.  Don't expect that books, even history textbooks that focus on military history, are going to make up for your lack of direct experience in this field.  I served 8 years in the USMC.  There is nothing more frightening than a civilian with a rifle who doesn't have anything left to lose.


What puzzles me is why you keep assuming that when I state the obvious, that you jump to the conclusion that I find that reality preferable.  This side-track was all started when you tried to claim that a group of men with guns was just a lawless rabble, and I pointed out that is exactly what government boils down to.  Regardless of how fair, or "democratic" or otherwise justifiable you (or I) might consider any particular goverment structure to be; governments always boils down to the set of rought men willing to do violence against others on the command of a perceived superior.  Government IS force.  There is no way around this.  Likewise, there is no way around the fact that IP laws are specific applications of said force (and threat of force) against one group of citizens to the benefit of another group of citizens.

This is true, because otherwise, you and yours could possibly make a law which could say I couldn't cut my grass because it might possibly cause ecological damage to the environment. I invite you to not open a door you likely can't close. You're just asking for murder and mayhem.

I care about the enviroment, I just care about human rights more.

When 90%+ of law results in some form of violence, voting has no meaning any more. It isn't representation any longer when I can vote to take, manipulate, or disburse thru whatever means available, property that isn't mine and give it to somebody else.

Voting to remove the element of "stealth-theft" of liberty and property is literally impossible when society is so engrossed and relies so heavily on it's application. My vote would be to take away all patent examiners jobs, patent lawyers, and IP laws, and in addition to that, would require a constitutional amendment. It will never happen.

As long as the majority thinks it's okay to redistribute wealth, or is ignorant on how that happens, the status quo will remain. Look how long slavery lasted. In fact, it still exists in small pockets of society all over the world.

Don't tell me governments have a solution to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They introduced the problem from the beginning. I have to overcome 300+ years of indoctrination. Au contraire, they retard it's progress.

Regarding the dog, I believe Fred said rights stop with people. Thus, to Fred, dogs are just property, like a pieces of furniture.

The great irony of this statement is that we understand this far greater than you do, and despite knowing this is true, you regard the defense of freedom for it's own sake to be a "silly argument".