Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 69. (Read 105893 times)

I'm not pointing a finger at anybody here, but I could attempt to argue the merits of "keeping your hands to yourself" in front of an audience of gang members and I probably wouldn't get very far either.

The general tenor I get from the average person on the street is that whatever the law is, it must be true, because it's a law. Very rarely do you see anybody really boiling down the basic purpose of law to determine whether or not the law is just in the first place. What you see is, if the majority says it is, then it must be. There's nothing particularly compelling about that statement (other than ignorant apathy).

If anything, rule by majority is as simple (for purposes of creating a law) as the NAP, but in a different way, as a vote is all you need. However, if you start with the assumption that you can't aggress another or his property, you will reach a crossroad eventually where you must decide if you're going to compromise that principle. At that point, you decide if you're going to stick with it and try to keep to your principles and take a less trodden route, or compromise them and construct law for any reason and due to any circumstance.

b2c makes an interesting point. If you were hungry, and you were at risk of dying, you (and many others) would likely steal to survive. That doesn't excuse the theft, and the law must exact its just desserts, but at least you'd be alive to answer for it. I'm not going to say you have lawfully justified anything by your actions, neither am I suggesting a law should be made to support it, merely stating that it is what it is. Take your lumps and move on.

I could just as easily argue that it is my duty to extract my child from a neighboring home he has wandered into, even break into it if necessary in the interests of protecting my child, but damage has been done. The neighbors property has been trespassed, perhaps even vandalized, but my child is now safe. However, that doesn't excuse me from restitution to the owner. I have no problem answering to him for what I've done.

Don't think for a second that by the above admission, I'm giving any weight to the argument that we can side-step justice (do no harm, NAP), and merely do as we please, whether individually or collectively. Au contraire, preservation of an individual's rights is paramount, and nothing should diminish them.

Explain the non-aggression principle, homesteading and legitimate title transfer in one sentence. Anything can be summed up in one sentence if you make a huge number of assumptions.

"All things are made of atoms, which are little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another."

There's atomic theory in one sentence. Yet, does that tell you everything you need to know about it? Hardly. How do they interact? Do they have precise position and velocity? What are atoms made of? How many are there different kinds are there? What are their properties? How do they interact chemically? There's a million questions that still need to be asked. Trying to pretend you have captured everything in a single sentence doesn't fly. It's a summary, a preview. It captures an important central idea but it's by no means been boiled down to a single sentence.

Missing the point again. Without making comment on the worthiness of your opponents here, the point is to see how many opponents you might have in the real world - in other words, how much support can you get for your ideas? You can argue that you are a sophisticated philosopher whose ideas are too complex to be understood by the common man, but really, your philosophy boils down to one sentence, so I think the common man can grasp it.

That's my stance. Different problems require knowledge external to a political ideology, studies, research, and then a nuanced solution applicable to said problem. The more concise you can be, the better, but in general, the solutions will vary, will be somewhat complex and require the knowledge of experts as well as common sense. B2c wants to slap a one sentence solution on everything: "Hands off me and my property!" He shuns actually needing to know anything beyond that.

What a libertarian does and what is just can be two different things. It's not justice to rob a cabin for food when starving. That's why you have to pay for damages.



Rightfully? No. Just like you can't rightfully rob a cabin even if you are starving. We'll all still do it though and pay the consequences later. It's important not to confuse what's just with what's done.


Under libertarianism I have the right to defend myself against thieves. If I declare that I won't pay taxes and then blue uniformed thugs kick my door down and try to kidnap me, I'm justified in defending myself with violence. Of course, it's suicide to do so but there's nothing hypocritical about it.

Can't sleep :-(  Came here to find friends ;-((  I've amalgamated several replies into this post; some of them are repetitive and boil down to the same point, but worded differently in order to address yer comments.


Thanks for this, no sarcasm intended.  I can't agree with your argument of "crazy little ladies" not buying nukes.  Ok, maybe for crazy little ladies and nukes, you're right; but crazy big guys, and semtex bombs, no - you're wrong.  And the pro-libertarian camp seem to think that, just because no-one would ever try to buy a nuclear weapon for personal use even if free to do so, that nuclear weapons should be freely available.  Furthermore, given that hypothesis, that therefore no-one will ever buy lesser weapons for personal use and therefore they should all be freely available too.

Moonshadow, you yourself have stated that not all definitions of "acceptable weapons" are arbitrary, that some weapons *really are* different to others.  Hmm.  Then you argue that what is important is not the weapon, but the set of circumstances under which it's employed.  This latter sentence is somehow better, but it's equivalent to saying that there exists some pre-defined absolute line of "unsafe circumstances", and all weapons either fall on this side, or that side of the line.  So imagine if there was some new kind of weapon invented... use your imagination... let's imagine it uses 'sub-space harmonics' to make an assailant melt into a dead blob of jelly, and it has two dials, one controlling the range over which it operates, and another the intensity.  What you're saying is that there is some non-arbitrary line, which will be obvious to *everyone*, what the maximum range and intensity of such a weapon should be; and furthermore that this non-arbitrary line would be obvious to everyone.

But you miss the point.  ALL weapons become automatic once they are deployed.  A bullet from a handgun becomes automatic once the trigger is pulled - it can't identify between a teenager playing with a water pistol and a teenager trying to shoot you.  Or: could I legitimately use a landmine if I were 100% certain that the victim would be an intruder (or otherwise, an 'enemy')?

If a non-arbitrary definition did actually exist, it would be obvious to everyone (at least after debating).  But here we've seen that the pro-libertarian camp don't even think that privately held nukes are unacceptable.  And I don't doubt that someone, somewhere, perhaps a victim of a knife attack, would be very happy if all knives everywhere had a tamper-proof protective sheath that would only retract when in the immediate vicinity of carrots to be chopped, or that knives be only available from govt-approved shops after presentation of ID and motivation for requiring a knife.

But here - I'll tell you what - if not all such expressions (of "acceptable weaponry") are arbitrary, then PLEASE tell us what the single, unique, non-arbitrary one is.  If it could be guaranteed that *everyone* would abide by that definition, then I would too, WHATEVER it is.  But then that would be the Law, right?  Or not?

-----------

I'm not certain I agree with this.  My problem with libertarianism would persist *even if* the underlying framework was utilitarian rather than deontological.  To put it better: utilitarianism seeks to maximise "human happiness", deontology "human morality" (correct me if I'm wrong).  In a utilitarian society, if everyone was free to interpret "human happiness" as they see fit, the same problems would arise.  Analogously in a deontological society, if there was a system-wide definition of "human morality", then I see no problem.

The problems arise specifically and solely because people can and will have differing definitions of what's acceptable; and sometimes these definitions will be in conflict.  My own personal philosophy is neither utilitarian nor deontological.  My ideology could be summed up as "Everybody must obey the same rules; the rules must be impartial; the rules should seek to be comprehensive and minimise conflict."

Where is the contradiction in my idealogy?  I'm not defying you - I realise there may be contradictions it it, let's debate if you like.  In a different thread, if you prefer, but however we debate, it will also be applicable to IP law.

I can even see that there is little difference between my idealogy and libertarianism.  It all depends on how many rules you want, and how many conflicts you want to address really.  The difference between complete chaotic anarchy, and a totalitarian nanny state.  Wouldn't it be great if we could apply a cost-benefit analysis, not to whether a given law should exist or not, but to how many, and which, types of conflict should the law address.  i.e. the more conflicts you address, the bigger and more costly the government becomes.  At some point, the additional cost of instituting and enforcing a law will exceed the benefit benefit derived therefrom.  "no nukes" - small cost, enormously large benefit.  "no sunny side eggs" - medium cost, negligible benefit.


-----------

So a libertarian would stop someone juggling knives on a life raft, but not someone parading nukes around a city?

The point is, juggling knives on a life raft is *obviously* a recklessly dangerous thing to do, so, even in a libertarian society, it's unlikely that the boat-owner will specify that this is forbidden.  Therefore, by your argument, anyone may rightfully do so, and no-one may rightfully stop him.

Now it's pretty certain that no-one ever actually *would* juggle knives on a life raft, precisely because it *is* obviously stupid.  But there are plenty of other cases where the stupidity, or otherwise, of an action is not obvious, BUT, the owner whose T&C govern the situation will not have considered.  So, in liberty-land, may a person rightfully put a forceful stop to any behaviour, not specifically otherwise prohibited, which they consider to be dangerous to themselves or their property?  Moonshadow, in case you've not read the whole thread, this contradiction in (fb's & b2c's) libertarianism has already been established.  I perceive guns, even if holstered, as a threat, and therefore I can rightfully defend myself from them; but people have the right to carry guns.  Are they incompatible rights or not?


I tried asking this question before, except I was asking if it's possible to define "freakishly absurd" or not.


-----------

b2c, I'm not sure what you're arguing in these more recent posts.  In order to solve a problem, are you suggesting that we should learn more about the problem, debate it and research it, or are you suggesting that... I dunno, are you suggesting... something else?

If the state declares it will forcefully oblige people to obey, and does so, there is no contradiction or hypocrisy.  If you declare you will peacefully ask people to voluntarily cooperate with libertarianism, and then forcefully oblige them to do so, there is contradiction and hypocrisy.
Do you deny that?

So let me get this straight. If I'm forced to do something at gunpoint and resist, I'm the one using violence to get my way?

I don't have to do anything, because you're the one trying to making radical change happen.  You can do so violently and be a hypocrite or you can do so peacefully by winning people over to your side.


Let me quote myself just to further rub in what a hypocrite you are...




So which is it?  Are you going to bring about change by forcing it on people via violence (just like the state that you hate!) or are you going to win over a majority through superior reasoning and arguments (which will still result in your forcing your opinion on the minority, thus concluding that libertarianism is hypocritical and contradictory no matter what way you slice it, as I've said in a million threads before, you can make EVERYONE happy ALL the time, thus you will ALWAYS have to suppress at least some people via threat of violence)?

First of all, these aren't the only forums I post on. I have no idea why you would think that. Secondly, I've really been enjoying watching you two run your mouths, thinking that your little line in the sand means something, which is why I haven't bothered to tell you I registered on honda-tech hours ago. Unfortunately, I can't actually post or start any threads yet so it's kind of pointless to keep bringing it up. Though, I'm glad that you at least recognize how safe I am here since there aren't any worthy opponents.

You'll survive, literally and metaphorically. By remaining in your bunker (the bitcoin politics forum), you're guaranteeing your safety, as well as guaranteeing not actually having any effect in the real world. Your choice.

You said you were going to "fight me tooth and nail". I guess you meant that figuratively then? How else are you going to fight me? Strongly worded forum posts? I think I'll survive.

Agreed. But I'd really like to see if he's capable of getting any traction in the real world. Obviously he knows he can't. I on the other hand seek out those in disagreement with my ideals, because I am confident in them.

Absolutely not.

If you don't like that and you truly believe in the non-aggression, no coercion BS you preach, you'll win the majority over to your side through better arguments and the demonstration that your position is superior.  If your opinions are so crazy as to be indefensible by argument, and your first resort is violence, then you're a raging hypocrite and a tyrannt worse than any state which you hate.

Oh, in that case, my apologies. I thought you were going to be enforcing your beliefs on me. So you're saying I'm free to own nuclear bombs and not pay my taxes?

These last couple posts were basically check and mate.  There's not even any point in cluttering up H-T with his dumbassery, much less me getting blamed for inviting him there, because he just shoved his foot so far down his throat that there's nothing left to say.

And here we have the ultimate irony, as I've pointed out in many, many other threads.  

The libertarian, whose world is supposedly based on non-aggression, no coercion, voluntary everything, and not forcing beliefs on anyone, is threatening violence to impliment his beliefs on the unwilling.

We invited you to the battlefield, but you chickened out and chose to remain in your bunker.

See you on the battlefield.

And there's your root flaw.


Just because you're willing to die for Joe Idiot's pull-from-ass "right" to own a nuke, doesn't mean that I am.  Just because you think you wouldn't mind dealing with a voluntary legal system clusterfuck, doesn't mean that I am.  The fact that you're willing to do something doesn't give you license to sign up everyone else on the planet for it as well.  Thus, your opinion is actually the very embodiment of selfishness and the very opposite of empathetic.



So if you want to force on me a system that allows that, you're going to need to justify it and sell me on it, otherwise I'll fight you tooth and nail, and there are a lot more people on my side than yours.

Ummm, that's how most people feel, instinctively. Is this original? No.


The NAP is nothing unless universally enforced, or at least consistently enforced within a region. It's also subject to interpretation because it's so vague.


I'm sorry, but somehow, based on this conclusion you've drawn, you've publicly interpreted this to mean that you own a life raft if you're the first in it, and thus you also declare the rules for all subsequent boarders. Odd.


Well, if these disparate considerations are so rock solid, then why is there such disagreement about them here in this thread?