Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 51.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 09:32:17 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 09:27:55 PM

I can explain it to my 16 year old, and he can get to the answer faster than AyeYo can, and I don't even have to finish my sentences. Common sense isn't so common after all.

Ack! No, no no. It's "common sense is just common, not sensible." What AyeYo was saying is the generally understood common sense. It just didn't make any.

I meant common in the prevalent, prevailing and pervasive sort of common, but whatever I guess. I think if the majority of people are violent, you will eventually get what you have now. It is difficult to promote a more just form of governance when the one in which you live has lulled you into believing violence first, ask questions later, is the only way to go or the only one you've experienced. Displaced and delegated violence is very subtle and difficult to unravel, but when you point it out, you have a tendency of "seeing a lot of red" everywhere and often. The NAP opened my eyes. Sad to say I was once apathetic and ignorant too.

Additionally, extreme edge cases don't help, and we don't have many Libertarian examples to go by to prove them out (other than the NAP axiom, and derivative logic), so were kind of the underdogs at the moment. I'd still be willing to give it a try though. I have faith in humanity. If I didn't, I'd probably be finding the biggest gun, just in case it's every man for himself, but I'm not giving up just yet.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 26, 2011, 08:57:23 PM

Ah, well I was asking whether libertarianism would still be "the way forward" if the current governments behaved differently (as in, still coercive, but no more Iraq, no more bailouts, etc), to those who supported it...related to my prior comment about it sounding a bit like a tantrum.

For some people, I would suspect very much so. I must admit the idea of living in a country/world like that sounds very exciting, and makes me think of the romanticised versions of such places, such as the outer worlds of the Firefly TV show, or the fairly exciting world that SecindLife used to be, where if you have the drive and the time, you can learn fun trade and skills, travel around the world, compete with others, fight off and outsmart trolls and pirates, make lots of money, be defeated temporarily by a bout of bad luck, and come roaring back on your own wits and determination. Granted if I was living in that world and was stuck with some disease in some crappy location with no food, money, or any job prospects, it would all stop being fun very quickly.

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 26, 2011, 08:57:23 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 08:47:30 PM

True. Thus as mentioned, it would be more efficient to maintain small strike teams and weaponised robots. I think armies are a waste of money, though people and militias still train on their own "for fun."

The people would still need to be doing this full time...who would pay for their living while they kept up to scratch?

That's the part I have no answers to. Perhaps there will be enough of a market for these services that a few people, or small groups of people, will be able to suport themselves and their own training? There are already private security forces used by malls and corporations, almost CIA skill level corporate espionage groups, and now even assassin services available today for Bitcoin Tongue

I imagine in a more volative world these skills will become more valuable.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 09:27:55 PM

I can explain it to my 16 year old, and he can get to the answer faster than AyeYo can, and I don't even have to finish my sentences. Common sense isn't so common after all.

Ack! No, no no. It's "common sense is just common, not sensible." What AyeYo was saying is the generally understood common sense. It just didn't make any.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 09:27:55 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 26, 2011, 07:33:14 PM

I think we all agree not to murder, rape and rob each other. At some point, we don't need to agree on everything. There can exist competing jurisdictions. If you own property, you set the rules on that property. If you go on someone else's property, you follow their rules. If you don't like it, leave their property. However, don't be confused like AyeYo and think that you can set whatever rules you want for other people and force them to leave their own property if they don't like it.

+1!

AyeYo knows this, he's just trying to goad you. His last 100 rants have demonstrated that enough. They're trollish and nonsensical. I can explain it to my 16 year old, and he can get to the answer faster than AyeYo can, and I don't even have to finish my sentences. Common sense isn't so common after all.

The difference between me and AyeYo is that when I was finally shown to be wrong, I admitted it and became a libertarian.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 26, 2011, 07:33:14 PM

I think we all agree not to murder, rape and rob each other. At some point, we don't need to agree on everything. There can exist competing jurisdictions. If you own property, you set the rules on that property. If you go on someone else's property, you follow their rules. If you don't like it, leave their property. However, don't be confused like AyeYo and think that you can set whatever rules you want for other people and force them to leave their own property if they don't like it.

+1!

AyeYo knows this, he's just trying to goad you. His last 100 rants have demonstrated that enough. They're trollish and nonsensical. I can explain it to my 16 year old, and he can get to the answer faster than AyeYo can, and I don't even have to finish my sentences. Common sense isn't so common after all.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 09:16:50 PM

I wholeheartedly encourage certain individuals here to publish their ideas in a respectable peer reviewed political science journal.

If you're looking for something to read start with Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block and Stephan Kinsella, in that order.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

I wholeheartedly encourage certain individuals here to publish their ideas in a respectable peer reviewed political science journal.

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 08:47:30 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 26, 2011, 08:31:02 PM

Would this all be necessary if the current world governments stopped doing major things you didn't agree with? Or would you still encourage this on principle?

Not sure what you're asking...

Ah, well I was asking whether libertarianism would still be "the way forward" if the current governments behaved differently (as in, still coercive, but no more Iraq, no more bailouts, etc), to those who supported it...related to my prior comment about it sounding a bit like a tantrum.

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 08:47:30 PM

True. Thus as mentioned, it would be more efficient to maintain small strike teams and weaponised robots. I think armies are a waste of money, though people and militias still train on their own "for fun."

The people would still need to be doing this full time...who would pay for their living while they kept up to scratch?

As for business stopping war...I remember Asimov used that in one of the parts of his Foundation book...control by trade...certainly possible (and as you say has happened). Advanced Tech is a tough one, though, considering necessity (assuming there were resources left over after all the feeding, security etc - why it helps having larger population vs small).

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 26, 2011, 08:31:02 PM

Would this all be necessary if the current world governments stopped doing major things you didn't agree with? Or would you still encourage this on principle?

Not sure what you're asking...

Quote

Armies usually require training - militia aren't really much good against a standing army. Why would the army exist when you need it? Although if enough people wanted to join the army reserve (national guard in the US?), I suppose they could suffice for a while.

True. Thus as mentioned, it would be more efficient to maintain small strike teams and weaponised robots. I think armies are a waste of money, though people and militias still train on their own "for fun."
Actually, forgot, there is another factor as a defence against warring invaders. I mentioned earlier in this discussion that just a few years ago, hostilities between India and Pakistan rose to the point where they were pretty much ready to go to all out war. However, since in the last decade India became the word's tech support and outsourcing district, India as a whole couldn't just take a few days off to go to war. As a result, the business community slapped the government and army down HARD, and basically forced them to avoid war. Hopefully as things progress this way globaly, invading hordes will all start to agree that it's cheaper and more profitable to trade with people and get their finished products and knowledge than just go in and take their raw resources.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 26, 2011, 08:20:48 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 08:15:52 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 26, 2011, 08:11:06 PM

So wouldn't a more appropriate term for such an ideal be self-absorption?

I like to think of it as a possible dynamic economic idea based on people's most primal drivers that would be fun to watch from the outside. I don't really associate good or bad connotations to it.

lol...I think I would enjoy watching it too, but I'm probably a little psychopathic. Are you a proponent of libertarianism yourself? I assumed you were on your comments, but I should probably ask.

I believe it has a lot of interesting, and possibly valid ideas, and while I was on SecondLife (before the admins cracked down on free markets by banning all in-world banks and financial services) had a lot of fun watching and participating in it, but there are still a whole lot of issues within that system that I don't know the answers to, and that I don't yet understand myself, and thus can't support the system, not can be sure it will succeed (or fail). In short, I find it interesting and like it, but can't fully support it.
In this discussion I was just trying to ask questions of the people who are against it to see if they can reason out the answers to the issues they were bringing up themselves. Some of their points were somewhat blatantly obviously answerable, and I wanted them to figure out the answers. I believe that if you tell someone the answer, they will be skeptical, but if they come up with the answer themselves, they will trust it. For the most part, I believe that you can't argue against something you don't even understand, and was hoping to get them to at least understand their own points before bringing actual valid concerns about them. It got rather immature rather quick though.

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 08:22:29 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 26, 2011, 08:15:26 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 08:11:59 PM

As you said when you came in, where we are now is the natural result of how people want things to be. I believe thatin a libertarian society people feel the same about nukes as they do now, and voluntarily will not want to have nukes around. The reasons range from nukes being dangerous and difficult to control, to them being a major waste of money with plenty of cheaper and safer alternatives readilly available. Even powerful governments are abandoning nukes and massive armies for strategic mobile units that can move in quick and strike small specific targets. Future isn't nukes, it's drones.

Alright, I can appreciate that. How do you protect yourselves against other hostile groups that want your land for themselves, and have nukes, though?

*shrug* You either don't, back down, go into hiding, and fight a guerilla war, or you get everyone who believes they may be threatened by those hostile groups with nukes together, and you all together raise money to pay for an army to protect yourselves from that group? Same deal, really, except you'll be paying the army directly instead of the money coming from taxation. Of course, people who live on the border with the hostile group will be screwed, since they will likely be the only ones paying for the army, while the people further away will think it's not their problem.
Other option may be to, instead of wage a full-on war, hire an assassination group against the leaders or owners of those nukes. Cheaper and more precise, though may fail more spectacularly. Again, similar to current government setup, with only differentce being direct payment.

Would this all be necessary if the current world governments stopped doing major things you didn't agree with? Or would you still encourage this on principle?

Armies usually require training - militia aren't really much good against a standing army. Why would the army exist when you need it? Although if enough people wanted to join the army reserve (national guard in the US?), I suppose they could suffice for a while.

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

oh now there's a thought.

I suppose you could consider the new world voluntarily if you "Voluntarily agree to have your brain physically rewired to make you non-aggressive", such that you could join the non-aggression society and naturally agree on most things anyway (similar brains minus the irrational part?).

That doesn't help you if another country decides what's yours is theirs, though...but that's your right to choose I guess.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 26, 2011, 08:15:26 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 08:11:59 PM

As you said when you came in, where we are now is the natural result of how people want things to be. I believe thatin a libertarian society people feel the same about nukes as they do now, and voluntarily will not want to have nukes around. The reasons range from nukes being dangerous and difficult to control, to them being a major waste of money with plenty of cheaper and safer alternatives readilly available. Even powerful governments are abandoning nukes and massive armies for strategic mobile units that can move in quick and strike small specific targets. Future isn't nukes, it's drones.

Alright, I can appreciate that. How do you protect yourselves against other hostile groups that want your land for themselves, and have nukes, though?

*shrug* You either don't, back down, go into hiding, and fight a guerilla war, or you get everyone who believes they may be threatened by those hostile groups with nukes together, and you all together raise money to pay for an army to protect yourselves from that group? Same deal, really, except you'll be paying the army directly instead of the money coming from taxation. Of course, people who live on the border with the hostile group will be screwed, since they will likely be the only ones paying for the army, while the people further away will think it's not their problem.
Other option may be to, instead of wage a full-on war, hire an assassination group against the leaders or owners of those nukes. Cheaper and more precise, though may fail more spectacularly. Again, similar to current government setup, with only differentce being direct payment.

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 08:15:52 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 26, 2011, 08:11:06 PM

So wouldn't a more appropriate term for such an ideal be self-absorption?

I like to think of it as a possible dynamic economic idea based on people's most primal drivers that would be fun to watch from the outside. I don't really associate good or bad connotations to it.

lol...I think I would enjoy watching it too, but I'm probably a little psychopathic. Are you a proponent of libertarianism yourself? I assumed you were on your comments, but I should probably ask.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 26, 2011, 08:11:06 PM

So wouldn't a more appropriate term for such an ideal be self-absorption?

I like to think of it as a possible dynamic economic idea based on people's most primal drivers that would be fun to watch from the outside. I don't really associate good or bad connotations to it.

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 08:11:59 PM

As you said when you came in, where we are now is the natural result of how people want things to be. I believe thatin a libertarian society people feel the same about nukes as they do now, and voluntarily will not want to have nukes around. The reasons range from nukes being dangerous and difficult to control, to them being a major waste of money with plenty of cheaper and safer alternatives readilly available. Even powerful governments are abandoning nukes and massive armies for strategic mobile units that can move in quick and strike small specific targets. Future isn't nukes, it's drones.

Alright, I can appreciate that. How do you protect yourselves against other hostile groups that want your land for themselves, and have nukes, though?

This isn't really about nukes, come to think of it...it's about another group having more physical power than you. If all you had were knives, what if other groups had guns, and were threatening you? Some people might say yes lets have guns too, others say no even then, we shouldn't...what does the group do? Or do just the individuals that feel threatened get the guns?

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 07:37:35 PM

Either a country without regulations will have a major nuke ownership problem, or a country without regulations will still not have nukes due to outside international regulations and citizens of the country itself will not wanting random people owning nukes. So, either the whole nuke thing was a ridiculous straw man, or the whole nuke thing was a non-issue. Which is it?

So by that definition a libertarian country will have a major nuke ownership problem...assuming a group can make it themselves within the country? How would a libertarian group disarm with them non-violently? Or are they not a threat?

As you said when you came in, where we are now is the natural result of how people want things to be. I believe thatin a libertarian society people feel the same about nukes as they do now, and voluntarily will not want to have nukes around. The reasons range from nukes being dangerous and difficult to control, to them being a major waste of money with plenty of cheaper and safer alternatives readilly available. Even powerful governments are abandoning nukes and massive armies for strategic mobile units that can move in quick and strike small specific targets. Future isn't nukes, it's drones.

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 08:02:21 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 26, 2011, 07:47:58 PM

It sounds to me like Libertarianism is nothing but a cry of "I don't like what the current leaders are doing, and I want them to do something else". That's fair enough, I suppose...but this whole voluntary thing will absolutely lead back to where we are today, unless you change human biology.

Don't give credit where no credit is due. As we just exposed a few pages back, the "voluntary" thing is absolutely NOT voluntary. People that disagree with the "voluntary" rules and "voluntary" system will be forced by violence to comply with it. So it's "voluntary" only if you agree with it - thus not at all voluntary.

Aye I meant it's fair enough that they're not happy with what our leaders are doing. I'm not happy either. Yes, a voluntary system will be eaten alive by a non-voluntary system...which is why we mostly see non-voluntary systems the entire Earth over.

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 07:57:40 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 26, 2011, 07:44:30 PM

I don't quite understand how the modern system isn't already the exact natural progression of things from what you describe, though.

Sorry, I don't either. I see a lot of regulation as a result of things that eventually broke and that people believed needed to be fixed, not just random ideas people with hunger for power pulled out of their rear.
Perhaps the diference is the fundamental philosophy on which the laws and society are built? Such as "everyone is forced to do what the majority believed everyone should do" v.s. "I won't screw with you, and likewise won't rely on you helping me?"
I am not against the idea of a libertarian nation forming as an experiment in self-governance, but not sure if i would be able to live there.

So wouldn't a more appropriate term for such an ideal be self-absorption?

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 08:02:21 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 26, 2011, 07:47:58 PM

It sounds to me like Libertarianism is nothing but a cry of "I don't like what the current leaders are doing, and I want them to do something else". That's fair enough, I suppose...but this whole voluntary thing will absolutely lead back to where we are today, unless you change human biology.

Don't give credit where no credit is due. As we just exposed a few pages back, the "voluntary" thing is absolutely NOT voluntary. People that disagree with the "voluntary" rules and "voluntary" system will be forced by violence to comply with it. So it's "voluntary" only if you agree with it - thus not at all voluntary.

You forgot the part about where those people will also voluntarily and legally be able to resist that violence with their own violence. Actually, scratch that. You're the ones who keep bringing that up. Annoying that no one bothers to consider that violence isn't the only way to enforce voluntary "agreed upon" laws.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 08:02:21 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 26, 2011, 07:47:58 PM

It sounds to me like Libertarianism is nothing but a cry of "I don't like what the current leaders are doing, and I want them to do something else". That's fair enough, I suppose...but this whole voluntary thing will absolutely lead back to where we are today, unless you change human biology.

Don't give credit where no credit is due. As we just exposed a few pages back, the "voluntary" thing is absolutely NOT voluntary. People that disagree with the "voluntary" rules and "voluntary" system will be forced by violence to comply with it. So it's "voluntary" only if you agree with it - thus not at all voluntary.

Yes, it's not voluntary only in the sense that you will be forced not to murder, rape or rob people. Boo-fucking-hoo.

Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 51. (Read 105893 times)