Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 70. (Read 105875 times)

That's how stuff gets done in the real world.  We spend a great deal of time and effort to understand cause and effect, and we make decisions from there.  We can justify and explain our choices.  We have reasoned through the cost/benefit analysis before drawing a conclusion.

On the other hand, you slap a one-liner philosophy that you admittedly pulled out of your ass (and can't justify, explain, or argue for) on everything, sight unseen, and call it a day.


But you think we're the crazy ones?

Ultimately, I define my rights based on empathy. I don't ask others to do what I would not have myself do. I consider myself equal in rights to everyone else. I start with "I wouldn't want to be assaulted or killed", "I wouldn't want my property stolen", etc and then these all distill to "I don't want people to touch my property without permission". Since I consider my person to be owned by myself, it therefore falls under property. That gives us the NAP. Then, that leaves the question of how property can be obtained in the first place and what constitutes theft. That's where homesteading and legitimate title transfer come into play. As you can see, all these disparate considerations ultimately boil down to the two tenets of libertarianism. It's accomplished by taking specific considerations, seeing what they have in common and generalizing them. Just because something can be said in a few words doesn't mean it's simple. Let's not focus on word count while ignoring content.

I'm going to assume that you don't actually want to discuss this topic with me, by carefully avoiding getting too deep into it.

Tell me, how do you determine that your simplistic one sentence rule is adequate for everything?

How do you determine the method required for a particular case? The deeper we dig, the more it seems like you just fly by the seat of your pants.

I just stated that each case often requires a different method. Mention a specific case - I have named several, and then we'll have a discussion.

Let me repeat my question, you say you are concerned about consequences but how do you judge them? How do you determine if the consequences are too great to allow something? Can you describe it for me?

Back up your claims about me. Demonstrate to me that I have not made significant educational posts which either state a reason for certain policy or have not made significant posts which suggest a solution.

Back up your accusation about me, or shut it.

I don't need a simple process. That's your strawman. I need some kind of process. You say that you are concerned about consequences but how do you quantify that? Is it some utility calculation? I don't care if it's complex or subtle but it better be consistent. You seem to confuse those things.

Unlike you, my process isn't simple like yours. It depends on each individual case. Would you like to discuss automobile efficiency and a method for that? Or CO2 emissions and a method for that? Or wolf populations? Or wildlife corridors? Or road management?

I don't just have some simple process to explain to you. That's the difference between sophisticated understanding and application to problems and your method, which is application of one sentence to everything, acknowledging that no sophisticated understanding is necessary. I can point you to the post you made where you precisely stated that no sophisticated understanding is necessary - about three posts after you stated that you engage in sophisticated understanding to better understand subtle and difficult problems.

So you can't explain your process other than "thinking hard about it". I'm really supposed to endorse that?

In reference to my post quoted here, knowledge is key - knowledge external to some political ideology. But you already know that.

Yes, we know there is a difference. Do you know that there is a difference between arbitrary random rules and specific well thought out rules based on research, knowledge and examination of the consequences?

There's a difference between picking some arbitrary rules and sticking with them vs. having no rules at all. I'm sure you know that.

Nothing is more satisfying than having an effect - getting people who think they believe what they believe, but getting them to understand that what they believe is not the best way, usually because they're unaware of all the consequences of their beliefs.

Why do you ask stupid questions like this when you openly admit that your ideas are just some undefendable randomness you pulled out of your ass?

Hawker has repeated asked you to explain what logic drives your world-view and how you justify your beliefs, but you refuse to answer.... and then you turn around and ask someone else the same questions.

Not necessarily any of those. In the case of the nukes, common sense guides me. In the case of the environment, knowledge that others don't bother to arm themselves with. Never the alignment of the stars. Never what tickles my fancy - unless it is coincident with well thought out and researched conclusions.

Balance is important.

Now, the last paragraph that AyeYo just wrote (in his longer post above) - consider it to be good advice, even if you find him abrasive.

The just CAN'T wrap their minds around this.

What kind of balance? What guides you? Whatever tickles your fancy? Popular opinion? The alignment of the stars?

In the US we're allowed weapons that could be reasonably used for self-defense.  Read the majority opinion in DC vs. Heller if you want the specific defintion and where the lines are drawn.

Nukes aren't reasonable self-defense weapons.  Conventional bombs are not self-defense weapons.  Cannons are not self-defense weapons.  RPGs are not self-defense weapons. etc. etc. etc. etc.



So cash boy, are you signing up on Honda-Tech or not?  As mo(r)onshadow has correctly pointed out, and as I explained to you before, the debate here is pointless.  If you want to demonstrate that your opinions are superior, then go do so in front of some fresh faces and see how they react.  It's not a popularity contest, it's the real world.  If you want your nutty ideas to ever see the light of day, you need to sell them to people and convince the masses that your belief system is the superior one.  If you ever want that to happen, you need to pry yourself away from circle jerk sub-sections of this forum where most people agree with you and go sell your ideas to fresh faces.

In that regard, I'm actually in the same boat as you.  My ideas are also seen as crazy by a country that is predominantly far-right authoritarian, religious nut cases that worship the US military and are blissfully.... no, more like orgasmically ignorant of history and anything not covered by Fox News.  The difference between you and I is that I choose to surround myself by these people so that I can educate them, sway them over to my way of thinking, and also through their counter-arguments, strengthen, examine, and reflect on my own beliefs, often modifying them where they prove to be illogical.  You, on the other hand, choose to surround yourself with like-mind people, which is essentially burying your head in the sand.  You know you can't adequately defend your beliefs, maybe you're even afraid of beginning to question them, so you stick to pumping yourself full of world-view affirming literature and surrounding yourself with people that think exactly like you.  If you truly like your way is not only the best way, but also a realistic and workable way for the world, then stop hiding behind "me too" people and go out and start winning strangers to your cause.

It says a lot given that the last 20 pages or so have posts in which a few members seem to adamantly insist that there should be no regulation of nukes. Precisely because it is extreme (individuals don't really need them and they cause horrific damage), it becomes telling that a select few think they should not be regulated.


I think antique cannons should be allowed. Just a hunch. As for the other stuff, I honestly don't know what the existing precise regulations are, but I believe in studying each individual case and determining something that strikes some type of balance, admitting and fully accepting that everyone will not be pleased. But that's ok, because in liber-land, obviously not everybody will be pleased either.

Once you accept that not everyone will be pleased no matter what solution is applied, it becomes clear that classifying items into different groups and applying solutions individually to those different groups is an acceptable method, rather than insisting that one simple rule applies to everything, which obviously results in situations that just aren't acceptable.