Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 71. (Read 105893 times)

The nuke thing is an extreme case.  It doesn't say anything really.  How about a cannon?  Can a citizen own a cannon?  If not, why not?  What about dynamite?  Black powder?  How large of a firearm is too large, and why?  You never really did address this before.

All that you said has valid points. But last time I checked, nukes have been regulated for pretty much as long as they've been around, and it hasn't led to any attempts at kitchen knife regulation (accept on airplanes), which frankly, sounds reasonable to me.

I have zero problems with all citizens not being allowed to ever own a nuke. Zero.

If you look at the progression of regulation, you'll notice where it starts and where it eventually ends.

I agree that we should look at the consequences, or the outcomes of all undesirable situations. That's natural to do. Nobody wants to live in fear of their lives constantly, or feel that they have to "walk on egg shells" because the neighbor is well armed and seems a bit "off".

Notwithstanding that, what typically happens when a negative event happens, is we get angry and upset at the criminal, and we want justice. That's reasonable. Every political ideology (PI) deals with that to some extent in a reasoned fashion, at least when cooler heads prevail. But we don't stop there, we look to see if there is a way to avert disaster of a similar type ever again. It's at this point where almost all PIs diverge. Some will say it is a freak accident due to mental incapacity, others will blame the victim for inciting a reaction, or that the criminal had a negative upbringing and so on and so forth.

Some even take it a step further. They look to the unique circumstances and context of the crime. They say, "Well look what weapon he used. If he hadn't had that weapon, then the victim would have had a better chance, or avoided being victimized at all". Now we're starting to tread muddy waters. We start debating whether or not the outcome would have been the same, had the weapon been different somehow. That type of argumentation I think serves little purpose, because you can't roll the clock back.

It ultimately leads to deciding (rather arbitrarily now) that the personal liberties of other individuals (not the criminal in this instance) no longer have precedence because "society" has decided for them. Society is now the deliberating body who decides for others how they may or may not defend themselves, or what type of property they may possess. Their personal liberties have, in some subtle way, been delegated to others for this determination. We really can't say that those designated persons are any more qualified to possess and use weapons than anybody else, but we've given them these titles, distinctions, and powers anyway.

All men are fallible, some more than others I suppose, but the fact that we can't decide for ourselves on how we want to direct our actions and the more we rely on our leaders, seemingly the more complacent we become. What appears to happen is that weapons and defense accumulate to the few, and leave the many to rely, almost solely on law enforcement. Some don't even try to arm themselves because the laws make it difficult to do so, or impossible in some instances. Criminals know this. They prey on that fact. There are only so many "protectors" to go around. This feedback loop between criminal and government goes on for awhile until most objects deemed "dangerous" (almost anything can be used as a weapon eventually) become regulated and only our law enforcement is empowered to do anything about it. Our saviors to the rescue (sarcasm).

Ultimately and finally, when the masses are disarmed, it's very easy to herd them in the direction you want them, and then almost anything goes at this point. The whims of the masses push back and forth, grinding and haltingly into a unrecognizable tangled morass. Lawyers and politicians love this -it keeps them in business- and at the same time, amazingly gives them the aura of the "fix-it guy" who can solve your problems, albeit for a very short lived period of time; but it keeps them entertained and placated I suppose.

But even the "common man" isn't that ignorant and eventually catches on. Unfortunately, at this point "might makes right" and the anointed ones and the ivory towers in which they reside, are the only deciding factions left. And they are well bunkered in. I can see the writing on the wall too. If you can regulate nukes, then why not semtex, or fertilizer, or handguns, or knife length, or... or how about a lemonade stand? Yeah, I know you say it would never happen. Calling me a liar? Been there, seen that.

It has happened in the past, it will happen again. The past is prologue.

I've already acknowledged this. I made a very apt analogy. Is a libertarian starving and lost in the woods going to simply wait to die instead of violating property rights by breaking into the cabin full of food? No, but at no point does justice get thrown out the window. Even if how we feel we would behave would become ambiguous under various circumstances, justice does not. You still broke into a cabin. You still stole food that you didn't own. You committed a crime and your punishment is the same as ever. You have to pay for the damages and the stolen food. You don't get a free pass on justice just because it's an emergency. Likewise, would a libertarian watch a guy juggle knives on an inflatable raft instead of stopping him? No, that's about as likely as a libertarian starving to death outside a cabin full of food. Libertarianism is not a suicide pact. However, in both cases, justice still has to have its due. You must eventually settle up with the law. The only confusion here is that some people think what's rational to do under certain circumstances and what justice requires us to do are always identical.

This thread has devolved into two ideological camps, neither of which is willing to concede that the other has a point.  Nor does either side seem to wish to acknowledge that the contrived situations presented to argue over have little bearing on reality.  I'm sorry, but not only is a libertarian not going to really sit idle should some knife juggler stand up in the inflatable life raft; but nor does the concept that liberty should trump consequences rationally lead to a crazy little old lady buying a sachel nuke on her retirement savings in order to go commit a suicide bombing of the Upper West Side.  I'm most certainly libertarian, and thus lean to one side in the debate, but both sides have run to the absurd.

And as I have already noted, trolls don't argue for the sake of enlightening others nor of self enrichment.  And too many of those members who are still here posting have let the caged troll out to play.  Anyone who would follow AyeYo to a new venue is asking to get hurt, because he does so because he knows that the stated rules at the other forum either are notoriously underenforced, or simply don't apply to himself for whatever reason.  Added to that, the open knowledge that I'm watching him in particular (which is what brought me to this thread, for I'm not keen on debating IP with anyone) means that he is at an advantage anywhere else, no matter to what length I may be willing to let him go.  He can go farther if he isn't insulting actual moderators.  I know I'm picking on AyeYo here, but there are many others in this thread who have been acting likewise.  And yes, I'm including members who agree with myself idealogically in that group.  I'm the first to admit that I have allowed myself to get pulled into this kind of intellectual gutter in the past, so I'm not innocent either.  But you guys need to pull yourselves out of the sewage, climb back out of the gutter and mentally step back from each other. 

To sum it up, stop it.  Everybody find a corner to stand in for a time out.

Under what circumstances would one regulate any weapon, in your opinion? More specifically, why would anyone regulate anything, unless there was imminent threat of violence or unless violence had already been committed?

What exactly constitutes a weapon anyway?

Do we need specific laws to account for weapon use for all persons in all places, or can they be handled on a case-by-case basis?

Every conflict scenario is unique, with a unique set of circumstances, intentions, and evidence. How could any law regulating weapons be realistically applicable and equitable in all situations and not violate personal liberties?

EDIT: Actually if you think about it, nobody regulates weapons, they regulate people. I continually read comments in this thread that we should regulate fertilizer sales, or nuclear ordinances, smallpox, toxic materials, and whatnot, when what we're really doing is regulating individual liberties and actions.

Corrolation is not causation, so I don't think that you can prove any such thing; but it would still depend upon how it's regulated.  It's not an all or nothing question.

So... when people want to use nukes against others, all they must do is form a government, and that makes it acceptable?

Here's what I'm seeing in your argument...

Individual acquires nuke - immediate use of violence is acceptable to end this threat
Group of people calling themselves a government acquires nuke (and USES it) - it's ok because it's the will of the people

You're right about that and that's the whole point. Rules aren't supposed to be ambiguous and vague. However, understanding why consequences don't trump rights is a different story and that's what I was referring to in my post.

Let's consider what you want. Basically, it's something to the effect: "Everyone should keep their hands off of others and their property." And then, over the course of some 46 pages in this thread, and many times over in other threads, you argue that above all else, that ideal trumps everything else, indiscriminately.

It seems to me that indiscriminate application of that ideal does in fact, not require a sophisticated understanding of anything else at all. So please demonstrate to me the following:

1. Demonstrate that your ideal does indeed require a sophisticated understanding to appreciate it and apply it to subtle and difficult problems.

2. Demonstrate that you have not shirked the need for a sophisticated understanding when explaining the application of your ideal to subtle and difficult problems.

Remember when I said this? Yea, I was the one who explained that to you and you agreed with it. So, clearly, that's not what I reject. I reject the idea that, all things considered, consequences trump rights.

You reject the importance of having a sophisticated understanding before applying measures to subtle and difficult problems?

Of course, I understand your viewpoint. I simply reject it.

I agree with this and I have said this to you many times. I've patiently explained to you that you can't slap your political ideology broadly to the world and society and hope it works. I've explained that to you, after it became obvious to me that you lacked a sophisticated understanding of many topics external to your political ideology. I believe the topics were related to deforestation, ecosystems, species decimation, riparian zones, trophic cascades, edge effects, etc.

Thank you for summarizing my viewpoint (and undermining yours) in one succinct sentence.

I think you are understating the difficulty of your position.  The position you take is that people should die for your ideals.  A fresh outbreak of smallpox could well kill a billion people.  If terrorists can have nukes, most towns and cities with over 1000 population will be vaporised in an endless tit for tat that could well end in all humanity being eliminated.  

That is a huge sacrifice to ask and you offer nothing by way of reward for the sacrifice.  Saying you have an idea in your head and that millions should die for it is not a "sophisticated understanding."

Someone thinks he belongs to the intellectual elite. Then start debating the intellectual elite, which, apparently, the likes of myself, AyeYo, fergalish and Hawker are not. Do you want me to provide you with some names that you can debate, since we're not up to par?

Regarding consequences, last time I checked, consequences are what lie in my future, and everybody else's. And what's in our future is all we have. Literally.

You can't demonstrate that rights take precedence over consequences. It's obvious that I'm in the minority. Most people think that society has some kind of higher status than individual rights. That's no surprise to me. The fact that the average person would laugh at my point of view demonstrates about as much as people laughing at slaves being freed in the antebellum south. You seem to take popularity very seriously but it's not that important. I'll go ahead and grant you that my views seem very bizarre to the average person and save you some trouble. As a philosopher, that's nothing new to me. Trying to articulate classical problems of philosophy to "aww, shucks" commonsense kind of people usually results in making philosophers seem like idiots that worry over trivialities. You definitely require a sophisticated understanding before you can appreciate subtle and difficult problems. Congratulations, you've proven that the common man is common.

We created governments and they implement things we want.  The US won the atom bomb race and American people loved winning WW2.  Don't kid yourself that the governments are separate from us the people.

You're totally missing the point.

If your ideas are reasonable, not absurd, and make sense, then demonstrate it. You haven't convinced Hawker, ferfalish, AyeYo, or me. Let's see how some random sampling of people outside of this thread react to your ideas after you have presented them and argued in defense of them.

It's not that we need their help. Rather, we wish to make a point. Or, instead, you can demonstrate to others that we're the ones who can't see things reasonably.

The fact that AyeYo has been there five years tells me just about all I need to know about that place. The fact that you seem so keen to change venues seems a little bizarre. Are you incapable of arguing without help? Why does it matter where we debate? Are you incapable of putting my ideas to the test by yourself? I'll let you spin this however you want but the fact remains, I'm here, argue if you want but do so respectfully or you'll be disregarded by me and won't be taken seriously. It's your choice.