Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 49. (Read 105875 times)

Asked and answered.  Did you not bother to read what I wrote.  Classic troll behavior, simply not interested in what I write, only interested in responding to what you think that I might write and burning straw.

Someday you'll realize that libertarianism IS anarchy, because voluntary laws are not laws.

I don't agree with this.  Basicly national government act as individuals of different levels of wealth, resources and trustworthyness within an anarchy, not a libertarian model.  It's an anarchy because 1) there can be no higher appeal to authority and 2) individuals don't have any common agreement on the rights of individials and thus 3) conflicts that cannot be resolved by reason or politics can only be resolved by violence.

Yeah, sure, why not.

So you admit the world is basically a libertarian model then? Then you admit that the only time a nuke was ever detonated against others was in a libertarian model.

:|


As i said, already being implemented as we speak. First roadblock being worked on is a more standardised system of international arbitrage law, and reconciling accounting standards between American and European systems.
Yeah, businesses and corps aren't waiting for one world government to form, or have UN declare laws. Yet, somehow, they're managing on...

You will ignore whatever you say?

Anyway, how long until your ideas are implemented, do you think? What are the roadblocks?

Yes. Vigilanty justice and mob rule is indeed fail.

Wait, self-imposed regulation under threat of retaliation from customers and people with guns being pissed at you is a fail?



Oh, never mind. Ignore whatever I said then. I certainly will.

The sub forum is entitled "Politics and Society". I did not see anywhere that specified it was discussion of libertarian policies. The thread is currently about nuclear arms, and in large part, the failings of libertarians to provide a method to address their management. The arguments put forth by the libertarians are amusing, and many people spend quite a bit of time each day in engaging in amusing activity.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that my time spent here is because I take the ideas in this thread seriously.

Taking the time to reply, in a thread about libertarianism, on a forum about a very libertarian currency, kinda suggests you're taking it seriously.



People behaved themselves when first building the things, and they behaved themselves, and continue to behave themselves now. Why do you think they will stop behaving themselves? Is it because the consequences/punishment will be different? Or the rewards?



I don't know about others, but I think the corruption has way more to do with misaligned incentives than with bad human nature. If I work for government security protecting nukes, I'm not the expert, and don't know what to do. That's the government's job to figure out, and I just follow a set of standards drawn up by some guy who hopes he knows everything and covered every angle. My only job is to perform the bare minimum required. If that bare minimum isn't enough to stop a nuke from being stolen, not my problem. I did my job and I followed the rules. Not like I'll get fired. OK, maybe I'll get fired. But after my severance runs out, I'll just get another job.

The most ridiculous thing about this nuke business though is that in libtardland, no one would even need a nuke. Why do dem governments have nukes?

Even worse, very large populations mixed with extraordinary technology mixed with libertarianism is just a recipe for disaster.

In the 16th century, in the frontier, and a total world population of less than half a billion people, libertarianism is not so unreasonable.

Jared Laughner had no known history of mental illness though the poor man suffering from constant vivid hallucinations if his Youtube video about "conscious dreaming" is anything to go by.

Do you think Jared Laughner should have had access to a nuke?

=This post has been redacted due to violations of civil discourse.  You will not be warned again.

Sorry, but no. We do distinguish between any random citizen who uses any random procedure, and a precise set of protocols followed by certain people who have been trained in participating in precisely defined and constructed infrastructure. Your philosophy is inadequate to discussing this topic and will not be taken seriously.


I would move. I'd rather pay taxes than constantly involve myself in the governance and management of every damn thing that needs to be governed. Let me say it again: Your philosophy is inadequate to discussing this topic and will not be taken seriously.

Provided nukes are kept out of the hands of the mad and the bad, I don't really care about implementation details.  I'm sure in a libertarian society, you'd have some way to collectively handle that kind of thing or else you'd spend all your time hiring experts for food additives, drugs, nuclear safety, explosives and a million other things that are important but very boring.

I guess that's the other major difference. In democratic governments, if there's a problem, we almost automatically say that we'll let the government fix it or figure out how to regular it. In a libertarian one, you'd have to figure out how to work out the problem yourself (even if it includes hiring professionals or experts).

OK Mr. Shits&giggles (AyeYo), what's your answer to:
Why do you believe that nuclear materials and weapons producers would not self-regulate out of their own self-interest?

Okay, I'll try to define it, as I see it.  Basicly, a device that has no other legitimate use beyond mass destruction is verboten.  This is because, if it has a legitimate use, then we have no right to prohibit or even substantially burden that legitimate use.  This, of course, means that WMD of any form are out.  Nuclear weapons fall into this catagory, but nuclear fuels do not.  Yet, this applies to governments as well as citizens; for it is citizens that actually run governments.  People are fallible, and if a citizen cannot be trusted to own such a weapon (due to it's enourmous threat potential) then no one can be rationally trusted to have command control over a government's arsenal either. 

Back on topic, if your neighbor has a history of mental illness or a strong propensity towards violence; it is within the right of the community to collectively choose to restrict that neighbor's property rights so long as he continues to choose to live within the community.  This is why one would have to go to a court.  This is a form of government, but it's community specific.  If you don't like the community's restrictions, move.  As I see it, the individial should have the right to own a certain class of weapons without asking for permission from either the government or the community (so long as he has no history of misbehavior).  This class of weapons, in my view, can reasonablely be limited to weapons that can be borne (held and operated) by a single person, are sufficiently accurate (in practiced hands) as to no be a realistic threat to bystanders simply by reason of their presence.  I.E. an "assault" rifle; be it semi-auto, burstable or automatic, should qualify because in the right hands it is a very precise weapon.  However, a grenade launcher would justify a review by the community (or government, if you prefer) because, even though it can be borne by a single person, it is not possible to be a precise weapon when in use.  It is quite plausible to hit one's target (or attacker) in as precise a manner as the weapon allows and still cause great harm or death to bystanders.  Likewise, although a machine gun designed to be "crew served" and thus it is not reasonablely possible to be born by a singe individual, can be very accurate; it still might justify review because it's not possible for a single person to be responsible for the results of the weapon being utilized.  A fictional description would be the 'sentry gun' in TF2.

There is a bit of a disconnect here that has not been well addressed.  I'm a true libertarian, and hit the max position on every one of those 2D political quizes, but the question that is never asked is "should government exist?".  I am not a anarchist, although I can agree that from a philisophical perspective that anarchy is the logical end conclusion, taken to it's extreme.  But most libertarians are not anarchists, even though many here seem to be.

I don't feel qualified to decide and I am certainly not going to study nuclear physics to educate myself.  It's precisely the type of issue where I will listen to educated experts.

No guarantee of regulation working, either (e.g. drugs are regulated as well).
Why do you believe that nuclear materials and weapons producers would not self-regulate out of their own interest?