A nuke that is within range is like a load gun pointed at your face.
Is a loaded gun within range a loaded gun pointed at your face?
Oh come on. You know a loaded nuke is pointed in a spherical direction. Think before you post like that :/
Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 78. (Read 105875 times)
Is a loaded gun within range a loaded gun pointed at your face?
Oh come on. You know a loaded nuke is pointed in a spherical direction. Think before you post like that :/
So you agree that all rights are opinion based, but you still won't explain why people need to die to give you your idea of what rights you think you deserve.
If you don't agree that you should keep your hands to yourself, how can I convince you otherwise? I'd rather deal with people that already agree with that and then argue from there to libertarianism.
How are these rights you pulled out of your ass any more real or correct?
At least you acknowledge that all rights are simply based on opinion. That's a start.
Does he still have you on ignore?
I have cleared my ignore list because I'm moderating this section now and I have to be able to see everything to do my job. I'll just have to mentally ignore the insults instead. Don't expect to get a rise out of me though.
So you agree that all rights are opinion based, but you still won't explain why people need to die to give you your idea of what rights you think you deserve.
A nuke that is within range is like a load gun pointed at your face.
Is a loaded gun within range a loaded gun pointed at your face?
It may be that the person doing it has no bad intentions, it may even be that the safety catch is on but you cannot allow them to carry on as sooner or later there will be a bang. So yes, if an individual owns a nuclear weapon and its under his control and you are in range, its a direct threat.
Same applies to a state.
Same applies to a state.
If its your own state, you can campaign to get them into an arms reduction treaty. If its an ally, you can campaign to have your government lobby that state to enter an arms reduction treaty. If its an enemy, you need your government to act on your behalf to remove the threat, ideally with an arms reduction treaty.
Surely, if immediate violence is warranted against an individual, than it is warranted against a state. If not, why this disparity?
At the moment, parts of the world are dismantling their nukes and other parts are trying to get nukes. We are still at the stage where a US/Russian war would result in human extinction. Hopefully the reductions will continue.
You think states will willingly give up nuclear weapons, and I bet you think anarchists are utopian.
You realize of course that the only reason we're having this discussion is because governments created nuclear weapons. Without institutionalized violence, I really doubt there would have been a demand for such a device. If this is the case, there would have been no drive to create it.
So, stop arguing about specific rights, and start arguing about the specifics of implementing the solutions?
Did that already.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.539838
How are these rights you pulled out of your ass any more real or correct?
At least you acknowledge that all rights are simply based on opinion. That's a start.
Does he still have you on ignore?
I have cleared my ignore list because I'm moderating this section now and I have to be able to see everything to do my job. I'll just have to mentally ignore the insults instead. Don't expect to get a rise out of me though.
So, stop arguing about specific rights, and start arguing about the specifics of implementing the solutions?
On one side of the debate, for regulation, we have an advocate who says "Its nice to avoid being killed. If you don't regulate fertiliser sales, thousands will die and you and your own family may be among them."
On the other side we have an advocate who says "If you regulate fertiliser sales, I lose my.... "
Lose what? I don't get what you want to offer that is worth dying for?
On the other side we have an advocate who says "If you regulate fertiliser sales, I lose my.... "
Lose what? I don't get what you want to offer that is worth dying for?
If you use force (via government in your case) to regulate my fertilizer, without cause (I'm not using it to commit a crime), your regulation makes a physical claim to the use of my property. To do so is to violate my property rights. This, in effect, is theft and trespass, or threats thereto. Last I checked, most people will defend their lives and property against invasion, theft and trespass. Sometimes to the death.
Apparently some things are worth dying for. Did I say I like quotes? Here's another one:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin
- protection of your own person and property, same as in libertarian beliefs
Except the solutions offered here by you know who don't actually provide said protection.
Quote
- protection of property
Except the solutions offered here by you know who don't actually provide said protection.
Quote
- protection of property
Except the solutions offered here by you know who don't actually provide said protection.
Quote
- not sure, but that sounds like the right to stay ignorant. What is "overly burdered?" Is reading a nutrition label on food you buy 'overly burdened?"
Why do you think the nutrition label is there in the first place?
Quote
- protection of property, either contract with government or private providers of service would work here
- and ditto here, since you'd be paying either a government organization, or a private one.
- and ditto here, since you'd be paying either a government organization, or a private one.
Totally missed the point here. But you kind of missed the point on all of them.
Quote
What exactly is the difference again?
Everything.
Laws should exist solely to protect rights.
Exactly.
- The right to live and defend myself when in the presence of wackos who threaten my life
- The right to not have that portion of the Earth I own from being spoiled
- The right to breathe clean air not polluted by my neighbors
- The right to not have to be overly burdened with varying and differing policies of businesses and fees for all manner of things, and because I don't like it, I'll start my own business organization and convince other to join me to "fix" it
- The right to a free market consistent minimum standard of safety chosen by me provided by service providers I paid for
- The right to not have to engineer your own security and protection and justice system so I'll go purchase one already devised by others
That's sounds more like it.
Laws should exist solely to protect rights.
Exactly.
- The right to live when in the presence of wackos
- The right to not have the Earth spoiled
- The right to breathe clean air
- The right to not have to be overly burdened with varying and differing policies of businesses and fees for all manner of things
- The right to a consistent minimum standard of safety provided by service providers
- The right to not have to engineer your own security and protection and justice system
Let's see..
- protection of your own person and property, same as in libertarian beliefs
- protection of property
- protection of property
- not sure, but that sounds like the right to stay ignorant. What is "overly burdered?" Is reading a nutrition label on food you buy 'overly burdened?"
- protection of property, either contract with government or private providers of service would work here
- and ditto here, since you'd be paying either a government organization, or a private one.
What exactly is the difference again?
The right to own nukes.
The right to carry a gun anywhere.
The right to pollute the earth.
How are these rights you pulled out of your ass any more real or correct?
The right to carry a gun anywhere.
The right to pollute the earth.
How are these rights you pulled out of your ass any more real or correct?
Does he still have you on ignore?
I'm sorry, but the rights you just made up are childish, arbitrary, and don't address anything important.
That was the point. Now you know how I feel.
No, I don't know how you feel. The rights I posted are the basis for whole government agencies. I don't know of any government agencies in place to enforce the rights you posted. Therefore, I draw the following conclusion:
Nobody takes the rights you posted seriously.
Laws should exist solely to protect rights.
Exactly.
- The right to live when in the presence of wackos
- The right to not have the Earth spoiled
- The right to breathe clean air
- The right to not have to be overly burdened with varying and differing policies of businesses and fees for all manner of things
- The right to a consistent minimum standard of safety provided by service providers
- The right to not have to engineer your own security and protection and justice system
I can make up random rights too.
- The right to free cable TV.
- The right to have people with red hair executed.
- The right to have Nirvana playing in every elevator.
- The right to have X-ray vision.
This is fun.
The right to own nukes.
The right to carry a gun anywhere.
The right to pollute the earth.
How are these rights you pulled out of your ass any more real or correct?
I'm sorry, but the rights you just made up are childish, arbitrary, and don't address anything important.
That was the point. Now you know how I feel.
+1
I'm sorry, but the rights you just made up are childish, arbitrary, and don't address anything important.
That was the point. Now you know how I feel.
Laws should exist solely to protect rights.
Exactly.
- The right to live when in the presence of wackos
- The right to not have the Earth spoiled
- The right to breathe clean air
- The right to not have to be overly burdened with varying and differing policies of businesses and fees for all manner of things
- The right to a consistent minimum standard of safety provided by service providers
- The right to not have to engineer your own security and protection and justice system
I can make up random rights too.
- The right to free cable TV.
- The right to have people with red hair executed.
- The right to have Nirvana playing in every elevator.
- The right to have X-ray vision.
This is fun.
You mean fun like making up your own silly libertopia? I'm sorry, but the rights you just made up are childish, arbitrary, and don't address anything important.
Try again. Or you can just put me back on ignore if you want. Makes little difference to me.
Laws should exist solely to protect rights.
Exactly.
- The right to live when in the presence of wackos
- The right to not have the Earth spoiled
- The right to breathe clean air
- The right to not have to be overly burdened with varying and differing policies of businesses and fees for all manner of things
- The right to a consistent minimum standard of safety provided by service providers
- The right to not have to engineer your own security and protection and justice system
I can make up random rights too.
- The right to free cable TV.
- The right to have people with red hair executed.
- The right to have Nirvana playing in every elevator.
- The right to have X-ray vision.
This is fun.
Laws should exist solely to protect rights.
Exactly.
- The right to live when in the presence of wackos
- The right to not have the Earth spoiled
- The right to breathe clean air
- The right to not have to be overly burdened with varying and differing policies of businesses and fees for all manner of things
- The right to a consistent minimum standard of safety provided by service providers
- The right to not have to engineer your own security and protection and justice system
I'm not sure we've really ever had a "liberland"
SecondLife came damn close as an experiment, until the game mods banned all banking and financial services (which I guess suggests it was never truly one in the first place... or suggest a real liberland will last only until a lot of liberlanders lose a lot of money and "demand" someone do something about it)
Jump to: