Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 62.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

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

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 11:55:44 AM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 11:52:47 AM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 11:29:13 AM

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

When was the last time someone in totally ungoverned Somalia lit off a nuke? If Somalia is what you believe liberland would be like, if lack of government means people will be buying nukes and juggling vials of smallpox, and if Somalia does in fact have religious and tribal infighting by warlords and heavilly armed security guards, then why are your hypothetical not happening there? Is it just a matter of time?

So you're likening Somalia to your lib-land? That's interesting. Gosh, now I want to go live in lib-land!

You were. Thanks for avoiding the point.

Your point has no basis unless you are admitting that Somalia is like lib-land. Either it is, and we'll have to admit that nobody is detonating nukes (yet). In that case - point in your favor about the nukes (as of now), but point lost in the sense that lib-land isn't so great. If Somalia is not like lib-land, then your point about nukes is irrelevant with regard to lib-land.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 11:59:49 AM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 11:42:11 AM

These sound like laws. Are they uniformly applied to all citizens? Who enforces them? Let's say you and I are neighbors. Must we both abide by that set of laws? If so, who says so?

And what if I don't agree with those rules? Will I be forced by violence to abide by them?

Nobody is going to force you to agree with any rules. Nobody will force you via violence to abide by them. If on the other hand, you initiate violence against another person with no provocation, I'm certainly not going to feel very sorry for you if you get your head handed to you on a platter.

So when I walk from A to B, and it happens to be across land you claim is your own, and you come out yelling and screaming, waving a shotgun around, what am I supposed to do? It seems that you would be threatening me. Why am I supposed to believe it's your land? By what authority is it your land? Maybe I contend it's just land that belongs to nobody.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 11:55:44 AM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 11:52:47 AM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 11:29:13 AM

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

When was the last time someone in totally ungoverned Somalia lit off a nuke? If Somalia is what you believe liberland would be like, if lack of government means people will be buying nukes and juggling vials of smallpox, and if Somalia does in fact have religious and tribal infighting by warlords and heavilly armed security guards, then why are your hypothetical not happening there? Is it just a matter of time?

So you're likening Somalia to your lib-land? That's interesting. Gosh, now I want to go live in lib-land!

You were. Thanks for avoiding the point.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 11:42:11 AM

These sound like laws. Are they uniformly applied to all citizens? Who enforces them? Let's say you and I are neighbors. Must we both abide by that set of laws? If so, who says so?

And what if I don't agree with those rules? Will I be forced by violence to abide by them?

Nobody is going to force you to agree with any rules. Nobody will force you via violence to abide by them. If on the other hand, you initiate violence against another person with no provocation, I'm certainly not going to feel very sorry for you if you get your head handed to you on a platter.

Don't get any ideas from the above that I advocate violence, you'd be assuming (please refrain). To be perfectly blunt, I personally don't find it a useful form of communication, just a last resort when an idiot attacker won't back down.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: BitterTea on September 26, 2011, 11:54:50 AM

What's better? A system where your needs may or may not be met, where there may be somebody holding a gun to your head, or a system where your needs may or may not be met, where there is always somebody holding a gun to your head?

Nobody has ever held a gun to my head.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hawker on September 26, 2011, 11:41:25 AM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 11:38:27 AM

There are no real world examples of lib-land, so no real world issues it currently faces

Isn't that because you say that everyone should have free access to nukes and to the smallpox virus? In the real world, deaths to a hideous disease and to radiation poisoning are considered bad

More fail, though I can see why you'd get confused. I'm not here to argue the points of the other guys. I'm just here to question the validity of your premises.
Would privately owned nukes held by corporations for the purposes of asteroid mining or asteroid defence be out of the question btw?

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 11:47:48 AM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 11:42:34 AM

Jews have been killed and nukes have been used on people. Your point?

Nukes have only been used in an anarchic libertarian context - one member using a nuke against another member within an anarchic libertarian framework. Interpret the result how you wish. The various court systems and privates security firms may not have resolved the matter to your liking.

You can say this, but it is false.

If independent nation states is a "anarchic libertarian context", then why are you defending it and not fighting for a single world government?

Because nation states still have a monopoly on the initiation of violence, and enough people consider it acceptable (and even good!) for them to do things like drop nuclear bombs on civilians.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 11:47:48 AM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 11:42:34 AM

Jews have been killed and nukes have been used on people. Your point?

Nukes have only been used in an anarchic libertarian context - one member using a nuke against another member within an anarchic libertarian framework. Interpret the result how you wish. The various court systems and privates security firms may not have resolved the matter to your liking.

Great point. It'll be ignored.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 11:52:47 AM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 11:29:13 AM

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

When was the last time someone in totally ungoverned Somalia lit off a nuke? If Somalia is what you believe liberland would be like, if lack of government means people will be buying nukes and juggling vials of smallpox, and if Somalia does in fact have religious and tribal infighting by warlords and heavilly armed security guards, then why are your hypothetical not happening there? Is it just a matter of time?

So you're likening Somalia to your lib-land? That's interesting. Gosh, now I want to go live in lib-land!

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 11:48:34 AM

Quote from: Hawker on September 26, 2011, 11:38:39 AM

But your way guarantees the millions MORE deaths. In your vision, people will have free access to the smallpox virus. Smallpox killed more people in the 20th century that all wars combined.

Surely there is something you can offer to justify these extra deaths? Or are you just saying we ought to put up with it?

Guarantees? Thats an assumption. If you're going to assume, say you're going to assume. Libertarianism does not guarantee death. People eventually die, some get killed, that's about all you can say. Saying it any other way and it's a logical fallacy. If however you're going to presume that there is a higher probability of death, then show how that might be.

If I do prove that more people will die, will you agree that libertarianism is not that desirable, regardless of its logical framework?

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: Hawker on September 26, 2011, 11:30:23 AM

Well since no other anarchist can answer, maybe you can help me

We have the capacity to organise society to make life better for its members. The care of mentally ill, the elimination of smallpox, the reduction of car bombings and the rarity of nuclear deaths and the abundance of movies are examples of what we can achieve if we organise. These are good things and if we are to lose them we need to be offered something better.

Yes, we do have the capacity to organize to improve the quality of life of individuals. Statists believe that this can only be done by force (through taxation), anti-statists believe that not only can this be done without force, but it can be done better.

You fail to consider the possibility that the positive products of this current society can be provided better without a coercive monopoly on law and law enforcement.

You fail to consider the possibility that the negative products of this current society would be less prevalent without a system of institutionalized violence.

Quote from: Hawker on September 26, 2011, 11:30:23 AM

So far, no-one has offered anything better. Its all moralistic arguments along the lines of "you should do this" and "you ought do that."

I can't change your opinion on morals and you can't change mine. But is there any real world benefit you can offer in return for the millions of deaths to smallpox, nukes and car bombs?

What's better? A system where your needs may or may not be met, where there may be somebody holding a gun to your head, or a system where your needs may or may not be met, where there is always somebody holding a gun to your head?

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 11:29:13 AM

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

When was the last time someone in totally ungoverned Somalia lit off a nuke? If Somalia is what you believe liberland would be like, if lack of government means people will be buying nukes and juggling vials of smallpox, and if Somalia does in fact have religious and tribal infighting by warlords and heavilly armed security companies, then why are your hypothetical not happening there? Is it just a matter of time?

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 11:42:34 AM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 11:29:13 AM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 11:25:01 AM

Quote from: Hawker on September 26, 2011, 11:09:57 AM

Yes. The Troubles in Northern Ireland. War fought between Catholic and Protestant militias and no power of taxation on either side.

I'm sure if you cared about the answer, you'd be able to find 100s like it on Google.

Yes, we get it, some people just like to fight. You can't prove your government would be able to handle that issue any better than a libertopia. You just don't want us to try because you don't think it's possible, or maybe the more deep-seated issue here is, you're a attracted by power (most people are) and giving that up requires that you take more responsibility for yourself.

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

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

That's a non sequitur and a Straw Man if I've ever seen one. Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. Making a law doesn't make people inherently good. I could just as easily say, when was the last time 6 million Jews were murdered?

Jews have been killed and nukes have been used on people. Your point?

No one ever claimed a perfect world, only a world better than what you're proposing.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on September 26, 2011, 11:38:39 AM

But your way guarantees the millions MORE deaths. In your vision, people will have free access to the smallpox virus. Smallpox killed more people in the 20th century that all wars combined.

Surely there is something you can offer to justify these extra deaths? Or are you just saying we ought to put up with it?

Guarantees? Thats an assumption. If you're going to assume, say you're going to assume. Libertarianism does not guarantee death. People eventually die, some get killed, that's about all you can say. Saying it any other way and it's a logical fallacy. If however you're going to presume that there is a higher probability of death, then show how that might be.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 11:42:34 AM

Jews have been killed and nukes have been used on people. Your point?

Nukes have only been used in an anarchic libertarian context - one member using a nuke against another member within an anarchic libertarian framework. Interpret the result how you wish. The various court systems and privates security firms may not have resolved the matter to your liking.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 11:14:05 AM

You're beyond help. Police and military ARE funded by citizens. What do you think taxes are for?

Private security firms don't need to worry about finding and pleasing customers because they collect tax by force just like a mob organization.

I didn't say anything about where the funding came from, I said specifically who they answer to. I don't pay police directly, so they have nothing to worry about regarding their paychecks if they decide to pull me over and beat me up for some made up reason. As long as the politicians, and I guess the majority of the voters support them, they feel safe (though even the later is questionable, since cops have been known to keep their jobs even when most of the neighborhood was pissed at their actions).
I wonder if there is a comparison out there between police brutality in public spaces, and security brutality at malls and stores?

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: AyeYo on September 26, 2011, 11:29:13 AM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 11:25:01 AM

Quote from: Hawker on September 26, 2011, 11:09:57 AM

Yes. The Troubles in Northern Ireland. War fought between Catholic and Protestant militias and no power of taxation on either side.

I'm sure if you cared about the answer, you'd be able to find 100s like it on Google.

Yes, we get it, some people just like to fight. You can't prove your government would be able to handle that issue any better than a libertopia. You just don't want us to try because you don't think it's possible, or maybe the more deep-seated issue here is, you're a attracted by power (most people are) and giving that up requires that you take more responsibility for yourself.

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

But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?

That's a non sequitur and a Straw Man if I've ever seen one. Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. Making a law doesn't make people inherently good. I could just as easily say, when was the last time 6 million Jews were murdered?

Jews have been killed and nukes have been used on people. Your point?

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 11:36:57 AM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 11:34:30 AM

My liberty framework is very easy to describe and justify. In fact, the entire basis of Libertarianism is to not aggress ever, to only use self defense when there are no other options, and to do as you've agreed to.

These sound like laws. Are they uniformly applied to all citizens? Who enforces them? Let's say you and I are neighbors. Must we both abide by that set of laws? If so, who says so?

And what if I don't agree with those rules? Will I be forced by violence to abide by them?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2011, 11:38:27 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 10:55:55 AM

engage and debate us about the real world and the real issues it faces...

There are no real world examples of lib-land, so no real world issues it currently faces, thus

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 10:55:55 AM

stop propping up your fantasy ideal of what lib-land would look like,

is fail in a discussion about hypothetical governing systems, and

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 26, 2011, 10:55:55 AM

We'll happily debate you at an adult level

is just total fail, period.

Isn't that because you say that everyone should have free access to nukes and to the smallpox virus? In the real world, deaths to a hideous disease and to radiation poisoning are considered bad.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 26, 2011, 11:34:30 AM

Quote from: Hawker on September 26, 2011, 11:13:46 AM

Fred you can't justify your own framework.

We have the capacity to organise society to make life better for its members. The care of mentally ill, the elimination of smallpox, the reduction of car bombings and the rarity of nuclear deaths and the abundance of movies are examples of what we can achieve if we organise. These are good things and if we are to lose them we need to be offered something better.

So far, no-one has offered anything better. Its all moralistic arguments along the lines of "you should do this" and "you ought do that."

I can't change your opinion on morals and you can't change mine. But is there any real world benefit you can offer in return for the millions of deaths to smallpox, nukes and car bombs?

My liberty framework is very easy to describe and justify. In fact, the entire basis of Libertarianism is to not aggress ever, to only use self defense when there are no other options, and to do as you've agreed to. I like the sound of that very much. Your statist beliefs are also entirely built on 'oughts' and 'shoulds' arguments. If we were talking physics, there'd be very little to actually argue about.

I can't take back the millions of deaths already caused by smallpox, nukes and car bombs, and I can't say that any version of Libertopia would make all of that go away either any more than yours does/did. Human nature is unpredictable, you have to just deal with it. As I've said before, there are many different ways to "skin a cat". Let's not just assume that yours is the best way, just because it's the only way at the moment.

But your way guarantees the millions MORE deaths. In your vision, people will have free access to the smallpox virus. Smallpox killed more people in the 20th century that all wars combined.

Surely there is something you can offer to justify these extra deaths? Or are you just saying we ought to put up with it?

Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 62. (Read 105893 times)