Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 61. (Read 105875 times)

Maybe I don't believe in private notaries. You can't force me to comply, everything had to be voluntary.

Do you honestly check the deed of ownership on file for every piece of property you come across when you hike? Or do you assume that property without obvious ownership is government/publically owned? Would you simply not assume that all property was privately owned in liberland? And why do you assume that all private property owners would object to strangers hiking on their unused land?

Why must I acknowledge the validity of this private notary?

No, because in our current system, the individual owns the property. But in liberland, it's not clear to me that you actually own the land in question.

A private notary, who relies upon his reputation in order to get business.

Are you implying that a state is necessary in order to validate contracts?

So, are you saying that under current government system you can hike or do scientific studies on private fenced in land without asking owner's permission first?

I'm assuming that perhaps you paid for the land and have some type of deed. Who acknowledges the deed's legitimacy?

In a hypothetical libertarian society, if you fence 1,000 acres of unowned land, you have to pay to have it defended from those who consider fencing to be not a sufficient requirement for property ownership.

In society with a government, if you fence 1,000 acres of unowned land, you have to pay your property taxes, and the state police force (also paid by those who consider fencing to be not a sufficient requirement for property ownership) will defend it for you.

What business is it of yours? Maybe I like hiking. Maybe the roads in the area suck, because some private business decided it wasn't cost effective to build a road. Maybe I'm engaging in scientific study.

The name of this forum is 'Politics and Society'. It stands to reason that we need not restrict our discussion to these silly hypotheticals. You or I should start a thread to discuss some specific real issue and how to address it. No doubt, our friends will join in, but nonetheless, the premise of the thread will be more meaningful.  

Why would you be near that parcel of land and need to cross it in the first place?

When being a "man" or an "adult" or whateverthefuck is not a prerequisite to giving you any attention?

So then, on your 1,000 acres, you're going to put up fences and fragment the ecosystem for the sole purpose of indicating that you own it, it's going to be ugly, and it's going to cost you money. Or, you're going to grade it all and "improve" it, to identify it as occupied, but that's costly and destructive. Or, you're not, and I'm going to go build a house on the backside of the land you claim you own, because, well, it looks unoccupied.

Do you have some means of legally indicating that you those 1,000 acres?

When will someone man up and answer my question?

I can point out a book or two that would answer that quite well if you'd like. The short answer is, if my land gives the appearance of being lived in, the surroundings have been modified from their natural state (human labor applied), or his heavily fenced and labeled with 'no trespass' signs, that should suffice. If it has little to no indication of the above, I'd imagine you could do as you pleased.

By the way, waving a shotgun around may be interpreted as many things, but could be excessive threatening gestures too. You would probably be justified in defending yourself I'd imagine, if it came down to it.

Authority can be presented in many ways. I'd imagine it may not operate in Liberland much differently than in the current society in which we already live. (titles, deeds, local chain-of-custody repository, etc.)

So, you're saying that if liberland was established somewhere, the rest of the world would stop regulating nukes? And isn't most uranium mined in Africa? Why isn't Somalia making its own nukes from stuff they can easily buy from their neighbors, or possibly dig up from the ground?

Yep, libland isn't necessarily great, and can be dangerous, especially when in its infancy and being established on the base of a very poor and desperate population. So stop with the nuke strawmen.

Here's a WAY better (in my opinion, anyway) question than the stupid, hyperbolic nuke and smallpox strawmen:
Who owns radio spectrums and air space above people's land, and how would things like radio interference or single governing body like FAA preventing planes from crashing midair and causing damage to property below, be addressed in liberland?

LOL

Think hard about why that might be. I'll give you a hint: it has to do with the regulation of nukes by the rest of the world that isn't retarded.

I'm glad to see you're going to be so exacting in your wording in the future. Please continue along that line so that when you use metaphors or analogies in the future, we will call you on it too, or ignore them as entirely irrelevant. Don't expect anything less.

And nobody's ever juggled knives on a life raft, or smallpox on a front lawn.

The gun is metaphorical, until it's not.

Consider that I send you a bill for releasing oxygen in the air for you to breathe (I've got a garden at home). You would consider this ridiculous and dispose of it. So I send a more strongly worded letter, threatening to kidnap you unless you pay up. Again, you ignore this, or perhaps you believe my threat and take measures to protect yourself. So, not having been paid, I send a man to your house to kidnap you. Being the rational individual you are, you defend yourself from this aggression, with the minimum amount of force necessary. My agent escalates the use of force, as I have given him instructions to kidnap you using whatever means necessary. Eventually, it gets to the point where he is pointing a gun at you. Having no recourse left, you also point your gun at him. Fearing for his life, he kills you.

The only way this is different from taxation is that in my scenario, you would be considered a victim, and if I were instead the state, you would be a criminal. I consider that I provided you a service, for which you never asked, but from which you did indeed benefit. Then, I demanded payment. When payment wasn't received, I initiated the use of force against you.

Do you see the gun yet?