Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 58. (Read 105875 times)

See above. Your system is obviously not as advertised.

If you are found guilty of stealing my property and refuse to turn it over, you will be forced to do so. It's a shame you don't even understand the system you're criticizing. You'll never convince any libertarians that they are wrong until you can at least make a cogent argument.

I think I finally see what the problem is. Everything is voluntary, but more importantly, everyone will do everything in their own self interest. That second part you're all ignoring, and is the part that will keep a business from screwing their customers, a security company from extorting their clients to the point where they become unproductive, a nuke company from selling products that destroy the people paying for those nukes, private courts from screwing customers and making decisions majority will consider unjust, etc. Everyone has their own version of property and contract law only to the point that they have their opinions on those laws respected by others. If everyone agrees it is just, it's a law until they don't. If everyone agrees to spend their money at a place of business, if is in business until they don't. If a business agrees to follow the contracts and rules established by other businesses in that market, it will continue to be able to do business with the customers and suppliers in that market until it stops. There is no law that says you must buy your stuff from Wal-Mart or Target. No law that says Ford must buy their tires from Firestone. No law that you must use arbitrage if you buy your cell phone service from AT&T. But if you or they do, they must agree to the contracts they have signed, with pens and dollars, or be thrown out, lose parts suppliers, or lose their service.
The fundamental part of libertarian greed and self-serving, as I understand it, is doing as much as you can to get as many others as possible to give as much as they can to you. If you want to come up with examples of how THAT will be a problem, feel free to. Likely I may join you. But as mentioned too many times, other people's money and production capacity is what keeps all the strawmen mentioned so far in check.

Hahahaha! Omg this shit is rich!

And what do you do if he doesn't threaten anyone, he just detonates it with no warning. Not many terrorist organizations give people a heads up before blowing shit up.

If he intends to keep it as a collector item, use it for industreal safe uses, or otherwise is not using it to threaten or harm people, I don't do anything.
If he is threatening to harm people, I would hope that he values his own life. If he does, I pay to send a black ops team to relieve him of his nuke and/or his life. If he doesn't value his life, I send that team to relieve the nuke manufacturer of theirs.

Now, what answer were YOU expecting, or rather what would YOU do in that situation? (Like, if you lived near the border in India, and knew that Pakistan sold a nuke to your neighbor)

Then your system is not voluntary as claimed. Your system is not coercion free as claimed. The non aggression principle is just smoke blown up peoples asses. Your system us as tyrannical and coercive as the state you claim to hate.

Btw, Sharia courts are technically private arbitration, and are already legal, even in US. If a woman doesn't want to use one, she just has to not agree to that specific arbitration (and if she is forced to, that's a different matter entirely).

You people are making up a world that does not exist. Companies and individuals have the right to chose what court to take their issues to. They must agree to abide by the decision of the court, but they have a choice is picking the court they believe will be the most fair. Courts also have an incentive to be most fair, otherwise they lose their jobs. If you pick a court that you both agreed was fair, it rules against you, and you don't agree with the decision, that's your problem, and no one in liberland or current government would support you, because you were the one who picked the court. If you do decide to go against it's ruling, no one will object to someone else enforcing it by force, since, again, in both systems the outcome will be seen as just.

Competition implies multiple services AND threat of substitutes. People often forget the second one. Just as overly expensive coke can be substituted with milk or orange June, or power company monopolies can be substituted with windmills and solar panels, private security forces can be substituted by apparently easily obtainable nukes.

Maybe they were born into it. It's irrelevant how they got it.

Multiple services, and threat of substitutes. Just as power company monopoly can be subverted by windmills and solar panels, security company services can be subverted by apparently easily available nukes.

In a libertarian world, everyone has their own concept of property and personal rights.  I've been through this with b2c, fred and a few others.  

Contract law cannot exist outside of government as otherwise you would have competing arbitration systems, some based on christian law, some on sharia law, some on common law and so on.  Each has its own way of interpreting contracts and they come to different conclusions.  Without a state, you can't have a single law.

Besides, people will have nukes so they are under no obligation to respect any law.  Some simply won't.

I guess so. Would they be printing their money, or getting it from selling crap and services to poor unprotected people?

Everything is voluntary, therefore laws are useless. They may exist, but no one can be forced to follow then or be punished for not following them, therefore they are useless and effectively do not exist.

Way to avoid the question.  

Your view is that he is entitled to the nuke.  Regardless of how he got it, he now has it and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.  So now you have 1 guy that an never have any rule enforced against him.  Everyone else will want a nukes as well just to avoid being forced to pay for "protection" by the nuke owner.  Since uranium is easily mined and the design for nukes is already public, they will get them.

This is your ideal world - the free market will meet that demand

So please, explain how you defend yourself against a lunatic with a nuke?

No, you haven't. You said majority rules makes right, what it's freely chosen makes right. Liber tard ism has NEVER been chosen by any society ever,despite the fact that it is an option. So obviously it's not a better option, based on your own reasoning. If that isn't correct, give a detailed explanation why.

Who said liberland has no laws? Contract law exist outside of government, and is based on prior decisions, which are fundamentally based on private property rights. Why would these contract laws not exist in liberland, if everyone thought it was a good idea to keep them going for the sake of being able to keep business going?
As contract law is based on property and personal rights, I assume it is not against libertarian philosophy? Maybe a libertarian can confirm this?

Perhaps, though even tyrants eventually realise that they will get way more money and support by doing the things their oppressed need. And those oppressed usually don't like to stay oppressed for long (see European monarchy, every dictator in history, USA, and current Middle East). Besides, I think the libertarians are arguing that governments have already become tyrants, and life under liberland tyrants won't be much worse.


But flying cars have not won enough proverbial dollars to actually get implemented. So obviously they are not better than the current cars.

But mesh networking hadn't won nearly enough proverbial dollars to actually get implemented. So obviously distributed mesh networking is not better than the current system.

But distributed peer-to-peer unregulated currency hadn't won enough proverbial dollars to actually get implemented. So obviously it's not better than the current system.

Have I answered your question?

That works so well for the Palestinians and for Iraqis doesn't it.

A lot do - they would prefer sharia courts.  Particularly when there is a property dispute between a man and a woman, you'd see Sharia courts getting a lot of business if it were a free for all.