Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 67. (Read 105875 times)

We are currently living in a world, run by governments, where millions die from hunger, war, disease, etc. Your scenario of an old lady detonating a nuke she somehow aquired is pure fantasy. So why don't you show us how having governments solves the problems we have with governments.

You're going to have to define your version of justice.

Living in a world where millions die for a pulled-from-ass "right" for anyone to own a nuke isn't justice by any definition familar to anyone on this planet.

Living in a world where trivial, pointless "rights" like the "right" to own a nuke and the "right" to juggle knives on a life raft supercede real, substantial rights like the right to life isn't justice by any definition that any mentally stable person is familiar with.



Oh, and you still have answered neither my nor hawker's questions.

I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.

Quoted for someone to man up and answer the question.



People on this side of the debate need to stop getting distracted by these ridiculous antics and sidestracks.  Stick to the root issues and make them answer the tough questions.

I'll once again quote myself, and will continue to do so until someone steps up to the plate and addresses the issue:

Those who do not purchase full coverage will be personally liable, and will lose their home, land, and anything else of value.
The only two ways for insurance companies to prevent having to pay claims is to either run a scammy business at the risk of losing reputation, customers, and getting sued themselves, OR work to make sure that there is no need to pay claims in the first place. Insurance companies can inspect your property and let you know what is at risk, what is not up to code, and what will likely hurt someone else. They already do that now. Then it will be up to you to fix it, or pay much higher insurance premiums that would cover the damage from the found risks should it actually happen. This also applies to things like dangerous or harmful business and manufacturing activities. This insurance also covers unexpected damages, such as A, B, and C (like Asbestos for a while). This isn't some hypothetical that may or may not work in libertarianville, it's a fact of doing business in our current form of government which can be easily ported to the other one as well.
Regarding the resale of personal property that was damaged, I figured it was obvious that, insurance or not, the property owner would have an incentive to either be carefull with their property, or clean it up afterwards, since otherwise they'd be losing money. The reason mining and drilling companies don't is because the land on which they mine and drill is not theirs, and is not their responsibility after they leave. They lease it from the government, and thus have no inccentive to kept it clean beyond complying with the bare minimum regulation standards. If mining and drilling companies were forced to buy that land outright, things may be difderent.

Please let me know what my level of knowledge is, where I should readjust it to, and how to go about doing that.

Most people are already capable of smoking only were permitted. Go to a major park like Cedar Point or Universal Studios and they have specific smoking sections. Where are you going that this is even an issue? Sidewalks? Well that's public property, no wonder. It's a non-issue on private property. If you are smoking in a non-smoking restaurant, they ask you to leave. It's a non-issue.

@Moonshadow: I'm still waiting for your non-arbitrary definition of "acceptable weaponry", and if it's not a simple static list then please outline the valid circumstances for a few representative weapons.  If it's truly non-arbitrary, then I'm sure myself, FirstAscent, Ayeyo, Hawker *and* bitcoin2cash, Rassah, FredericBastiat will all instantly realise that the definition cannot logically be otherwise - or at least, we will after some (finite) debate.


So HOW can you justify entering armed into a room where I am (where being so armed is not explicitly permitted)?  You are implicitly threatening me with mortal violence, and I have the right not to be threatened.

That's a load of crap.  Boycotts don't work except where the market is close to the production line.  Globalism and outsourcing ensures that any company now can abuse people in one jurisdiction while it's consumers on the other side of the world blissfully buy buy buy unawares - and a libertarian free market would facilitate that even more.  People have been boycotting Nestle for at least 20 years now and it's still doing just fine.  Look at all the bad publicity about sweatshops, child exploitation, people working with toxic chemicals to recycle computer components, genocide in the Congo to feed the cell-phone market... the list goes on and on and on.  If people don't actually *live* the abuse, they don't give a shit.  Boycotting a company is an irrational economic decision except where the cost-benefit analysis (and that's what we *all* do every time we buy something) indicates that not boycotting will incur greater future cost.  This is not so where an abusive factory is far away from the buyer.

MightMakesWinnerMakesRight.  You can rant all you like about it, you can rant about how it's not fair and how subjugated you feel.  It has always been that way, it will always be that way.  You won't change anything, but you can keep ranting.

I was hoping someone would mention smoking.  In liberty-land, I would consider it my right to throw a cup of water over anyone smoking in my vicinity (if not otherwise explicitly permitted), in order to reduce my exposure to toxic chemicals.  If they reacted with violence to my rightful behaviour, I would re-react in kind.  Can anyone tell me how such behaviour is not consistent with Hobbes' savage natural world of man against man?

Sadly, no. Insurance is sold on the premise that most insured will not collect a payout, for numerous reasons. Furthermore, many will not purchase full coverage, and certain types of coverage may not be offered. Also, regardless of whether a payout occurs or not, that will still leave the damage which has occurred on the insured's property when they sell. From your point of view, that is only a point of debate between the property owner and the new property owner. From my point of view, it's damage that the Earth is forced to absorb, which has further ramifications down the line.

Insurance and lawsuits are not a comprehensive solution - your unawareness of A, B, and C and their ramifications actually lead you to draw the erroneous conclusion that insurance and lawsuits are adequate. I suggest you readjust the level of knowledge you're trying to apply to the field in question.

So then you admit that dumping toxic waste doesn't fall under your criticism? Great, that's one down.


Like what? Do you have any examples that aren't so unlikely and far removed from reality that they can only referred to as "A, B or C"?

That's where liability insurance, or lynch mobs, come in.

Thank you for making my point. Where did I say A, B, and C refer to ground water contamination or lung cancer? The point is, A, B, and C refer to things you are not aware of.

Who isn't aware that dumping toxic waste on the ground can cause it to leach into the soil and eventually the ground water? Are these the same people that don't know smoking cigarettes puts you at a higher risk for lung cancer?

How come you don't understand that there are things that you do on your land that you aren't aware of their full ramifications? You do X, Y and Z. These in turn cause A, B and C elsewhere. However, you don't know even know what A, B, and C are, let alone where A, B, and C are occurring. Nor are you aware of testing for A, B, and C on your own land, because you know nothing about A, B, and C, but you will, in the future, when it's too late.

I don't see how Big brother is affecting you unless you're the guy running the complex manufacturing processes. In that case, consider the regulations to be guidelines which help educate you to better manage the complex processes. If you're not the guy running the complex manufacturing processes, why are you so bent out of shape over it?

Well, they claim you'll get all these extra rights to do strange things without intervention that you didn't even want to do.

Its funny no-one answers my basic question.

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?

Point taken. However, that is great for a road you own, as in a privately managed and maintained road. Make all the rules you want. Invite or exclude anybody you want. However, don't dictate to me what I will do on my road. That's all I'm trying to say. It's a great list of things to do on your private land. Get it?


You can do anything you like, as long as the materials you use, stay on your land. If they don't, you've either trespassed, endangered others, or both. The law can then intervene. If you don't know you're being damaged, by whom, or how, you can't lawfully intervene on a hunch. I suggest you continually monitor your water supply. If/When the water supply has increases in toxic levels of certain compounds, and you can demonstrate that those chemicals originated with your local manufacturer, sue to enjoin, or press other criminal charges. Rinse and repeat as necessary. But I doubt even that's necessary, as one flub on their part would probably land them in the clink (attempted murder charges from poisoning). At this point you might offer a version of monitoring (volunteer regulating) and they can sidestep the murder rap. See where I'm going with this? Other manufacturers might catch on, others will risk it..

Even if you can't prove damage or direct harm, you can boycott just in case. All manufacturers, at least those that operate for profit, need customers to sustain themselves. You'd be amazed what a concerted effort of a few picketers can do for a cause. All things considered, even I have an extremely low tolerance and patience for polluters. Notwithstanding that however, I don't think government regulation is the way to go. It unfairly punishes those already in compliance, or who have not yet caused harm.


And a mad mad mad mad world it is. Mother-may-I? And I thought by leaving, I wouldn't have to be under the thumb of my parents. I'd rather live at home. Big brother is much worse.

I wonder if you know that already happens with government regulations? In either case, the results would be the same, that company would be sued into oblivion. The difference is, for causing deaths, the people responsible would have to pay dearly, perhaps even with their own lives. Of course, why didn't the water get tested regularly? That's right, because everyone thought they were safe because the government was on the job. Remove that fantasy from people's minds and they'll think twice about what they put in their bodies. They'll get the water tested regularly since it clearly isn't guaranteed to be safe no matter who's running the show.

There is no point in applying politics to anything at all unless you've educated yourself about what you're applying politics too. We don't apply hammers to hammers. We apply hammers to construction and fabrication. Construction and fabrication involves wood, metals, etc. Hammers were invented (and refined) to address the need of working with those materials.

Your favorite political ideology needs to be justified within the context of the world and society it is applied to. You simply cannot do that without understanding the world and society you're applying it to. Rather than read books on Libertarianism, you should read (and recommend that others read) books on the problems you're trying to address. You need to be comprehensive as well.

Tell me, do your books on Libertarianism effectively address the annual global fish haul, and the factors which limit it today, as opposed to the factors which limited it in the past?

You should consider the transportation issues I have listed. Let's take a tiny subset of the domain of transportation: trucking. Here in the U.S., we have the DOT and the state highway patrol. What are some of the things they regulate with regard to trucking?

• A truck's GVW must not exceed it's designated GVW
• A truck's total GVW must be registered to the DMV
• A driver many not drive more than a certain number of hours in a 24 hour period
• A driver must maintain an up to date logbook
• A truck's tires must be able to support the truck's published GVW
• A truck may not exceed 102 inches in width, otherwise it needs an oversize load permit
• There are height and length restrictions as well
• Any vehicle over a certain width must have 3 central red lights in the rear and 3 central amber lights in the front
• A truck may not run recapped tires on the front axle
• Oversize permits require display of a placard front and back
• Oversize permits must designate a route
• Trucks must stop at truck scales
• A class A license is required if a tractor trailer is driven
• A class B license is required if the truck has 3 axles
• A class B license is required if passengers will be transported
• An air brakes endorsement is required if the vehicle has air brakes
• A hazmat license is required if hazardous materials will be transported which exceed a certain amount
• Hazardous placards must be displayed if hazardous materials will be transported which exceed a certain amount
• A truck must submit to random inspections, which include any of the following:
  
  • U bolts which affix the body to the chassis
  • Tires, specs, conditions, etc.
  • Air compressor (for air brakes)
  • Brakes
  • Payload
  • Licenses and registration
  • Logbook
  • Bill of lading
  • Lights
  • Any and all mechanical components

Have you ever seen what trucking looks like in the third world? Consider the trucks which, due to the fact that they just barely avoid falling into the category of needing to be regulated (dually pickup trucks), which come from Mexico into the U.S. empty and return to Mexico fully loaded. They are loaded to twelve feet high with refrigerators, ovens, washers, dryers, tires and furniture. Their tires are questionable, the trucks are wobbly, and invariably slow on the freeway. They are just skating under the radar. Thankfully, they are not the norm in the U.S. - but they are the norm in Mexico, and this translates to larger rigs in that country as well, and it's even worse in other third world nations.

Now, do you want to discuss airframe inspections? Crankshaft certification for small aircraft engine rebuilds? Road development?


You own 5,000 acres in lala land. So does your neighbor. Nearby are several towns and a nearby city. You never venture into the rear right quarter of your acreage because it has many crumbly cliffs to be traversed to get to the corner, is mostly inaccessible, has thick vegetation, etc. You consider it largely unusable, and simply ignore it. If this isn't you, then it's somebody else.

Your neighbor also owns 5,000 acres. On the far side of his parcel, opposite your adjoining border, is a manufacturing plant. You can't see it, hear it, and can't smell it. All is good. They have built a small network of dirt roads which lead here and there on their property. Out of sight, out of mind.

Well, guess what? We find out that the water of all the nearby towns is contaminated. People have been drinking it for years. There have been deaths. As it turns out, the manufacturing plant has been dumping toxic waste on your property in the back corner. You never knew it. That toxic waste has been seeping into the ground for years, affecting the underground water which ultimately supplies water to all the nearby towns and the mid sized city.

"Hands off!" you've cried. Let others do what they will on their own property. Do not interfere in other people's business on their own property.

In my world: a business decides they are going to manufacture widgets. They need a license. They are classified as a manufacturer. They must disclose to a governing body what they do. They must subject themselves to onsite inspections on a regular basis. They must explain their manufacturing processes and show manifests which show what incoming chemicals they buy, notably chemicals which are regulated. They must disclose, on a regular basis, because of the manufacturing process they employ, manifests which document where those waste chemicals go. Is there a record that x quantity of waste products have been hauled out via a qualified (meaning regulated) waste disposal service (let's call them ACME Waste Disposal Company). ACME Waste Disposal Company gets regulated too. Their income is documented. Their trucks are inspected. They must use an approved process of waste disposal.