Pages:
Author

Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 54. (Read 105893 times)

legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
September 26, 2011, 05:50:31 PM
Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?
By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?
AND THIS  Cheesy   Oh shit, I'm crackin' up... there are literally tears coming out my eyes... I can't even type... you guys have gotta stop typing dudes, every time I hit "post" there are 10 new replies and I'm just breakin' apart reading them...

Take you suitcase of $200,000,000, go to Iran or North Korea, or the Chinese black market,


Iran doesn't have nukes.  North Korea doesn't have nukes.  China doesn't sell nukes.  So wtf is your point?

They have uranium and plutonium. How hard can it be to make one? According to you, if it was legal, everyone would own one.
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 252
Elder Crypto God
September 26, 2011, 05:49:55 PM
That's NK blowing smoke up peoples' asses, but that's entirely another discussion for another thread.

Typical. Never admit when you're wrong. The true sign of someone that's out of their depth.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
September 26, 2011, 05:48:59 PM
Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?

Which only puts nukes in the hands of the wealthy... the same wealthy you previously admitted are the cause of government corruption and pillaging of the common man.

Sounds like a great idea!

Wtf would the wealthy want to own nukes, which are very dangerous, risky, toxic, and expensive to maintain devices, if they can just pay specialist teams to wipe out specific targets in secret, and manipulate the market through media, for WAY CHEAPER? Actually, what's the point of manufactoring nukes in a libertopia, anyway?

Power.  A nuke gives you ultimate power of life and death over millions and as such the bad and the mad will always want it.

Sorry, but your imagination at how to be a supervilain kinda sucks. How many nukes does Rupert Murdoch own? How about the Walton family (of WalMart?) There are way metter weapons and systems of control than just blowing everything up indiscriminately.


GOD FUCKING DAMNIT!!  THEY DON'T OWN ANY BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL!!

Are you saying that if they were legal to own and store in, say, North Korea, and they were able to buy them, those people I mentioned would buy them, because owning a nuke (and losing business from everyone shocked about it) would give them more money and power than running their own businesses?
Is the plan
1) Buy nuke
2) Huh
3) Profit?
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 252
Elder Crypto God
September 26, 2011, 05:48:50 PM
North Korea doesn't have nukes.

"North Korea (officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or DPRK) has declared that it has nuclear weapons and is believed by many to have nuclear weapons."

You can be loud-mouthed or ignorant of the facts, but being both is a terrible combination.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
September 26, 2011, 05:48:35 PM
Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I wonder if you realize that places like North Korea aren't part of that? Yet somehow a billionaire couldn't get one.

They aren't regulated everywhere. Yet somehow a billionaire couldn't get one.

Your theory doesn't hold water, sorry.


BECAUSE THEY'RE REGULATED AND HEAVILY CONTROLLED EVERYWHERE THEY ACTUALLY EXIST, YOU DUMB SHIT.

What part of that don't you understand?  No one can get them because the people that own them regulate them.  It doesn't matter that North Korea or Osama don't regulate them, because the countries that own them do.

You really need to educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

If you don't even know that North Korea has nuclear weapons, you really don't need to be calling people "dumb shit" or even engaging in intelligent debates at all.

That's NK blowing smoke up peoples' asses, but that's entirely another discussion for another thread.


Furthermore, EVEN IF we pretend they have nukes... it doesn't mean they don't regulate them.  The fact that the government owns them doesn't mean it immediately follows that the goverment is willing to sell them to anyone.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
September 26, 2011, 05:47:05 PM
Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?
By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?
AND THIS  Cheesy   Oh shit, I'm crackin' up... there are literally tears coming out my eyes... I can't even type... you guys have gotta stop typing dudes, every time I hit "post" there are 10 new replies and I'm just breakin' apart reading them...

Take you suitcase of $200,000,000, go to Iran or North Korea, or the Chinese black market,


Iran doesn't have nukes.  North Korea doesn't have nukes.  China doesn't sell nukes.  So wtf is your point?
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 252
Elder Crypto God
September 26, 2011, 05:46:17 PM
Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I wonder if you realize that places like North Korea aren't part of that? Yet somehow a billionaire couldn't get one.

They aren't regulated everywhere. Yet somehow a billionaire couldn't get one.

Your theory doesn't hold water, sorry.


BECAUSE THEY'RE REGULATED AND HEAVILY CONTROLLED EVERYWHERE THEY ACTUALLY EXIST, YOU DUMB SHIT.

What part of that don't you understand?  No one can get them because the people that own them regulate them.  It doesn't matter that North Korea or Osama don't regulate them, because the countries that own them do.

You really need to educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

If you don't even know that North Korea has nuclear weapons, you really don't need to be calling people "dumb shit" or even engaging in intelligent debates at all.

I'm laughing at the all caps though. You mad, bro?
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
September 26, 2011, 05:45:32 PM
Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?
By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?
AND THIS  Cheesy   Oh shit, I'm crackin' up... there are literally tears coming out my eyes... I can't even type... you guys have gotta stop typing dudes, every time I hit "post" there are 10 new replies and I'm just breakin' apart reading them...

Take you suitcase of $200,000,000, go to Iran or North Korea, or the Chinese black market, and buy a nuke. Post pictures when you're done. No need to export it or take it anywhere there there are regulations on them. Just buy it where there are no regulations and nuclear materials are available.
Until you do, I'll be laughing at you.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
September 26, 2011, 05:45:22 PM
Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?

Which only puts nukes in the hands of the wealthy... the same wealthy you previously admitted are the cause of government corruption and pillaging of the common man.

Sounds like a great idea!

Wtf would the wealthy want to own nukes, which are very dangerous, risky, toxic, and expensive to maintain devices, if they can just pay specialist teams to wipe out specific targets in secret, and manipulate the market through media, for WAY CHEAPER? Actually, what's the point of manufactoring nukes in a libertopia, anyway?

Power.  A nuke gives you ultimate power of life and death over millions and as such the bad and the mad will always want it.

Sorry, but your imagination at how to be a supervilain kinda sucks. How many nukes does Rupert Murdoch own? How about the Walton family (of WalMart?) There are way metter weapons and systems of control than just blowing everything up indiscriminately.


GOD FUCKING DAMNIT!!  THEY DON'T OWN ANY BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL!!
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
September 26, 2011, 05:43:29 PM
Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I wonder if you realize that places like North Korea aren't part of that? Yet somehow a billionaire couldn't get one.

They aren't regulated everywhere. Yet somehow a billionaire couldn't get one.

Your theory doesn't hold water, sorry.


BECAUSE THEY'RE REGULATED AND HEAVILY CONTROLLED EVERYWHERE THEY ACTUALLY EXIST, YOU DUMB SHIT.

What part of that don't you understand?  No one can get them because the people that own them regulate them.  It doesn't matter that North Korea or Osama don't regulate them, because the countries that own them do.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
September 26, 2011, 05:40:03 PM
Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?

Which only puts nukes in the hands of the wealthy... the same wealthy you previously admitted are the cause of government corruption and pillaging of the common man.

Sounds like a great idea!

Wtf would the wealthy want to own nukes, which are very dangerous, risky, toxic, and expensive to maintain devices, if they can just pay specialist teams to wipe out specific targets in secret, and manipulate the market through media, for WAY CHEAPER? Actually, what's the point of manufactoring nukes in a libertopia, anyway?

Power.  A nuke gives you ultimate power of life and death over millions and as such the bad and the mad will always want it.

Sorry, but your imagination at how to be a supervilain kinda sucks. How many nukes does Rupert Murdoch own? How about the Walton family (of WalMart?) There are way better weapons and systems of control than just blowing everything up indiscriminately.
sr. member
Activity: 440
Merit: 250
September 26, 2011, 05:38:43 PM
Quote
If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.
And there it is, folks.  The ultimate double standard.
Wrong. It would be a double standard to say "I can use aggression but don't force me not to". If you say I can use aggression on you then why wouldn't I? That's what you're doing by saying you reject the NAP.
It *is* a double standard.  You are willing to use force to make me comply with your rules, while you deny me the right to use force to make you comply with my rules.  One standard for you, another for me.  Double standard.  Big difference is you're a hypocrite and I'm not - I say "I will engage in violence to make you comply", and I do, while you say "I will never engage in violence except in defence" but you do.

But this is far too entertaining to stop here.  So, all right, let's suppose I accept your NAP (which is, in and of itself an admirable principle), but I reject your definition of property.  I may therefore rightfully enter, without aggression, what you consider to be your property and claim it as my own.  You may not engage in aggression to eject me.  Correct or incorrect?


"I'll be the first to admit it, LiberLand does require everyone to take more responsibility for themselves."

"... IF EVERY SINGLE PERSON THE WHOLE WORLD WIDE suddenly changed their nature and started behaving honestly, it might work.  ..."

Those two quotes don't even share any synonyms, much less the same words, how could they possibly have the same meaning? They're not even a close substitute for what I said, fail. It's the best interest of everybody everywhere to act in a non-violent, respectful way. War, generally speaking, is too expensive to maintain. One way out is to play nicely. Most forceful means are a disincentive to improve.
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the words "responsible" and "honest"...


So in your scenario, the people of Tuscon would have to up sticks and leave?  Since there would be no way to actually stop someone having a nuke would there?
No, the people in Tuscon wouldn't move there in the first place if that were a possibility. The only way large cities will form is if the land is already set aside and has rules in place for it. The large land owners and developers will make sure that is the case. It's like the previous issue of "what if the guy that owns the road in front of my house wants a million dollars to use it". That would never happen because people wouldn't be inclined to live there in the first place.
Oh man, I'm bustin' my sides laughing now.  You couldn't buy comedy this good anywhere.


I gotta quit this thread - it's just too addictive.  These guys just *won't* address the problems put to them 'cos the contradictions are inescapable.


Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?
By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?
AND THIS  Cheesy   Oh shit, I'm crackin' up... there are literally tears coming out my eyes... I can't even type... you guys have gotta stop typing dudes, every time I hit "post" there are 10 new replies and I'm just breakin' apart reading them...
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
September 26, 2011, 05:37:32 PM
Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I wonder if you realize that places like North Korea aren't part of that? Yet somehow a billionaire couldn't get one.

They aren't regulated everywhere. Yet somehow a billionaire couldn't get one.

Your theory doesn't hold water, sorry.

Actually they can't make the bomb themselves despite a breach of the treaty by Pakistan.  Their difficulty shows how well the system works. 
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
September 26, 2011, 05:36:05 PM
If I have my own court, It won't find me guilty.  For example, I you are a woman and I choose a Sharia court, I get a better divorce deal that you. 

If you have your own court, that's fine. My friends and I will simply refuse to sell you anything, buy anything from you,hire you, or work for you. Feel free to bleed money till you starve.
If the dispute is dire enough, you can chose between a court or a gun.
If i am a woman, and you insist on Shari a court, I'll refuse, and stay with you while making your life miserable. Or steal all your stuff and take it to escrow that will release it after settlement by a court we both agree on.

Come on.  I have friends too and I could care less about you and your friends.  If I have money, I will never lack for people selling me stuff.

And I and MANY other people will have simply learned their mistake of dealing with you, and will move on, never to deal with you or anyone like you again. How many people still want to use MyBitcoin? How many people are still sticking tens of thousands of dollars into anonymous online wallet services? What government body has set up regulations banning the use of anonymous online Bitcoin wallet services?

My friends and a lot of people like me disagree with you.  That is possible too you know.  Just because you think all laws should work your way doesn't mean that my court is wrong to say it has laws that work my way.  There is no standard for divorce or inheritance law in your world so don't accuse me of dishonesty.

Then either I was in the wrong, and it is up to me to choose whether to agree with what you did and accept the new standard, OR to work extra hard to make my business be more wuccesfull than yours so I can beat you down in the market and force you to follow my new standard. Competition.

So if I am getting divorced, I can to to a Sharia court, get to keep all the kids and the property acquired since the marraige and my ex-wife can get them back by "competiton"

Unless you mean a wet tshirt competition, she is SOL.  

Doesn't sound like an improvement in how society works to me.

That is correct. I would hope that in Libertopia, people who wish to stick to those types of courts and screw their wives will eventually have a REALLY difficult time getting wives, and won't have as many children to spread their stupid to. Likewise women who experience this, or see others experiencing this, will hopefully quickly abandon their husbands, even if at a loss, for someone more reasonable.
Obviously if this was going on under a theocratic government, that won't be an option.
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 252
Elder Crypto God
September 26, 2011, 05:34:34 PM
Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I wonder if you realize that places like North Korea aren't part of that? Yet somehow a billionaire couldn't get one.

They aren't regulated everywhere. Yet somehow a billionaire couldn't get one.

Your theory doesn't hold water, sorry.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
September 26, 2011, 05:33:19 PM
Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?

Which only puts nukes in the hands of the wealthy... the same wealthy you previously admitted are the cause of government corruption and pillaging of the common man.

Sounds like a great idea!

Wtf would the wealthy want to own nukes, which are very dangerous, risky, toxic, and expensive to maintain devices, if they can just pay specialist teams to wipe out specific targets in secret, and manipulate the market through media, for WAY CHEAPER? Actually, what's the point of manufactoring nukes in a libertopia, anyway?


Umm... well... for the same reason anyone would want to own a nuke: power.

And L O FUCKING L at black ops, media control, and propoganda being cheaper than just buying a nuke and calling it a day.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
September 26, 2011, 05:33:11 PM
That's a terrible example. Why didn't if have a nuclear bomb if he wasn't under the protection of the glorious united states? You claim without laws he would have had nuclear bombs yet he was in Afghanistan and plenty of other places where it could have happened. Yet it didn't, hmm...

I guess that pretty much sinks that theory.

ZING!


It didn't happen because nukes are heavily regulated and the half-handful of countries that own them aren't stupid enough to sell them to a guy that would gladly light one off in a city.

So you're saying that even if they are readily available nobody would sell them to maniacs? I guess it's not an issue then.

heavily regulated - read before you reply.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
September 26, 2011, 05:32:27 PM
Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?

Which only puts nukes in the hands of the wealthy... the same wealthy you previously admitted are the cause of government corruption and pillaging of the common man.

Sounds like a great idea!

Wtf would the wealthy want to own nukes, which are very dangerous, risky, toxic, and expensive to maintain devices, if they can just pay specialist teams to wipe out specific targets in secret, and manipulate the market through media, for WAY CHEAPER? Actually, what's the point of manufactoring nukes in a libertopia, anyway?

Power.  A nuke gives you ultimate power of life and death over millions and as such the bad and the mad will always want it.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
September 26, 2011, 05:32:11 PM
Which only puts nukes in the hands of the wealthy...

Right, because nobody can ever pool their money. It's always one person.

*facepalm*

Or that Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 252
Elder Crypto God
September 26, 2011, 05:32:02 PM
That's a terrible example. Why didn't if have a nuclear bomb if he wasn't under the protection of the glorious united states? You claim without laws he would have had nuclear bombs yet he was in Afghanistan and plenty of other places where it could have happened. Yet it didn't, hmm...

I guess that pretty much sinks that theory.

ZING!


It didn't happen because nukes are heavily regulated and the half-handful of countries that own them aren't stupid enough to sell them to a guy that would gladly light one off in a city.

So you're saying that even if they are readily available nobody would sell them to maniacs? I guess it's not an issue then.
Pages:
Jump to: