Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 68. (Read 105875 times)

You use the word voluntary in a rather contradictory way. If an act is voluntary for you but not voluntary for another, then I say it has failed that definition requirement. You can't volunteer another, it just doesn't make sense. But then not much in the way of what government does, constitutes volunteerism anyway.

Libertarianism only responds to violence, it doesn't institute it, initiate it, incite it, or instigate it. For everything else, it keeps to itself, or it proffers an environment of free exchange. Sounds ideal to me.

You're not a libertarian so why are you quoting yourself? That isn't exactly proof of what we believe. Why don't you quote somebody who claims to be a libertarian and attack their ideology? You should do your homework first, of course (ya know, like read a few books on Libertarianism). Lashing out makes for an unconvincing argument. I like to poke holes in Libertarianism, and I have a few thoughts, but in this forum most of my time is spent putting out the occasional garbage-can fire.


Being outnumbered by the enemy doesn't make the enemy any more right. I could join a gang and rob Grandma of the $500 under her mattress, but just because there's one of her and ten of us doesn't make it right. Voting by majority can get you any law, and you know it. I bet if you start letting children vote (just promise them candy), it might increase your numbers and then you'd feel even better about yourself. A majority requires little deliberation and thought, it tends to be anonymous, and it prevents blowback for the voter, for that very reason. I'm beginning to wonder if voting isn't some sort of ploy for the thief because stealing is getting harder and harder to do these days; besides stealing on a person to person basis is getting dangerous. With an army to back you, it makes your job so much the easier.

Theft by vote. I could probably write a book about that.

Why should I consider your transportation issues if the road development and maintenance is for your roads, same for rail, airplane and helicopter and other modes of transportation? You being a business man, you should figure that out. I suppose if you hired me to help you manage your roads, railroads, airplane production and other whatnot, we might have something. I will not assist you as long as you use eminent domain, taxpayer subsidies, and other types of government interference, as I'm diametrically opposed to plunder, mollycoddling and forceful manipulation.

Same goes for your environmental issues. All of them are important, but none of them should have any lawful effect on property you don't own, unless and only unless the property use exceeds the boundaries within which it is contained. Prove that one, and you might just have another disciple. I will never put other lifeforms above that of humans and their basic human rights. Your only other option is to educate them and show them that by being better stewards of their lands they can preserve the natural beauty (and species) of the land, otherwise you should back down.

Apparently you're either blind, retarded, willfully ignorant, or you missed the last few pages.  Let me recap libertarian beliefs for you...



Maybe you can answer this question that moron2cash refuses to (because he's already answered it indirectly, thus condemning himself and his hypocritical philosophy)...



You can't get around it.  This non-aggression bullshit is bullshit because you will be forcing everyone to abide by it under threat of violence.  Non-coercion bullshit is bullshit because your system is based on the coercion of the vastly larger number of people that disagree with you by the vastly smaller number of people that agree with you.

If you really believed in non-aggression bullshit and non-coercion bullshit then you'd shut up and sit down and realize that you're grossly outnumbered by people that aren't the least bit interested in your idiotic belief system and want nothing to do with it.  If you're all about things being voluntary then you'd accept the fact that nearly the entirety of the world's society has voluntarily chosen to NOT accept your beliefs (as evidenced by the fact that a libertarian society has never been voted into power anywhere, ever) and you'd just go way.  If the basis of what is good and right is solely that which is freely chosen, then obviously libertarianism is NOT good or right, because our societies consistantly DO NOT choose it.

I agreed to nothing. I follow some rules because I agree with them (rules against harming others), some because otherwise excessive violence would be used against me (taxes), and others not at all. Yet in all of this time I have never agreed to any of those laws.

No libertarian would ever so much as breathe that. You're just trying to start a flame war and it's already heated in here as is.

Which is exactly what all the libertarians in this thread have said.  Ironic, no?

We've got what we want peacefully.  We have democratic societies where we all get together to make rules that everyone agrees to follow, even if they don't necessarily agree with all of them.  Compromise is part of living in the real world.

It's you idiots that make up a small minority of people (otherwise you'd already have the world you want) that want to force the rest of society that vastly outnumbers you to conform to your worldview via violence.

If I had my ideal world, no one would own them.  If most people AND governments had their ideal worlds, no one would own them.  But it's too late for that, so now some governments have to own them or their citizens are at the mercy of those governments that do own them.  I live in the real world where this is a complicated issue and I must deal with complexities of the real world.  Where do you live?

I'll requote myself until you address the issue:

Regarding breaking into the cabin because you're starving: it's not interesting at all because regardless of the political climate, situation, laws, etc., human instinct takes over and you do what you've got to do. These situations usually work themselves out. It's just not really worth exploring in this debate with regard to how it is handled.

However, there is a vast difference in how the big issues are addressed and dealt with depending on the politics. Thus, these issues are worth debating. Pick any one of those topics. They are deep, broad, and complicated.

Consider transportation, and just transportation. We have urban planning, road development and maintenance, rail, aircraft airframe structural integrity, airplane safety, helicopter safety, air traffic safety, right of ways, traffic management, insurance, terrorism potentially targeting air, land or sea (human beings or cargo), boating, car safety, shipping ports, noise abatement, bicycle pathways, delivery of hazardous materials, etc.

How does all this interrelate safely and efficiently? Are there commonly defined protocols?

How about the environment? Ecosystems, species extinction, soil sustainability, aquifers, water quality, riparian zones, trophic cascades, erosion, deforestation, old growth forests, secondary growth forests, fire management, wildlife corridors, cattle grazing, toxic dumping, sewage management, water tables, ocean pollution, air pollution, edge effects, ecosystem fragmentation, ocean currents, styrofoam, plastic bags, tar sands, oil spills, animal poaching (Sumatran Rhino), suburban sprawl, dust pollution (Owens Lake due to the DWP), preserves, etc.

Those subject matters should be addressed. That doesn't necessarily give anybody the right to make a law to regulate it. That just complicates the issue, but then maybe that's what you're going for -more interesting. I prefer less interesting to more interesting in that case. If you're advocating laws to manipulate and coerce the property owners of others, then you better have a very good reason for doing so.

Here we go. I'm going to get whacked upside the head. I can just feel it coming.

Yeah, that's probably true. It kind of depends on the age of the person too. The younger they are the less they question it (my personal experience). They usually gripe when their rights and liberties are on the chopping block, then they take it personally. There sure has been a lot of griping lately. Sorry about projecting my personal experience as a generality. It used to be a lot more apathy, but in the last few years it seems to have become more acute. My personal experience and opinion, of course.

It's not that interesting. Honestly, in an emergency, do what you've got to do - just try to minimize your damage to others. A good rule of thumb is: it must be an emergency, avoid putting others at risk, avoid causing more damage than the damage you're trying to prevent, and weigh how much the parties you're affecting will be affected relative to what you need to do. Geez, breaking into a cabin and eating someone else's food because you're starving is so fundamental and so trivial relative to the issues the world faces today.

These emergency situations you bring up are generally understood, and not the underlying basis for the big things that need to be addressed, such as: climate change, disaster management, agriculture, starvation, transportation, national defense, environmental destruction, economic stability, resource management, etc.

Among those listed, the nuke situation falls under disaster management and national defense, but it also relates to all topics just listed.

Isn't that the point of owning any weapon? It obviously doesn't prevent the nuke from being used but makes for a reasonable deterrent. That's the main justification anyway.

You're the one saying: "If it kills a million, that's ok, because otherwise, we would have had to curtail the desires of one in a hundred thousand."

Why do you think people just automatically think that? Honestly, the reality is, most people gripe every fucking day about all manner of laws. You are the ignorant one to believe that people just think laws echo morality.

Sadly, you don't understand the Cold War very well, do you? The technology to neutralize an incoming nuke was not guaranteed. You need to understand that possessing nukes was the deterrent to prevent the other nation from using a nuke on you.

That's pretty dang close. I think I could one-up you though. How about, "If it saves lives, and the majority says it's okay, the initiation of violence is morally justified"

Ooh, let me do yours. "If you can't get what you want peacefully, the initiation of violence is morally justified"

And we allow the government to own them... why? For "national defense"?