Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 50. (Read 105893 times)

There are little to no guarantees in life, regardless of what ideology you follow.

Then you and I are in agreement as is AyeYo, Fergalish and the other "progressives" here.  We all agree the state should do as little as possible so if there is a free market way to guarantee nukes not being available to the likes of Jared Laughner (mad guys) and Osama bin Ladin (bad guys) then of course we are all for it.  If not, then we regulate.

Like what?

Actually, I think your version of Statism is a little to kind. It's more like the following,

Statists: You can use violence to defend yourself and your property under the abstract pretext of physical aggression or the potential threat thereof. You construct law, which discriminates against individual rights, by making illicit certain characteristics and compositions of property. All property of this "illicit" type falls under the purview of the State. Property and control then accrues to the State in this fashion. More innocent people fall under this "criminal umbrella" definition. In the end, it's better to imprison many more innocent people and a few more criminals.

Yes?

If the free market doesn't stop terrorists and lunatics having nukes, do we have the right to try to come up with ideas of how to set up some mutually agreed on rules within the free market system that will stop those nukes?

OK lets test you. 

If the free market doesn't stop terrorists and lunatics having nukes, do we have the right to regulate?

Sounds iffy, especially in light of the Tea Party cheering about 234 inmates put to death recently. I know the details and facts don't stack up, but that's the mental connections others will have.

I was pretty sure that the argument was that you have the right to do whatever you want, including the right to stop me from having nukes. It's just that I also have the right to stop you from trying to stop me, either by volunteering to give up some privacy and information (voluntary self-regulation) or by protecting myself with force. Am I right in understanding that?


So far the only people who disagreed with that have been the imaginary citizens of strawmanville created by the anti-libertarian side, who don't actually live in libertardville, and aren't supported by libertarians.


Let me see if i can make up some answers for these...
Same way these situations are handled now: by mutual agreement of both parties, even if that involves going to arbitration and having the case decided without prior precedent. Hopefully the final resolution will have both parties in agreement, and will be mutually beneficial. The costs of conflict resolution (court fees, lost productivity, personal annoyance) will hopefully make both parties want to settle the dispute as soon as possible. If no resolution is found, let the two parties duke it out some other way, either by competing in the market or with a duel. As long as they are not forcing harm on other bystanders, who cares. You guys are confusing criminal law with civil law. Criminal law has actual laws on the books, passed by government. Personal conflicts between two parties or businesses go through civil law. There, the laws are not determined by government but by a judge or jurry that both parties have previously agreed on. The actual decisions come from either prior cases, or whatever the judge decides is just. These "laws" or prior rulings can also transcend national borders, and don't need to rely ob government enforcement.
Let me know if this answer is insufficient.



Isn't infringing on another's rights an act in violation of NAP? Thus, wouldn't the person who is following NAP have the right to be agressive against the in ringer until they stop infringing and follow NAP themselves? I'm confused. It sounds as if you think following NAP means everyone will be like Ghandi. Or do you mean the person infringing will just do stuff you don't want them to, but which isn't technically illegal? In that case the person is just allienating themselves.

In that case, I would ask what were some of the examples of those historical exploitaitions, and what could be some ways of fixing those problems? I can't really think of any historical examples of libertarianism.

I think humanity enshrines wealth and power. Everyone is "keeping up with the Joneses," buying expensive cars, TVs, and other crap. In democratic governments everyone still tries to be rich and powerful. Even communist governments have people trying to attain money and power, though that is brutaly restricted to upper members of the government. So, I don't think libertarianism does anything different from a democratic government in that regard. The only major difference is that in a government democracy, the wealthy and powerful can pay the government to pass the laws they want, and then I have to pay the government to enforce those laws against me, while in a libertarian government the powerfully wealthy will have to pay to enforce those laws out of their own pockets.

What about mutual benefit? The most basic tennant is I make something you want, you give me something I want (like money), and we're both better off than before. Is everyone working for their own benefit by making sure their own desires are mutually beneficial to everyone else (thus everyone else will continue to give them money) not sufficient? Why not? And how is choosing to refuse to cooperate at the risk of not having others cooperate with you hypocritical? You still have a choice, and if you can survive by living in your own house and growing your own food, you'll still be OK. I don't see the choice as a hypocricy.

He is perhaps a more elegant summary:

Libertarians: You can only use violence to defend yourself or your property from physical aggression or the threat thereof. If you don't follow that maxim, you run the risk of using aggression on people that were never going to threaten you. It's better to let a few criminals go free and never imprison an innocent person.

Statists: You can use violence to defend yourself of your property from the mere likelihood that physical aggression or the threat thereof will exist eventually. If you don't follow that maxim, you run the risk of allowing people to commit aggression before they can be stopped. It's better to imprison a few innocent people and never let a criminal go free.

I can appreciate the statists view. It's rational if you accept that justice is of secondary importance. I don't. I would rather risk my life with freedom. We're all going to die anyways. We could at least do so with honor knowing we did the right thing during our brief time alive.

Its getting depressing.  All the arguments are the same.

Argument 1: You have no right to stop me having nukes.
Response 1:  We don't want terrorists or lunatics to have nukes.
Argument 2: The free market would stop terrorists and lunatics having nukes.  No regulation needed.
Response 2: If the free market doesn't stop terrorists and lunatics having nukes, do we have the right to regulate?
Argument 3: No.  Go to Argument 1.

Its like trying to reason with a truther or birther.  No matter what logic or experience says, they always come back to the same old articles of faith.

Back on topic, intellectual property is created by society because it makes life better.  Anyone who tries to deny our right to make life better is an authoritarian so unless they can get the votes for their notion, can be safely ignored.  Anyone who says things like movies and branded goods doesn't make life better is on some kind of ascetic trip and unless they can get the votes for their austere version of paradise, are best ignored.  There doesn't seem to be any reasoning with them.

Once again ferg comes through with a solid summary of all the points that the libertards have let fall by the wayside throughout the last 10+ pages.  Maybe they'll get addressed now?  hahahah yea right

To put it briefly, the thread started out as a discussion of IP law.  It degenerated into a discussion regarding the very validity of Law itself, and some very absurd examples have come up.

The pro-libertarians argue that, irrespective of how absurd a situation might be (e.g. IP rights -> property rights -> personal rights -> weapons -> nuclear weapons), "Law" can never be justified, and market forces will ensure that anti-social and tyrannical behaviour will be eliminated; furthermore that the NonAgressionPact (NAP) will ensure a smooth peaceful society.

The anti-libertarians argue that 1) this is no good if the anti-social behaviour has already wrought its damage and 2) market forces would be insufficient anyway, and the free market would eventually lead to tyranny and 3) that in a society with differing values, libertarianism inherently cannot guarantee peace for its citizens.

@all: I'm trying to give an objective summary of the arguments presented.  Don't flame, just correct me.

@ OP Karmicads: could you please put a one short paragraph summary on the top of the first post?

this whole thread is a horrible wall of text. I have looked at it a couple of times and still have no clue what it is about at all.

Here are the problems:

1. NONE of you (pro-libertarianists) have yet explained how to resolve a conflict which is not somehow addressed by a contract, and therefore for which no court of arbitration is specified.
2. NONE of you seem to see that, under the same circumstances of (1), it is contradictory to allow arbitrary behaviour, NAP notwithstanding.  One person's right will infringe another's.
3. Libertarianism has failed in the past and will fail again because other nations will exploit its vulnerabilities.  Now this has no bearing on whether lib. is admirable or not, just whether it's practical or not.
4. Libertarianism enshrines money and wealth as the ultimate source of power.  Power begets wealth, weath begets power.  All the things you don't like about government will be the same, if not worse, in libertyland; and there would be no public accountability.
5. Libertarianism requires cooperation from everyone everywhere and, by definition, cannot demand that cooperation without hypocrisy.  Again, no bearing on whether it's admirable or not, just its practicality.

Hey Moonshadow, I'm glad you're back.  I wonder do you have the time to answer this question?

We seem to have gotten bogged down in the practicalities of how to buy a nuke.

I think that reveals we all do share at least basic agreement.  It would be a very bad thing if people like Osama bin Ladin or Jared Laughner had access to nukes.

Is there anyone on this forum that disagrees with that?

I tried to warn you all, and yet I can see that many of you still got sucked in.

Ah, fair enough (though I flickin HATE those associations with a passion)

When I moved into my neighborhood I had to join the local homeowner's association. I voluntarily agreed not to have a different color door or mailbox. I'm pretty sure people will also agree to not post goatse billboards on their property. Likewise there will be freak communities where that sort of thing is welcome. People have no problem associating with those they want to. There will still be rules but they will be set by the property owner and in the case of businesses by their target markets. Smoking will be allowed in bars and bowling alleys but not tofu and grass smoothie restaurants.

One other point of total weirdness I remembered on the way home that libertyville may have issues with: one totally obnoxious form of trolling in SecondLife was for people to put up ugly or offensive billboards on their own property, which were very visible to the neighbors and passers-by. Stuff like very pornographic photos, aborted fetuses, mutilations, etc. At least in SL you can file a complaint and have the item, as well as the troll, removed. In libertyville, trolling will likely evolve onto a whole new and unpredictable level (though likely also much more physically harmful for the trolls).