Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 42. (Read 105875 times)

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. 

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.

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.

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

so where's the nazi comment?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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/

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. 

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  

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

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

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?

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.

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

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. 

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?

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...