Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 59.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 02:36:43 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 02:20:38 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 02:18:05 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 01:57:01 PM

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

Do half the people disagree with a government court where you live??? Huh

Yes, but they are forced to follow the decisions and can't just run off to a competing court for a favorable decision, so it's not an issue.

You said half the people disagree with a court, not a court's decision. Why do they still use that court if half the people think it's unfair? Or did you really mean half the people, after choosing a court they want, just disagree with the decisions?

Because they don't get to choose courts that agree with them. They don't get to go somewhere else if they don't like the decision. They can't just ignore the decisionif they don't like it.

They can do all of that and more in lib tard land.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 02:21:13 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 02:18:05 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 01:57:01 PM

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

Do half the people disagree with a government court where you live??? Huh

You're forgetting that there are no laws in your liberland, and everyone has their own idea what the laws should be, and they all use courts which favor their view, and in general, there's lots of courts.

Again, no different than current international system of law. During disputes, lawyers for both parties come to an agreement on what court or arbitrage system they are willing to settle disputes in, and agree to follow the final court decision beforehand, or risk losing business.
You guys are arguing about how things are stupid and will never work in the real world, when the things you are arguing against are already how things are in a real world.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 02:20:38 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 02:18:05 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 01:57:01 PM

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

Do half the people disagree with a government court where you live??? Huh

Yes, but they are forced to follow the decisions and can't just run off to a competing court for a favorable decision, so it's not an issue.

You said half the people disagree with a court, not a court's decision. Why do they still use that court if half the people think it's unfair? Or did you really mean half the people, after choosing a court they want, just disagree with the decisions?

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 02:33:04 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 02:29:37 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 02:17:14 PM

Most people don't have the wherewithal, the defensive capabilities (either physical or legal), or the willingness to sacrifice their lives, in order to retain what was originally theirs

Question. Would most people who currently pay taxes for government police, if they no longer had to pay taxes, would be able to afford to pay that exact same amount of money for private police?

I'll leave you to discover the imbalance of your solution. I'll give you some hints: competition implies multiple services. How many police can be brought to bear on a particular problem when collecting revenue from customers?

Money will buy justice and protection. The people with the most money will be best protected, do they'll make all the rules.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 02:18:34 PM

Who exactly does the company sell to? Security firms? Or maybe the company owner decides that he wants to be the top dog? What now?

If some company spends billions of dollars on research and development for the sake of just wasting that money to sit on a nuke, hell more power to them, though I seriously doubt private investors would give the company the money to accomplish that. And if some individual manages to do that themselves for the sake of holding the world hostage, then not only will regulatory governments be useless to stop that, but that individual will likely incite a global war of the entire world v.s. him.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 02:29:37 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 02:17:14 PM

Most people don't have the wherewithal, the defensive capabilities (either physical or legal), or the willingness to sacrifice their lives, in order to retain what was originally theirs

Question. Would most people who currently pay taxes for government police, if they no longer had to pay taxes, would be able to afford to pay that exact same amount of money for private police?

I'll leave you to discover the imbalance of your solution. I'll give you some hints: competition implies multiple services. How many police can be brought to bear on a particular problem when collecting revenue from customers?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 02:24:40 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 02:06:02 PM

No. It provides a central database and only ONE land registry so there are no conflicts and fraudulent claims.

If what you say was true, title research companies and title insurance would not exist. Where are those few hundred $$$ that I pay every time I buy or refinance a house going to?

That is to address fraud, missing documents, disputes, etc. within the context of law. Your system has no laws, thus there is no basis to anyone's claim.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 02:17:14 PM

Most people don't have the wherewithal, the defensive capabilities (either physical or legal), or the willingness to sacrifice their lives, in order to retain what was originally theirs

Question. Would most people who currently pay taxes for government police, if they no longer had to pay taxes, would be able to afford to pay that exact same amount of money for private police?

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quoting myself until I get a response.

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 02:15:09 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 02:12:25 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 01:56:37 PM

Omg! Are you saying that what's right is a majority rules popularity contest?!?!

Yes, I am saying that in liberland, what's right is a satisfying a majority of customers to get their dollars contest.

But liber land hadn't won nearly enough proverbial dollars to actually get implemented. So obviously it's not better than the current system.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 02:21:50 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 02:00:50 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 01:57:12 PM

Where does that man get the funds to buy a bigger gun?

It doesn't matter, what matters is that the man with the biggest gun WILL make the rules.

You don't think it matters, but guns and amo don't pop out of thin air. The man with the bigger gun must have done something significant to get the money to pay for that big gun. That man now likely has a lot of interest in protecting his huge amount of wealth, too. Likely, he also has an interest in continuing to do what he did to keep that wealth coming in, right?

Sure. Obviously the wealthy will have the biggest guns. Obviously they will stay wealthy by putting those big guns to good use enslaving people, just like in the feudal days.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 02:06:02 PM

No. It provides a central database and only ONE land registry so there are no conflicts and fraudulent claims.

If what you say was true, title research companies and title insurance would not exist. Where are those few hundred $$$ that I pay every time I buy or refinance a house going to?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 02:21:50 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 02:00:50 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 01:57:12 PM

Where does that man get the funds to buy a bigger gun?

It doesn't matter, what matters is that the man with the biggest gun WILL make the rules.

You don't think it matters, but guns and amo don't pop out of thin air. The man with the bigger gun must have done something significant to get the money to pay for that big gun. That man now likely has a lot of interest in protecting his huge amount of wealth, too. Likely, he also has an interest in continuing to do what he did to keep that wealth coming in, right?

You mean like a tyrant? Or a cartel?

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 02:00:50 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 01:57:12 PM

Where does that man get the funds to buy a bigger gun?

It doesn't matter, what matters is that the man with the biggest gun WILL make the rules.

You don't think it matters, but guns and amo don't pop out of thin air. The man with the bigger gun must have done something significant to get the money to pay for that big gun. That man now likely has a lot of interest in protecting his huge amount of wealth, too. Likely, he also has an interest in continuing to do what he did to keep that wealth coming in, right?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 02:18:05 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 01:57:01 PM

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

Do half the people disagree with a government court where you live??? Huh

You're forgetting that there are no laws in your liberland, and everyone has their own idea what the laws should be, and they all use courts which favor their view, and in general, there's lots of courts.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 02:18:05 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 01:57:01 PM

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

Do half the people disagree with a government court where you live??? Huh

Yes, but they are forced to follow the decisions and can't just run off to a competing court for a favorable decision, so it's not an issue.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 02:16:11 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 26, 2011, 01:55:17 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 01:53:02 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 01:50:40 PM

Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.

This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

Again, how? He will have nukes. If someone disagrees with him about something, his best move is to nuke them before they realise he is angry.

What company in their right mind would sell him, just a random stranger, nukes, at the expense of liability to millions of people, or risk of having their own facilities blown up? And why would he spend hundrens of millions on a nuke for the purpose of just hiking wherever he wants? Why not just spend those millions to buy the land to hike on outright?

Who exactly does the company sell to? Security firms? Or maybe the company owner decides that he wants to be the top dog? What now?

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 01:57:01 PM

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

Do half the people disagree with a government court where you live??? Huh

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 01:53:02 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 01:50:40 PM

Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.

This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

If you use a little introspection for a moment, you'd realize that all 'owned' things are privately held. There really is no public and private, that would be IMO, misdirection. The 'real' question is how you arrived at ownership (by what means).

The state (a collective of individuals) uses taxation and eminent domain to acquire their lands. This uses the initiation of force. Most people don't have the wherewithal, the defensive capabilities (either physical or legal), or the willingness to sacrifice their lives, in order to retain what was originally theirs. This initiation of force is not justified, but most will just give up ownership in exchange for their life.

In a free society, ownership of property still exists, it is recognized in a number of ways, but there is no justification for taking another man's property thru the initiation of violence.

Wow, I feel like I'm teaching kindergarten thru 4th grade! Repeat, repeat, "Please pay attention Jonny", repeat, repeat, "Hey Jonny, please keep your hands to yourself", repeat, repeat... Ad nauseum

I'm really beginning to wonder if you're trolling, or if there's more than a thousand ways to say the same thing, and still not get it across.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hawker on September 26, 2011, 01:55:17 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 01:53:02 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 01:50:40 PM

Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.

This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

Again, how? He will have nukes. If someone disagrees with him about something, his best move is to nuke them before they realise he is angry.

What company in their right mind would sell him, just a random stranger, nukes, at the expense of liability to millions of people, or risk of having their own facilities blown up? And why would he spend hundrens of millions on a nuke for the purpose of just hiking wherever he wants? Why not just spend those millions to buy the land to hike on outright?

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 02:12:25 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 01:56:37 PM

Omg! Are you saying that what's right is a majority rules popularity contest?!?!

Yes, I am saying that in liberland, what's right is a satisfying a majority of customers to get their dollars contest.

But liber land hadn't won nearly enough proverbial dollars to actually get implemented. So obviously it's not better than the current system.

Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 59. (Read 105875 times)