Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 57. (Read 105875 times)

And there it is, folks.  The ultimate double standard.

Reminds me of a couple of recent wars supposedly aimed at liberating oppressed peoples - bringing them 'democracy' on the point of a gun, and stuffing it down their throats.  And that's just in recent times.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

And if you don't accept the rules, regulations, and taxation of current society, the state is free to use aggression on you too!  But yet you call that extortion!  hahahahahah

Double standards FTMFW.

Voluntary.  And if someone disagrees, or has stolen his Dad's nuke or simply has changed his mind, how do you stop them?  For example, if Jared Laughner had a nuke in his car instead of a gun, how would you protect the people in the within 25 miles of his car?

I've explained it once before. It's pretty simple. Every landowner in an entire geographical area forms an organization. They all sign a contract that delegates all regulation of nuclear weapons on their respective private properties to said organization. Anyone making, or transporting nuclear weapons in those areas is subject to those voluntary regulations. In other words, the same laws that exist now will exist under libertarianism, the only difference is that people will voluntarily agree to them.

"Cool story, bro. Got anything else aside from rambling fantasies?"

You are fantasising about being able to use aggression on someone who has a nuke.  It won't happen.  The guy with a nuke who is willing to strike first will win every time.  so there is no need for courts or private police.  Get a nuke and you win.  

Now please stop avoiding the logic of your position.  Explain how your NAP protects people from bad guys with nukes.  Or else admit what you mean is that there is going to be no justice for anyone.

Cool story, bro. Got anything else aside from rambling fantasies?


Everyone gets the same justice as me.

I don't accept your idea of justice.  Nor will people getting nuked or smallpox as a result of your generous distribution of access to nukes and the smallpox virus. 

I think you meant "Justice for you and the sword of death for everyone else - assuming you don't get nuked as well."

That's not a benefit.

I have a nuke.  Unless you want to die, you will leave the country.  Once I find your address, I'll have a nuke in a truck parked a mile from your house and you'll be dead in less than 10 seconds.

I know your estate will sue me but I can nuke them too.  Provided I keep my address secret, I win.

Justice.

What a stupid argument.  Millions die and you say you will sue someone?

BTW, my government would not allow a terrorist access to nukes.  Unlike you.  

Please, tell me that you have something to offer to balance the lives of the millions that die as a result of your deciding to give everyone nukes.  There must be some benefit - or why are you advocating it?

If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.

Um only if it accepts the NAP.  The NAP is your idea.  Don't try forcing it on anyone else.

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. 

And even if I refuse to attend any court, if I have a nuke, how will you force me to turn over any property?

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.


If I didn't think any human acted humanely, there would be no point to any type of ideology, including yours. I daresay, yours would be the first to fail, the quickest. Having someone else control you makes you a minion and a sucker. Keep drinking the Koolaid. Oh, and don't check for poison, there isn't any.


Any state, individual, or collective, is corrupt if it violates the NAP. Pretty obvious. No need to doll it all up with fancy words like Nation, Society, State, Government, Modernity, Advanced, or Leadership etc.

Yep. There's an old Soviet joke:
"I wish I had enough money to buy the entire Volga river, with all the ships on it."
"Why the hell do you want a river with all those ships?"
"I don't. I just wish I had that much money."

Likely if you managed to get the few hundred mil required to buy a nuke, you'd have way better uses to put it to.

Ok, great - you've agreed with my post from a while ago!  Here it is again:
Now, that didn't take too long -- only 26 pages!  Maybe in another 26 you'll admit that MightMakesWinnerMakesRight is actually an unavoidable consequence of resource scarcity.  Now can you give us a reason why would people become responsible citizens in LiberLand when they don't do it *even* under threat of being forcefully imprisoned?  If all you want is a hypothetical discussion of what libertarianism would be like and how nice it would be under certain, perhaps improbable, circumstances, that's fine.  But you seem to believe, in this thread, that you consider the above condition to be a likely possibility.  If so, can you justify yourself?  If not, would you clarify exactly what your argument is please?


By their nature, humans do not act humanely.  Reduced to the minimum, man organises into small social groups of maybe a few hundred individuals, each group with a single authoritative leader, and competes with other groups for resources.  The 'invention' of society, facilitated by the discovery of agriculture, changed all that -- and man changed from a nomadic to a social lifestyle.  As social groups grew, thanks to the success of agriculture, members had to learn to cooperate, even where they were not dependent on one another.  There had to be a 'social norm'.  To answer your question: I allow politicians control over me, because I genuinely think that the alternative would be worse for everyone, me included.  And one person having more power than others is nothing new.  It's been like that since time immemorial.  But, ideally, the ruling class should be checked and controlled by the population and, crucially, an independent judiciary.  And also because election time always comes around.  Sadly in our corrupted world, the politicians are literally getting away with murder.


I agree with this.  Modern states are corrupt, it has to do with equality and megacorporations.  This is one of the reasons I would not like libertarianism - it would ultimately lead to MightMakesWinner, and mega-corporations controlling all our lives but with no public oversight - no elections, no independent judiciary, 'politicians' accountable to no-one.  Although, instead of politicians, we would have CEOs looking no further than their own pockets.


They already did - they regulated the fertiliser trade.  Case closed.


Oh but it did.  Do you think that, if the nuclear trade were unregulated, no terrorist organisation or crackpot millionaire would have used one by now?


Every day that goes by in which the IRA, and any other terrorist organisations, DON'T set off a nuke, is a glowing tribute to the non-proliferation treaty.


Excellent point.


Another excellent point.  No-one in Somalia can get nukes because the trade is so well regulated.


Rassah, this is a terribly terribly terribly bad question.  Are you somehow suggesting that, in LiberLand, a representative of the Asteroid Defence & Mining Company is going to travel door-to-door, looking for people to pay a contribution so that they'll defend your property from an asteroid?  And what, if you don't pay, and the asteroid looks like it's heading for your property, like, they won't shoot it down (well, up)?

I really thought privately held nukes were the limit of absurdity, and I tried the raindrop-triggered nuke just to see if b2c & fb had their limits.  But privately funded asteroid defence???  Man, that wins  


What poor worker in a uranium enrichment plant will not sell material at a vast profit to himself, so some crackpot organisation can bomb a city on the other side of the world, in a nation that this poor worker doesn't care about, or maybe even actively dislikes?


Actually, it has been tried, in Spain.  Guess what, though?  It failed.  Externalities.  Greek city-states were also a close approximation.  Guess what?  Failed too.  Externalities again.  Sucks huh?

Then, if i am still alive, I go after whoever sold him that nuke, and/or whoever helped him to raise the money to buy it. Why, what would your government do if a nuke was detonated, if its regulations that failed to stop fertilizer bombs and terrorism fail to prevent a nuke too?

All I need is enough to buy a nuke and then I'm set for life.

Sorry, their, their, and their. The big difference, it seems to me, is that voting is done with dollars, not voices (more specifically with everyone's shopping dollars, not the few's campaign dollars), and regulation is left to market forces instead of arbitrary political and special interest forces. Perhaps that system does suck. Not having the capacity to predict every possible aspect of how such a system might turn out (I can't predict the future), I wouldn't know. I suspect you wouldn't either.

FYI, my greay-great-great-great-great-grandfather, a very wealthy count, was born into it. He blew it all on women and gambling (and in a way, saved my family by making it a much smaller target many years later when communists took over Russia). Many athletes suddenly end up with millions,as do lottery winners. They almost all end up broke. Point is, wealth isn't just something fixed, it's something that must be worked on and maintained. Granted, sometimes the methods to maintain it suck *coughMurdochcoughKochBrotherscough*, but regardless, someone is still paying something to someone to keep it going.