Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 46.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on September 28, 2011, 05:39:04 PM

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.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: MoonShadow on September 28, 2011, 05:33:57 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 28, 2011, 05:20:39 PM

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

"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.

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.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

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?

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: Rassah on September 28, 2011, 05:23:10 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 28, 2011, 05:20:39 PM

Hmmm.

Rassah can you to be more specific. If I read it as about child porn and Moonshadow read it as about witchcraft, its too unclear.

MoonShadow was incorrect on his understanding of child porn laws. Possession is I legal, showing it in sort as evidence is not legal (or can be denied without question), and things like photos of family members can get you convicted for possession if they are presented as such.
What the specific is not important. The other questions asked, such as where do you draw the line, are.

Um, no. Sorry. Certain officials are exempt from possession, because they are the cops that persue this kind of crime, and must have a base reference that the court has previously declared defines the crime. Also so that they can actually posses evidence. Certain professionals have legitimate access to such things, so that they can assess the impact of the crime on both the victims and the pedafile accussed, as well as understand pedafiles and their psycological dysfunctions. Medical professionals have exemptions, because otherwise some medical photos would fall into the catagory of child porn.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: Hawker on September 28, 2011, 05:20:39 PM

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?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on September 28, 2011, 05:19:47 PM

...snip...

Ignore the details or the psychology, or the causes, or even the crime. Just assume that a cop had something against you, got a warrant to search your house, found a picture of your 5 year old cousin on the beach in swim trunks, and accused you of possessing child porn. You are taken to court, and under current reglations, that evidence can not be shown, so you get convicted. Why is that just? As others asked, where is tehe line where regulation goes too far? Heck, if the point is to protect life, why isn't there regulation to prevent us from driving, from eating what we want, and from leaving our houses, instead forcing us all to live in padded rooms? Don't you agree that that would save even more lives than just bans on nukes?

That is factually incorrect. The evidence is shown to the jury as part of the process.

Its a horrible area as there are 2 issues:
1. Harm to children which we have to prevent.
2. Foaming at the mouth hysteria that has people afraid to allow their kids walk to school.

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.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rassah on September 28, 2011, 05:19:47 PM

Ignore the details or the psychology, or the causes, or even the crime. Just assume that a cop had something against you, got a warrant to search your house, found a picture of your 5 year old cousin on the beach in swim trunks, and accused you of possessing child porn. You are taken to court, and under current reglations, that evidence can not be shown, so you get convicted. Why is that just? As others asked, where is tehe line where regulation goes too far? Heck, if the point is to protect life, why isn't there regulation to prevent us from driving, from eating what we want, and from leaving our houses, instead forcing us all to live in padded rooms? Don't you agree that that would save even more lives than just bans on nukes?

That takes too much effort. I say we enforce lobotomy laws. You spend a lot less time policing it. You're docile thus less violent. No rubber room necessary.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 28, 2011, 05:22:21 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 28, 2011, 05:15:15 PM

Fred you already made clear that, in your ideal world, the nukes going off is just part of what we have to put up with. And under the present system, its not an issue because as you said, regulation works in preventing nukes but it restricts your freedom.

I asked Moonshadow his position.

Troll and liar. I didn't say we should put up with nukes going off. Keep your filthy lies to yourself. Thanks

You say that we can't intervene until the nukes 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.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hawker on September 28, 2011, 05:20:39 PM

Hmmm.

Rassah can you to be more specific. If I read it as about child porn and Moonshadow read it as about witchcraft, its too unclear.

MoonShadow was incorrect on his understanding of child porn laws. Possession is I legal, showing it in sort as evidence is not legal (or can be denied without question), and things like photos of family members can get you convicted for possession if they are presented as such.
What the specific is not important. The other questions asked, such as where do you draw the line, are.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on September 28, 2011, 05:15:15 PM

Fred you already made clear that, in your ideal world, the nukes going off is just part of what we have to put up with. And under the present system, its not an issue because as you said, regulation works in preventing nukes but it restricts your freedom.

I asked Moonshadow his position.

Troll and liar. I didn't say we should put up with nukes going off. Keep your filthy lies to yourself. Thanks

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Hmmm.

Rassah can you to be more specific. If I read it as about child porn and Moonshadow read it as about witchcraft, its too unclear.

EDIT: Oh it is child porn. For a moment there I was wondering if 4chan had poisoned me Tongue

Its a horrible area as there are 2 issues:
1. Harm to children which we have to prevent.
2. Foaming at the mouth hysteria that has people afraid to allow their kids walk to school.

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.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 28, 2011, 05:11:03 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 28, 2011, 04:35:02 PM

Forgive me. Its a long thread.

Where have you said how people will be prevented from access to nuclear materials and centrifuges?

You can't because it's already been done. It's impossible to be perfect. You can be induced and influenced to not want something. You can never prevent it, unless the laws of physics says it's not possible, and even then I wouldn't hold my breath.

Fred you already made clear that, in your ideal world, the nukes going off is just part of what we have to put up with. And under the present system, its not an issue because as you said, regulation works in preventing nukes but it restricts your freedom.

I asked Moonshadow his position.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: AyeYo on September 28, 2011, 05:12:18 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on September 28, 2011, 05:08:59 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 28, 2011, 05:06:03 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 28, 2011, 05:00:51 PM

Do you agree with this type of government regulation? Do you believe that it's perfectly fine for regulation to progress to that level, if enough people believe there is a need for it? Why do you believe this regulation is justice, just because it was passed by the government with the people's consent?

I'd also like to ask some additional questions. If there is a line drawn where there is "too strict regulation", by what guiding principle is that line drawn? Also, where does that principle come from?

I'll even make it simplier. What principles are your politcal ideologies based upon, if any? Among that set of principles, which are in conflict with libertarian principles and how?

Off the top of my head, I'd have to say that one of the primary conflicts (especially in this thread) is that we (REDACTED INDIRECT INSULT) value the right to life over trivial, admittedly pull-from-ass rights like the right to own a nuke, the right to juggle small pox vials, the right to manufacture biological weapons in your basement, the right to store an armed bomb in your shed that's ten feet from my house, etc.

I think that's one of the main disagreements.

And that is one of the main errors. I don't even expect you to make any effort, AyeYo, because you're just here for the entertainment value.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 28, 2011, 05:11:03 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 28, 2011, 04:35:02 PM

Forgive me. Its a long thread.

Where have you said how people will be prevented from access to nuclear materials and centrifuges?

You can't because it's already been done. It's impossible to be perfect. You can be induced and influenced to not want something. You can never prevent it, unless the laws of physics says it's not possible, and even then I wouldn't hold my breath.

But there are these things called probabilities, you see.

If we can REDUCE (not prevent) the possibility of a terrorist getting his hands on a nuke from 1:100 to 1:1,000,000,000... that's a worthwhile change.

The fact that something isn't PERFECT is not reason to discard it, because NOTHING is perfect.

Obviously this whole deal requires an ability to see in colors other than black and white, as well an ability to understand cost/benefit analysis - things most folks on this forum do not possess.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: MoonShadow on September 28, 2011, 05:08:59 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 28, 2011, 05:06:03 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 28, 2011, 05:00:51 PM

Do you agree with this type of government regulation? Do you believe that it's perfectly fine for regulation to progress to that level, if enough people believe there is a need for it? Why do you believe this regulation is justice, just because it was passed by the government with the people's consent?

I'd also like to ask some additional questions. If there is a line drawn where there is "too strict regulation", by what guiding principle is that line drawn? Also, where does that principle come from?

I'll even make it simplier. What principles are your politcal ideologies based upon, if any? Among that set of principles, which are in conflict with libertarian principles and how?

Off the top of my head, I'd have to say that one of the primary conflicts (especially in this thread) is that we (REDACTED INDIRECT INSULT) value the right to life over trivial, admittedly pull-from-ass rights like the right to own a nuke, the right to juggle small pox vials, the right to manufacture biological weapons in your basement, the right to store an armed bomb in your shed that's ten feet from my house, etc.

I think that's one of the main disagreements.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on September 28, 2011, 04:35:02 PM

Forgive me. Its a long thread.

Where have you said how people will be prevented from access to nuclear materials and centrifuges?

You can't because it's already been done. It's impossible to be perfect. You can be induced and influenced to not want something. You can never prevent it, unless the laws of physics says it's not possible, and even then I wouldn't hold my breath.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 28, 2011, 05:06:03 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 28, 2011, 05:00:51 PM

Do you agree with this type of government regulation? Do you believe that it's perfectly fine for regulation to progress to that level, if enough people believe there is a need for it? Why do you believe this regulation is justice, just because it was passed by the government with the people's consent?

I'd also like to ask some additional questions. If there is a line drawn where there is "too strict regulation", by what guiding principle is that line drawn? Also, where does that principle come from?

I'll even make it simplier. What principles are your politcal ideologies based upon, if any? Among that set of principles, which are in conflict with libertarian principles and how?

Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 46. (Read 105899 times)