@Hawker,
I would like to take this discussion in a slightly different direction, perhaps to illustrate a point.
I will assume that you own some kind of property, that you bought using funds that you honestly earned. This kind of property doesn't need to be anything contriversial, let's say that you own a video game machine. The common kind that can be bought at any toy store. You own a video game, of a non-contriversial type; say Mario Kart.
You enjoy your game, and like to play it often. You invite friends over to play with you. When the night is over, one of your friends declares that he's taking your game with him. He doesn't ask, he just states it as a fact. I say it's obvious enough that you are within your rights to object, as it's your property and it's thus your's to do with what you like. Even so far as to destroy it, if you so wish. If you don't agree with this statement, then we have a greater chasm to cross than I presently assume.
So I will continue with the assumption that you agree with the above.
In light of this, here are my questions.
Who own's you? Who own's your spouse? Who own's your children?
Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 45. (Read 105899 times)
...snip...
In the UK, there are indeterminate sentences. In the US, there is "3 strikes and you are out." Both address the issue of people who are never going to stop harming others. I am not comfortable with either idea but I have met someone who does spent his life either in jail or terrorising people and I accept that society needs protection.
In the UK, there are indeterminate sentences. In the US, there is "3 strikes and you are out." Both address the issue of people who are never going to stop harming others. I am not comfortable with either idea but I have met someone who does spent his life either in jail or terrorising people and I accept that society needs protection.
You think that I need protection, or do you think that you need protection?
There are specific cases where you do need protection. Same for me. There are mad and bad guys who do work as groups and they need to be stopped.
But that statement doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There might very well be mad and bad guys who work as groups who hold ill will towards myself, but how is that your responsibility? And if you are responsible for my protection, to what extent are you responsible? These aren't just bs questions that I'm making up as I go, they are intended to guide you to think along a pattern.
Quote
I snipped your question about trying to making general rules. We protect kids from buggery but not from a smacked ass. Laws tend to be specific.
Actually, quite the reverse is true. Laws tend to be written as generalities, and the details are finalized by judicial precedent. And there are plenty of such laws that have been interpreted to the very end that you claim doesn't occur, namely that we don't protect kids from a smacked ass.
No, what I get is social contract and backing by society.
He intentionally said YOU and not SOCIETY, because if it's ME setting the standards, that's easy to argue against. If it's SOCIETY setting the standards, that's much more difficult to argue against.
He intentionally said YOU and not SOCIETY, because if it's ME setting the standards, that's easy to argue against. If it's SOCIETY setting the standards, that's much more difficult to argue against.
If I hire hitmen to do my dirty work, am I not responsible for the death of my neighbor? I suppose technically speaking, that'd be false, but still ugly (I didn't "pull the trigger" personally). If you use the voting mechanism to achieve legislation, you have a difficult time determining who the "hitmen" were. It's all well hidden and abstracted within the mechanism of statism.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding. If you want to get that technical, even if you pull the trigger, it's the bullet that killed him. That's why we talk about proximate causes vs. ultimate causes. The proximate cause was the bullet or the hitman, the ultimate cause would still be you in either case.
No, what I get is social contract and backing by society.
He intentionally said YOU and not SOCIETY, because if it's ME setting the standards, that's easy to argue against. If it's SOCIETY setting the standards, that's much more difficult to argue against.
He intentionally said YOU and not SOCIETY, because if it's ME setting the standards, that's easy to argue against. If it's SOCIETY setting the standards, that's much more difficult to argue against.
If I hire hitmen to do my dirty work, am I not responsible for the death of my neighbor? I suppose technically speaking that'd be false, but still ugly (I didn't "pull the trigger" personally). If you use the voting mechanism to achieve legislation, you have a difficult time determining who the "hitmen" were. It's all well hidden and abstracted within the mechanism of statism.
When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.
You don't get extra rights just because you bring some friends to the party.
Life is not a party. If people band together for their own protection, you need more than talk about rights to remove the protections they have created.
Why?
Something about voluntary contracts and no coercion or force.
What about it?
I'll give you a tip here... you need to stop saying "you" and start saying "society". Because it's not about ME and YOU, it's about US ALL. It's not whether I alone believe you to be a threat, it's whether society as a whole believes you to be a threat.
When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.
Gotta give you an A for subtle, manipulative effort though!
When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.
Gotta give you an A for subtle, manipulative effort though!
I'll give you an F for the subtle, manipulative, and coercive way you use ignorant voters, law enforcement, legislators and regulators for creating laws that control your neighbors indirectly.
All very imaginative but you are still left with terrorists owning nukes. No-one has the right to enter their land once they have bought it. They won't tell you in advance they are making a nuke or that they intend to use it.
This is true of any society, anywhere.
Quote
It all ends in a lot of mushroom clouds in your utopia.
A big fat assumption with little proof. Impossible to draw that conclusion. I however can conclude that governments of your type have done such things. Say it ain't so. Maybe it's your ideology that's to blame.
Quote
Its not just nukes. You have the same view on smallpox and on fertiliser based bombs. Yours is a very grim vision of society. Its your utopia and you are entitled to it but please don't try to pretend that it will be anything other than a return to life being "nasty, brutish and short."
I speak of liberty and NAP. I'd say that nowhere in those definitions, grim is ever used. You love to blow things way out of proportion, create apocalyptic "mushroom cloud" scenarios, use twisted logic, blame an ideology for the future dissolution of society, and label most humans as irrationally inane, whilst simultaneously claiming that your government and society has none of that. UP is DOWN is LEFT is RIGHT is WRONG is BLACK is WHITE = LAW = TROLL.
When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.
You don't get extra rights just because you bring some friends to the party.
Life is not a party. If people band together for their own protection, you need more than talk about rights to remove the protections they have created.
Why?
Something about voluntary contracts and no coercion or force.
When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.
You don't get extra rights just because you bring some friends to the party.
No, what I get is social contract and backing by society.
He intentionally said YOU and not SOCIETY, because if it's ME setting the standards, that's easy to argue against. If it's SOCIETY setting the standards, that's much more difficult to argue against.
When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.
You don't get extra rights just because you bring some friends to the party.
Life is not a party. If people band together for their own protection, you need more than talk about rights to remove the protections they have created.
Why?
When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.
You don't get extra rights just because you bring some friends to the party.
Life is not a party. If people band together for their own protection, you need more than talk about rights to remove the protections they have created.
I say we look at the basics again. Should mere possession of anything, regardless of its composition (patterns, etc.), constitute a crime? Let's assume no crimes have been committed, or are about to be committed by the present owner.
I know. That's your position. And you accept that it means terrorists can make nukes, biological and fertiliser based bombs and until they use them, you will take no action at all.
Your vision of an ideal society is clear. All I am saying is that its not that attractive. Lots of explosions and unpleasantly early deaths. And no movies as we discussed earlier. Our present system with less explosions and more movies is nicer.
When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.
You don't get extra rights just because you bring some friends to the party.
Sure, but where is the limit? Can you cause harm, based upon the belief that your neighbor intends to do harm to youself, your property, or your family; in order to prevent your neighbor from doing harm? Can you do the same, if your neighbor intends you no harm, but you believe that he is a threat to others? How can you make such a determination?
I'll give you a tip here... you need to stop saying "you" and start saying "society". Because it's not about ME and YOU, it's about US ALL. It's not whether I alone believe you to be a threat, it's whether society as a whole believes you to be a threat.
When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.
Gotta give you an A for subtle, manipulative effort though!
...snip...
In the UK, there are indeterminate sentences. In the US, there is "3 strikes and you are out." Both address the issue of people who are never going to stop harming others. I am not comfortable with either idea but I have met someone who does spent his life either in jail or terrorising people and I accept that society needs protection.
In the UK, there are indeterminate sentences. In the US, there is "3 strikes and you are out." Both address the issue of people who are never going to stop harming others. I am not comfortable with either idea but I have met someone who does spent his life either in jail or terrorising people and I accept that society needs protection.
You think that I need protection, or do you think that you need protection?
There are specific cases where you do need protection. Same for me. There are mad and bad guys who do work as groups and they need to be stopped.
I snipped your question about trying to making general rules. We protect kids from buggery but not from a smacked ass. Laws tend to be specific.
I won't debate with you whether the evidence is shown or not. You don't know that anyway. That's also not important. Btw, my example also applies to possession of state secrets. Again, where do we draw the line, and how do we determine that?
Why do you need to draw a line? Good laws are tightly drafted to avoid unintended consequences. There is no way you can make general statements in a law and hope for the best.
My law says that if you show signs of anger or aggression, as determined by a law enforcement official, you will be required to pay $100 to attend an anger management class, and will be barred from attending bars and other public venues, as well as buying alcohol, for a month.
My law is good, because it will prevent harm to people and save lives. Aggression will be determined based on specific list of observable actions, such as facial extressions, tone of voice, or threatening actions.
(Should states chose to abuse this law in order to make $100 from a bunch of people, oh well. People can vote to change the law if they want, but hey, if they aren't violent and threatening types, why are they so concerned?)
I say we look at the basics again. Should mere possession of anything, regardless of its composition (patterns, etc.), constitute a crime? Let's assume no crimes have been committed, or are about to be committed by the present owner.
You say that we can't intervene until they go off if the person has not made a threat. That means we have to put up with them in your world. IF you have changed your mind and now think we do have the right to intervene before a threat is made, then I am wrong.
Otherwise, stand by the consequences of your beliefs.
Otherwise, stand by the consequences of your beliefs.
I think it is more worthwhile determining whether a threat is imminent than proactively commiting violence in advance. Besides, I doubt there will be many in society that would tolerate a nuke in their neighborhood. With that attitude in mind, anyone who would want to occupy or use those private lands would probably be subject to prior search (for nukes) by the owner as a condition of their use. It would take an extensive effort to allude detection if the majority of your neighbors were similarly inclined.
Try using more imagination next time.
All very imaginative but you are still left with terrorists owning nukes. No-one has the right to enter their land once they have bought it. They won't tell you in advance they are making a nuke or that they intend to use it.
It all ends in a lot of mushroom clouds in your utopia.
Its not just nukes. You have the same view on smallpox and on fertiliser based bombs. Yours is a very grim vision of society. Its your utopia and you are entitled to it but please don't try to pretend that it will be anything other than a return to life being "nasty, brutish and short."
I think the ability to make that kind law is fair enough but its implementation is often hysterically overdone. Moonshadow's comparison to the fear of witches might be a good example of what is going wrong with the system.
I think we have progress, then. So, whether the subject is 'child porn' or 'spells' or simply 'thought crime'; in your opinion what has actually gone wrong with the system? Is there some kind of rational distinction between justifiable prevention of harm to children and thought crime based upon same? Or is it all just an arbitrary line that we must all respect, once some government body has negotiated the line?
We already agree on what constitutes the basics of a decent society - where we disagree is how to implement it and how far beyond the basics we should go
Good, good. We've had wonderful progress this session.
Quote
"Is there some kind of rational distinction between justifiable prevention of harm to children and thought crime based upon same?" - leave children out of the sentence. We prevent infliction of harm on all where we can.
Sure, but where is the limit? Can you cause harm, based upon the belief that your neighbor intends to do harm to youself, your property, or your family; in order to prevent your neighbor from doing harm? Can you do the same, if your neighbor intends you no harm, but you believe that he is a threat to others? How can you make such a determination?
Quote
In the UK, there are indeterminate sentences. In the US, there is "3 strikes and you are out." Both address the issue of people who are never going to stop harming others. I am not comfortable with either idea but I have met someone who does spent his life either in jail or terrorising people and I accept that society needs protection.
You think that I need protection, or do you think that you need protection?
You say that we can't intervene until they go off if the person has not made a threat. That means we have to put up with them in your world. IF you have changed your mind and now think we do have the right to intervene before a threat is made, then I am wrong.
Otherwise, stand by the consequences of your beliefs.
Otherwise, stand by the consequences of your beliefs.
I think it is more worthwhile determining whether a threat is imminent than proactively commiting violence in advance. Besides, I doubt there will be many in society that would tolerate a nuke in their neighborhood. With that attitude in mind, anyone who would want to occupy or use those private lands would probably be subject to prior search (for nukes) by the owner as a condition of their use. It would take an extensive effort to allude detection if the majority of your neighbors were similarly inclined.
Try using more imagination next time.
Jump to: