Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 77. (Read 105875 times)

Yes.  Why would the badge matter ?  I don't get the point of your question.

Yes.  But we have to make a choice.  Do we value the farmer's ability to buy fertiliser in secret more than the life of a bomb victim.  We don't have the option of pretending the decision does not have to be made.

I'd choose to save the life.  So do most people.  You choose to let the bomb victim's die.  That's your choice - you can always vote that way - but you can't impose that choice on others.

*sigh*
Can you imagine how such recordation and regulation of who buys fertilizen can be applied and enforced using only private sector companies, security, and regulators, without a central taxpayer-supported government?

Um, fertiliser is in the private sector.  The role of the state if to make it compulsory.  

I can empirically show that lobotomies saves lives too. Government regulation is forced coercion. Law is force legalized. The farmer is subsequently diminished in his rights. If the farmer relents, he can be fined and imprisoned. That is a disadvantage.

Can you imagine how such recordation could be applied and enforced entirely in the private sector?

I take it you aren't familiar with basic cost/benefit analysis.

The regulation simply records who bought the fertiliser.  No farmer loses anything.  The only people disadvantaged are those who want to buy vast amounts of fertiliser for non-agricultural use.  

And empirically we know it saves lives.

Yes he was. He was saying we must have government regulation of fertilizer sales and concludes that that saves lives, conversely if he says we don't have government regulation he concludes people will die.

It was one or the other. There were no other options on the table. This is an 'either-or' fallacy. Don't conclude that because something "works", that is the only way it can be done, or that it is the correct and just way to do it.

To wit, if we give everybody a lobotomy, and nobody will be violent anymore, therefore we must all get lobotomies to prevent violence; and if nobody is violent, nobody will die. To beat a dead horse deader, getting lobotomies prevents violent death, and is thusly justifiable and is not just if we don't.

The choices are real.  You either regulate fertiliser sales or you don't.  You either allow private possession of nukes or you don't.  You either allow your fellow citizens be killed or you don't.

A society that casually allows its members to be killed is aesthetically ugly as well as being dangerous for the people in it.  The problem you have is that your vision of society is unpleasant.  It has nothing to recommend it.

Yeah, I've done that one, take a look here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.351447

He's not being black-and-white.  That would be "fertiliser for everyone" or "fertiliser for no-one".  Hawker just proposes "fertiliser for whoever legitimately needs it".  That's what you're proposing too, except Hawker likes to stop people *before* they suicide bomb a city, not afterwards.

How about in response to your comment, I use a similie to make a point? Here are your options to solve the problem: you must pick black or white, it's an easy decision, and it's the only option. Don't look over there, that's the rainbow section... no you don't want any of that, it's too colorful.

Don't draw conclusions from choices only you think exist (false dilemma - a type of logical fallacy). Forcing choices aren't choices in the end anyway. Yes I get it. People will die. People always die. I want fewer people to die too. I think we can keep our liberties and achieve both despite the worst of suicidal intentions.

Nobody will stop you setting up a company offering free cable TV, or doing research into x-ray vision for eventual human implants - though I suppose you might have to be sure to offer a quality product.  Tell you what, I don't have a TV, but if you offer free cable to me, I'll definitely 'buy' it.  Good luck.  You have the right to have free cable TV, and everyone else has a greater right not to be obliged to offer you free cable TV.

Fortunately, under just about any reasonable legal system I can think of, the right to have people with red hair arbitrarily executed is vastly superseded by redheads' right to life - so there is no problem in a legal system and the law protects redheads.  Likewise Nirvana and people's right to peace and tranquillity.

I'll bet if you take the core idea of law it would boil down to pretty much what libertarians would like.  "Do no harm; do not threaten to harm," might be a (simplified) starting point; the rest is just making a clear, unique definition of what constitutes "threat" and "harm" such that members of society can co-exist peacefully.

b2c, your own post just here shows that people with differing opinions on what their rights should be, cannot peacefully co-exist.  I realise that you are being facetious, but have you ever heard of Poe's Law?  In short: "Parodies of extremism are indistinguishable from the real thing."  So *whatever* your understanding of "threat" and "harm", there will *always* potentially be someone who's understanding is incompatible with yours.  Any society which has competing or conflicting members, REQUIRES a common definition of "threat" and "harm" if it is to be peaceful.  If all members of a society are cooperating towards a single mutually beneficial end, in some kind of symbiotic web maybe, then law would not be required.  Self-interest would be sufficient to keep things peaceful.

How's about this: I previously wrote that libertarianism might be defined as:
I'd asked to be corrected it it was wrong but nobody did (I think), so I'll assume it's at least close.

Now, please define "violence", "defend", "imminent", "perceived", "threat", "life", "health", "property", "damage", "honour", "contract", "obligations", starting with the ones in boldface.  I mean, you might come from a different country from me, with different linguistic conventions; you might not be a native English speaker and so misunderstand some words; your background might give you different interpretations and so on.  I need them to be defined, so if I decide to move to your liberty-land, I'll know what to do and what not to do, whenever I happen to find myself in circumstances somehow not comprehensively addressed by some prior contract.  Now don't reply "here's what you must do: 'don't threaten anyone' etc", please actually *define* the terminology used; use examples if you think it's necessary.

Humans are by nature tribal and violent.  You may be blessed with living in a part of the world where we have overcome such primitive instincts but its a great mistake to think that the species has somehow changed.  We, as a species, like killing our enemies - talk to any soldier who has experienced the rush of contact and you will understand.  Think of the youngsters, barely old enough to remember 9/11, celebrating the killing of Osama bin Ladin in the streets.  That's how we are.

To say governments created nuclear weapons is a little inaccurate.  We created governments and we are responsible for what our governments do.  The general public in most of the major WW2 countries was hungry for war and celebrated the slaughter of enemy civilians by bombing raids.  Making nukes was part of the same basic blood lust.

Lets stick to fertiliser sales.  Regulate them and you avoid bombs going off.  Avoid bombs going off and you increase your own life expectancy. 

My capacity/ability to reason tells me that allowing myself get killed by bombs will prevent me from achieving any of my life's goals.  So the reasonable thing is to regulate fertiliser sales. 

I am not religious but I am sure if I was, God would say "Stop that bomb before it kills you."

It seems to me that there is no Libertarian basis for opposing the regulation of fertiliser sales.  But do correct me; its a puzzle what the basis of the objections are.

That's avoiding the question.

We have to choose; regulate fertiliser sales and save 1000s of lives or don't regulate fertiliser sales, have 1000s of people die and gain ... well we don't gain anything.

Unless you offer something that outweighs the loss of life from not regulating fertiliser, its an easy decision.  I'll opt to save lives.  If you want to be selfish about it, I could argue that my own life is one of those being protected but even if it wasn't, I'd opt not to have those poor people killed.  

And I know somethings are worth dying for.  That's why intelligent educated people carry out suicide bombings.  My view is that we should minimize the number of innocents they take with them.

From our own capacity/ability to reason
or from god. Take your pick (side)

Where is this "should" coming from?


You haven't answered the question of where you think your "rights" come from.  And yes, I know that's asking the same question a different way 

Because sticking to a circle jerk is the best way to never have your ideas see the light of day. People that actually are interested in doing more than playing political are most interested in convincing others because that's how ideas get implemented.

Also, as has been demonstrated throughout this thread, your ideas are inherently contradictory in nature, even if we argue from the basis of your root beliefs being true.