Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 47. (Read 105875 times)

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?

Wow, that was quick!  So, in your own words, how would you sum up your new understanding of where libs get the NAP from?

At the extreme risk of opening up a huge can of worms, I'm going to flip this regulation thing into the other extreme:

In order to protect a certain class of people, the government passed some laws to make certain types of information illegal to poses. As time progressed, the regulation of this information expanded, the punishments became more and more severe, and the restrictions became more and more limited. At present, this information is considered so dangerous that it can not even be presented in court as evidence, since the very act of owning it or looking at it is illegal. The end result of this regulation is that people can be accused of being in posession of this material, or something that may just resemble it, be charged by the state for it, and tried without any evidence being presented against them. Usually the people still get convicted, and if a jurry is involved in a trial, these people are pretty much guaranteed to be convicted. The sentence is usually at least 5 years in prison, sometimes more. If you are lucky, you are allowed to stay home, but get regular checkups by the FBI, and are required to notify your government handlers if you wish to travel or leave the state. You are also severely restricted in where you are allowed to go. Likewise, your internet and phone conversations are monitored, and you can pretty much assume a total lack of privacy. The crime of possessing these materials is considered so great that it becomes difficult to get a job if you have the charge on your record. And, again, thanks to the strict regulations, you do not actually have to be guilty. Simply being accused and charged with it is enough, since, with the evidence not being admissible in court, it's your word against the police/FBI, and thus you'll very likely lose.

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 meant I was expecting them to do that. I know it's ridiculous.

Forgive me.  Its a long thread.

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

Yes, something.  Come back when you have figured out where the NAP is derived from.  Here's a small clue to get you started, where do I get my signature quote from?

No, you don't.

This fact becomes more apparent the more of your posts that I read.  Perhaps you should enrich yourself by extending your breadth of understanding concerning libertarian thought by reading a few articles by better philosophers than can be found on an open Internet forum.


Yes, and I have repeatedly referred to those forms of prevention.  You just don't understand or accept them.  I'm not interested in a circle jerk. 

You've said that it doesn't matter if people die for your beliefs that regulating materials is some kind of moral offence.  So your position is clear.  In your society we will have an admirable degree of freedom, smallpox and bombs going off a lot.  Some will be nukes because if the bomber hasn't announced his intention in advance, then it would breach the NAP to take his explosives off him.

You never did answer the question about where your NAP comes from.  If you think in "is/ought" terms, the existing order is what "is" and your proposal is what you think "ought" to happen.  What basis does it have?  God, natural law or something?

I think it's really tiring to try to argue the nuke subject. It goes round and round, and nothing specific can be proven about it except to say that it's being handled in a specific way now. We can all say that the current way works because it affects persons via direct force. Apply enough chains and shackles and you will eventually prevent all crime. Of course, you might not get as much productivity either, but that's the risk that the aggressor takes. Incentive definitely takes a back seat if I'm forced to do someone else's bidding.

All enforced laws, and ones that threaten injury, have that tendency. I merely question the validity of the law. What is justice? Can it be defined in a consistent and logical way? If we all agree that not initiating aggression as an axiom of law and we break that premise, then the consistency and logicality built upon that principle are broken. Are laws that are illogical and inconsistent actually laws?

If on the other hand you decide that the NAP is not the cornerstone axiom of law, and you do whatever you think is necessary to "get the job done", then law can be anything that you want. You could have a dictatorship, oligarchy, socialism, fascism, republic, anarchy and so forth. If you are well heeled and well armed, you survive the best, if you aren't, you may be serfs or subjects of the "king". You may live, you may not. It is entirely dependent on the survival of the fittest.

I for one would rather not be treated as a beast of the field.

I do.  You are avoiding admitting the consequences of your ideas.  

Lets get back to clarifying your position.  Do you have any ideas on how the mad and the bad would be prevented from access to nuclear bomb-making materials, the smallpox virus and the type of fertiliser without regulation?  

And he didn't have any more ability to assemble or deploy a nuclear weapon than you do, and the government regulations on such materials has nearly zero to do with either of you.

No, I don't.  You really don't understand what's going on here, do you?

Jared Laughner had never given an indication of violence prior to his shooting spree.

Most terrorists don't telegraph their intentions either.

In both cases, you'd be OK with them getting nukes before they make threats.  You value your idea of the NAP over the lives of the people who would get killed if you have your way.

As I said, your position is clear.

Actually, in the very short response to my comment, you misinterpret what I've said. I do agree that it is just to prevent the likes of Osama and Jared from acquiring said weaponry. They have already demonstrated their unwillingness to participate in society in a non-aggressive way. They have already violated the NAP, and could be regulated in that sense. You shouldn't regulate unless there is a threat to commit violence or after the fact.

Fred, your position is clear.  You are not OK with any regulation that prevents the likes of Osama bin Ladin or Jared Laughner getting nukes and access to the smallpox virus.  Having told us that already, you don't need to repeat it.

Voluntarism and regulations stand in opposition to each other with respect to their implementations.

The very pillars off their belief system do not allow them to force anyone to do our comply with anything including their belief system. It's a paradox.

Wrong. It's about justice. Fairness may or may not happen, and anything is possible. He wasn't agreeing to regulations and never used the term in the context you use it.

First of all, a known terrorist can be assumed to be an ongoing threat. If he's already wanted for murder, he doesn't get to own a nuclear bomb.

Lets see...I really can't see anyone saying that Osama bin Ladin or Jared Laughner would have volunteered to be a good boy