Pages:
Author

Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 43. (Read 105875 times)

legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
September 29, 2011, 04:00:28 PM
...snip...
So you don't own you, then.  So who does?  As noted above, someone owns you.  Either you own you, or society does; so which is it?  Are you your own, or are you slave to the collective?  It pretty much answers itself, because there can be no middle ground.

Is slavery allowed?  

If yes and you are free, then you own yourself.  If yes and someone owns you, well then someone owns you.

If slavery is not allowed, since you can't sell yourself and since society can't sell you, then you don't have an owner.  You are truly free.

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.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
September 29, 2011, 03:58:40 PM
You're only demonstrating that you don't understand libertarianism. You don't need 100% agreement on a single issue much less all of the issues for it to be implemented.

That's because you're a raging hypocrite, something we established and moved past over twenty pages ago.

Yet a further demonstration of your ignorance. Self-defense is not aggression therefore it can't be a violation of the non-aggression principle.

Didn't you say that you don't believe we are allowed to defend ourselves against someone with a nuke?  Or are we now allowed to intervene before they detonate it?

Let's look at it from a smaller scale.  If your neighbor packs heat, whether or not you are aware of it, it should not be a threat to yourself; until the day comes that he either actually threatens you, or he pulls out his weapon in your presence with the pretense of pointing it at you.  If he has ever threatened you before buying a gun, it would be reasonable for you to appeal to your neighbors (or elected reps, or local sherriff, whatever) that his aquiring a gun, in light of his prior inclinations towards violence, constitutes a threat upon yourself.  The same can be said for nukes or the materials and expertise to produce them at the nation-state level.  I'm not making up anything novel here, this is the way it actually is presently.  The only difference in how a lib looks at the situation is that there is no inherent difference between an individual and a group of people large enough to be considered an independent and soverign nation.  Groups don't have rights that individuals do not have.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
September 29, 2011, 03:21:04 PM
hat you're saying ("self-defense") and what you actually plan to do (force people to follow your beliefs) are worlds apart.

Give me one example of something I would force people to do that doesn't boil down to self-defense of my person or property.

You would force people to leave cities since your scheme has no way to prevent nukes in apartment blocks.

That's not forcing people. Forcing is me using aggression or the threat thereof. As long as you make arguments from ambiguity we will get nowhere.

I'll stop.  I don't think your position is a good one but we've flogged that horse to death.
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 252
Elder Crypto God
September 29, 2011, 03:19:16 PM
hat you're saying ("self-defense") and what you actually plan to do (force people to follow your beliefs) are worlds apart.

Give me one example of something I would force people to do that doesn't boil down to self-defense of my person or property.

You would force people to leave cities since your scheme has no way to prevent nukes in apartment blocks.

That's not forcing people. Forcing is me using aggression or the threat thereof. As long as you make arguments from ambiguity we will get nowhere.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
September 29, 2011, 03:11:37 PM
hat you're saying ("self-defense") and what you actually plan to do (force people to follow your beliefs) are worlds apart.

Give me one example of something I would force people to do that doesn't boil down to self-defense of my person or property.

You would force people to leave cities since your scheme has no way to prevent nukes in apartment blocks.
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 252
Elder Crypto God
September 29, 2011, 03:00:47 PM
hat you're saying ("self-defense") and what you actually plan to do (force people to follow your beliefs) are worlds apart.

Give me one example of something I would force people to do that doesn't boil down to self-defense of my person or property.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
September 29, 2011, 02:59:27 PM
Self-defense isn't aggression, but once again you're playing a semantics game.  What you're saying ("self-defense") and what you actually plan to do (force people to follow your beliefs) are worlds apart.

Yea!!! I want to say it first. AyeYo, that's correct: self-defense is different than being forced to believe something. You got it. Good for you (applause).

I'd give you a standing ovation, but that might be overdoing it. Now for the next baby step.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
September 29, 2011, 02:41:40 PM
You're only demonstrating that you don't understand libertarianism. You don't need 100% agreement on a single issue much less all of the issues for it to be implemented.

That's because you're a raging hypocrite, something we established and moved past over twenty pages ago.

Yet a further demonstration of your ignorance. Self-defense is not aggression therefore it can't be a violation of the non-aggression principle.

Didn't you say that you don't believe we are allowed to defend ourselves against someone with a nuke?  Or are we now allowed to intervene before they detonate it?
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
September 29, 2011, 02:39:35 PM
...snip...
So you don't own you, then.  So who does?  As noted above, someone owns you.  Either you own you, or society does; so which is it?  Are you your own, or are you slave to the collective?  It pretty much answers itself, because there can be no middle ground.

Is slavery allowed?  

If yes and you are free, then you own yourself.  If yes and someone owns you, well then someone owns you.

If slavery is not allowed, since you can't sell yourself and since society can't sell you, then you don't have an owner.  You are truly free.

full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
September 29, 2011, 02:32:40 PM
You're only demonstrating that you don't understand libertarianism. You don't need 100% agreement on a single issue much less all of the issues for it to be implemented.

That's because you're a raging hypocrite, something we established and moved past over twenty pages ago.

Yet a further demonstration of your ignorance. Self-defense is not aggression therefore it can't be a violation of the non-aggression principle.


That's because you're a raging hypocrite, something we established and moved past over twenty pages ago.


Self-defense isn't aggression, but once again you're playing a semantics game.  What you're saying ("self-defense") and what you actually plan to do (force people to follow your beliefs) are worlds apart.
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 252
Elder Crypto God
September 29, 2011, 02:29:31 PM
You're only demonstrating that you don't understand libertarianism. You don't need 100% agreement on a single issue much less all of the issues for it to be implemented.

That's because you're a raging hypocrite, something we established and moved past over twenty pages ago.

Yet a further demonstration of your ignorance. Self-defense is not aggression therefore it can't be a violation of the non-aggression principle.
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 252
Elder Crypto God
September 29, 2011, 02:23:03 PM
the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out

You mean like your fantasy objections to libertarianism?

There's a difference between fixable flaws cropping up in implimentation (due to human nature) and inherent, systemic flaws in the idealogy itself.

You mean like concentrating power in the hands of a few people and hoping the bad guys won't make a grab for it and abuse it?

No, I mean like having a system based on a principle that doesn't allow you to impliment your system unless 100% of the population is 100% in agreement (thus an impossibility) otherwise making the system completely contradictory, hypocritical, and arbitrary.

I mean like having a system based on non-aggression and no coercion, even though aggression and coercion are facts of life simply because 100% of the people will not agree on 100% of the issues 100% of the time.

That's an inherently flawed system that CANNOT exist in the real world, not just because I don't want it to, but because it's a physical impossibility.



So we better get to work on improving what we have.

You're only demonstrating that you don't understand libertarianism. You don't need 100% agreement on a single issue much less all of the issues for it to be implemented.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
September 29, 2011, 02:20:54 PM
the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out

You mean like your fantasy objections to libertarianism?

There's a difference between fixable flaws cropping up in implimentation (due to human nature) and inherent, systemic flaws in the idealogy itself.

You mean like concentrating power in the hands of a few people and hoping the bad guys won't make a grab for it and abuse it?

No, I mean like having a system based on a principle that doesn't allow you to impliment your system unless 100% of the population is 100% in agreement (thus an impossibility) otherwise making the system completely contradictory, hypocritical, and arbitrary.

I mean like having a system based on non-aggression and no coercion, even though aggression and coercion are facts of life simply because 100% of the people will not agree on 100% of the issues 100% of the time.

That's an inherently flawed system that CANNOT exist in the real world, not just because I don't want it to, but because it's a physical impossibility.



So we better get to work on improving what we have.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
September 29, 2011, 02:20:39 PM

Sorry I don't get where you get from a stolen video player to people owning you, your spouse or your children.  And as I said, comparing society, which is inherited by and large, with a group of friends playing a video game, which is voluntary by and large, doesn't make sense to me.  You can leave the group and it hurts no-one. Refuse to pay taxes and it does affect other people.

We'll get there, but we have to start somewhere.  Do you own your own person?  Is your life wholely your own?  If so, can you give it away, like you can a physical object that you rightly own?  Can someone else rightly take it from you against your will, if you have caused neither them, nor anyone that they might represent, any real harm?

Google Definition for ownership: the relation of an owner to the thing possessed; possession with the right to transfer possession to others

Do you own your own person? Your person is not a thing you can possess and it can't be transferred.  Therefore it can't be owned.


You are most certainly a physical object.  Human history suggests that the concept of ownership of particular humans is deeply ingrained in humanity, for good or bad.

Quote

Is your life wholly your own?  You may decide to end your life.  Society may decide you are depressed and stop you.  So that makes the answer No.  

Can someone else rightly take your life from you against your will?  Yes.  Should they ? In my opinion, only to prevent future harm.  If you represent a future danger and death is what it takes to stop you, then even if you have done no harm, bring on the sword of death.


So you don't own you, then.  So who does?  As noted above, someone owns you.  Either you own you, or society does; so which is it?  Are you your own, or are you slave to the collective?  It pretty much answers itself, because there can be no middle ground.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
September 29, 2011, 02:17:34 PM
Anybody interested in responding to my question yet?  It was first asked 30+ pages ago.

Haven't seen it.  It was probably trolling anyway.

Must be blind, because I quoted it right on this page.
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 252
Elder Crypto God
September 29, 2011, 02:17:09 PM
the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out

You mean like your fantasy objections to libertarianism?

There's a difference between fixable flaws cropping up in implimentation (due to human nature) and inherent, systemic flaws in the idealogy itself.

You mean like concentrating power in the hands of a few people and hoping the bad guys won't make a grab for it and abuse it?
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
September 29, 2011, 02:15:49 PM
Anybody interested in responding to my question yet?  It was first asked 30+ pages ago.

Haven't seen it.  It was probably trolling anyway.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
September 29, 2011, 02:03:45 PM
There's a difference between fixable flaws cropping up in implimentation (due to human nature) and inherent, systemic flaws in the idealogy itself.

And you even have a system? Oh wait, it's whatever you can convince society to sign off on. Flaws? Of course not, every things going perfectly as planned, I just need more tax revenue.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
September 29, 2011, 01:59:58 PM
If you ever open your eyes and we're able to move off of these ridiuclous topics like you handing out nukes to terrorists, you'll realize that most of us are very against the exact actions you've just described.

But in the world of color (not your black/white alternative universe), the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out.  The fact that current first-world government is mostly corrupt, doesn't mean that government in and of itself is an inherently bad concept.

Fred is trolling or he has lost all grip on reality.  Either way, you won't get anywhere feeding his delusional posts.

I may have said some things that were out of line. I can redact some of those. I probably wouldn't have erred as much if it hadn't been for me answering some of the crazy illogical and nonsensical fallacies you put forth. So I apologize for stepping on some of your "land mines". I should be more careful where I step.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
September 29, 2011, 01:59:53 PM
the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out

You mean like your fantasy objections to libertarianism?

There's a difference between fixable flaws cropping up in implimentation (due to human nature) and inherent, systemic flaws in the idealogy itself.
Pages:
Jump to: