Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 85. (Read 105875 times)

No ...(don't try to read in between the lines)... No.


I know the sun example was obvious, but nevertheless necessary. I was asked whether I could respond to an unknown event, caused by an unknown assailant, that hadn't happened yet, or that didn't exist. How exactly would anybody respond to such nonsense. If you read my response, you would have noticed that observation is the key to determining intent, just like indirect observation of the suns emissions is one indication that the sun is hot. It's a corollary, and an obvious one at that. Sorry for the crushing simplicity of it.


See above.

So your first response is that we should wait until the crime takes place, the victims are dead and the killer put on trial.  Are you aware that in Ireland we have special jury less trials because the IRA killed jurors who convicted them?  And that there are no witnesses?  Its too dangerous - a witness would have to leave the country.  Real world law 102.

Your second response is that regulating materials doesn't work.

Wrong!  It has worked for 40 years.  We don't need to debate this - a quick look at the history of the UVF tells you that the year fertiliser was regulated was the year they stopped their major bombings.  

Who cares about criminal intent?  Possession means DANGER and we have a right to protect ourselves.  Regulating material is proven to work.  Do you feel that the people who are alive today as a result of regulating fertiliser sales don't deserve to be alive?  Because in Ireland alone, thats a few thousand people.

Of course, you have every right to stop bad people from doing bad things. You do that in one of two ways. Your life is imminently threatened and you respond to defend yourself or 2, you determine before a court of law, with sufficient evidence, that the alleged crimes in question, are the crimes attributed to the accused. Law 101.

You don't regulate materials. That makes anybody who possess said materials, without the blessing of the state, an instant criminal. Your blessing doesn't make the criminals go away. What's even worse, is those types of laws tend to turn your citizens into criminals and it manipulates free markets. You create an opportunity for more crime to flourish. Black markets come to mind.

I'll repeat again, possession alone does not equate to criminal intent. That forces you yield to the whims of the electorate and there's little if anything lawful about that.

Hey, Fred & b2c, I sure hope ye didn't somehow miss my posts 618 and 619 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.538197 in this thread.  I'm *really* curious to see how ye reply and I'd hate to think you were just avoiding them.  While you're at it, I'm also curious to see the answer to:



Count the percentage of semtex-laden cars that tend to be intended for peaceful purposes, then count the percentage of gasoline-laden tankers that tend to be used as bombs.  b2c, this is pathetic debating on your part too - not so bad as Fred asking us how we know the sun is hot though.

If everyone was willing to accept that everytime you get in your car, you have to bring along a chain of drivers licences, one for each road you drive along, and everytime you enter in a shop, you have to read it's full terms and conditions, and so on, then "protecting business" might actually work as a method of avoiding conflict - in other words, there would have to be a contract governing every single interaction between people and businesses, specifying all possible outcomes of that interaction, and all compensations to be paid for each of those outcomes (so you'd have to put a monetary value on the life of your child, should a heavy box fall on him).

So, if we're willing to accept such an absurdity, then yes, "business prevails" logically follows as a violence inhibitor.  Read the earlier parts of this thread to see that discussion.

However, here we're talking *specifically* about cases where the conflicting interaction in question is not governed by a contract between the conflicting parties.  You seem to be suggesting, in such circumstances, that some collection of entities, be they businesses or maybe wealthy or even poor individuals, should unite and decide on some course of action to be imposed on the conflicting parties.  A popular tribunal, so to speak.  Do I understand correctly?


Then why did you ridicule FirstAscent when he asked you how you plan on measuring the intent of a supposed aggressor?

So, repeating myself again, what do you propose as a method to avoid violence in those circumstances?  In case it's not clear, I would propose an impartial nation-wide rapid-reaction police force, operating in the framework of an impartial nation-wide legal system, backed by an impartial judiciary, all paid for through impartial nation-wide taxation.

Oh, Somalia again... let me book my flights right away... [/sarcasm]  Not to belittle the Somali or anything, I've no doubt in the right circumstances they could at least compete with neighbouring nations, but could you try to at least pick a country that's NOT the world's worst place to be for children http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/sarah-boseley-global-health/2011/sep/06/children-doctors ("World's worst place to be a sick child"), or a country where homosexuality can be punished by death - yaay, go go libertarians http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Chapter4_reprint.pdf (page 82).  Really, you're not helping your case by citing Somalia.

We live in the real world and have to deal with the fact that once the trigger is pulled or the button pressed, its too late to respond.  Its time you acknowledged that we have the ability to create a safe environment and that its pointless saying "it wouldn't hurt if the UVF had nukes."  It really would hurt.  They really like killing Catholics, they are happy to die for their cause and the only sane response is to limit their access to weapons.  We even regulate the sale of fertiliser because they used it to make bombs.  And you know what?  Their use of bombs dropped off after they no longer had access to fertiliser. 

That's the real world Fred.  People do bad things.  We can limit the harm they cause.  You have no right to tell us stop.

Actually I'm opposed to politicians who think they can write a "one size fits all" law for any type of potential crime. Every situation is unique and should be handled as such. I'm not sure I could adequately measure intent perfectly even with the most obvious of situations, but that doesn't mean we should manipulate/regulate peoples lives and property beforehand with the hopes that there will be fewer conflicts. I'm not sure that truly serves the purpose of law. Many laws create more conflict than they resolve.

The problem is you don't care if he gets killed.  You only care about the rights of the person pointing the gun right to the point at which they pull the trigger or the person with the nuke right up to the point where they press the big red button.  He does care if he gets killed.

I can't see anyone agreeing with you - we live in the real world and have to deal with the fact that once the trigger is pulled or the button pressed, its too late to respond.

WTF are you talking about?  The UK is a democracy.  The UVF are not part of an oppressed minority - they are part of the majority.  Their motivation is defeat of the Antichrist.

Really, you ought to think things through.

Oh, point of information, the nice Somali private security forces you mention are preventing food being delivered to the starving.  I'm sure that your police and military are not doing that to you: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14785304

Was this the argument where you shoot first and ask questions later, in contradistinction to where I preferred to determine intent first? Why are you so against measuring motive or intent as necessary precursors to violent retaliation?

Obviously there are some situations that can present themselves very quickly, and there isn't much to do except respond. Merely possessing something, whatever that thing may be, doesn't fall into that category.

Haters gonna hate, and sure, there will still be pockets of the world where strongmen oppress the people. but being the eternal optimist, I'm seeing a lot of those regimes fall apart and dissolve, in part because the oppressed people are pissed, and in part PRECISELY because you really can't make all that much money through oppression, and thus eventually run out of things to pay with to buy weapons, bombs, etc. Someone mentioned Somalia, and it's is actually an excellent example. There, angry power -crazy militias have morphed into private security forces, working in tandem with business and populace. Sure, it's about as extortionist as mafias, but their fees aren't as high as the taxes we're paying for police and military here.

Is gasoline a weapon?  No.
If you are drunk or appear violent and driving a truck of gasoline near me, do I have the right to stop you?  Yes. 
Is Semtex a weapon? Yes.  So that gives me the right to stop you.

I am not insulting you - merely puzzled you are asking me to state the obvious for you. You are a smart guy and don't need the blindingly obvious spelt out.

Now, my question to you is this; if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?

I haven't edited anything. I simply quoted you. Instead of resorting to insults and false accusations, why don't you just address the arguments? I can drive a tanker truck full of gasoline around but I can't have explosives? Do you not understand what a tanker full of gasoline can do? Your argument is incoherent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

The UVF is still going and still killing people they suspect of being Catholics.  They don't have customers and they go to heaven if they die killing Catholics.  These are the the type who will have the money and motivation to get and use nukes. 

Do you want them and every other angry little militia in the world to have nukes?  Do you really feel that will make the world a safer place?

Would "protecting your business by not killing your customers, not disrupting business in your area, and preserving your own reputation" play into this at all? Since customers have the might to give you their money or not I mean. I'm once again reminded by the India/Pakistan incident a few years ago, where both countries were, once again, on the brink of war, and Indian businesses convinced (forced) the government to back down because India was a huge international business hub, and couldn't just take a break to go to war.
Or am I completely off topic here?

Is that what you think?  I happen to think otherwise.  If you so much as reach for a gun during a conflict between us, I will interpret that as a direct threat to me, and I will *immediately* try to shoot you first.  I agree with you - my interpretation is not "correct" nor is yours, but look what happens - one or both of us gets shot because we just didn't agree beforehand on what constitutes acceptable behaviour.  And before you go accusing me of being a narrow-minded totalitarian again, watch an old Clint Eastwood western - the crucial moment is *always* when the bad guy goes for his gun, NOT when he points it.

Actually, now that I think, where I come from guns are actually outlawed.  Private possession is not permitted, save justifiable licenced rare exceptions.  So, given that social norm, if you so much as enter the room, armed, even if holstered, during a conflict between us, I will interpret that as a direct threat and will *immediately* hit you over the head with my imported baseball bat.

We've already established that there is no universal "right", no universal "morality".  The winner *says* what's right, and everyone involved kowtows.  But, just to entertain you, let's say "MightMakesWinner" and we can stop caring about what's 'right' and 'wrong' and about vague shadowy lines-in-the-sand.  Now, let me repeat the question: what alternative do you offer to "MightMakesWinner" in the case where a conflict is heading to violence.

And, I hope I don't have to lecture you on the evolution of morality, but, as they say, the winner writes the history books.  Just imagine how evil and 'wrong' Roosevelt & Churchill might have been portrayed... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project


Use your imagination.  Oh, well, use mine.  It's evening time and there's not enough light for you to see his face.  His body language says he might be high, or just suffering ADHD.  You're on a bicycle.  A group of men of the neighbourhood are standing on the corner, smoking & watching you, while others are walking past shops with boarded-up windows and faded strip-joint advertisements.  A streetlight flickers eerily.  The road you're on clearly says, in it's terms and condition, that firearms are not permitted but the kid isn't actually on the road and... like I say... [voice deepens, eyebrows furrow] you've heard some bad stories.


In case you hadn't noticed, you've been trapped you into contradicting yourself even though I specifically drew your attention to your previous relevant statement.  Let me quote you again:
That's a pretty clear statement.  No ambiguity.  But now you seem to be stating that there are conditions to your right to defend yourself?  Whether the supposed shooter has the right 'body language' or not, whether he is f%&king SMILING or not, whether YOU'RE IN A CAR OR NOT, whether HIS FRIENDS are with him or not... what's you're statement to the judge (which court was that, again?): "Well, your Honour, you know, his shoulders were hunched and I was on my own, his buddies were beside him, looking at me and, while I'll concede that he was smiling well, you know, it was one of those spooky smiles that just sends shivers down your spine.  Sorry, I goofed."  And you'll stand there, high and mighty, certain in your conviction that there was sufficient threat to warrant your violent reaction while every one of his friends in turn will stand up and say Joe never hurt a fly in his life and he was just playing with his water-pistol.

You see?  You think you have the right to defend yourself BUT OTHERS DO NOT CONCEDE YOU THAT RIGHT.  You have no rights other that what your peers collectively permit you.

Now, do you want to scale the argument back up to nukes, or shall I?  Ok, it was a rhetorical question, I'll do it.  Here's your statement to the judge (hate to be repetitive, but which court was it?):

"Well your Honour, you know, he was standing there, with his hand over the BigRedButton and a bottle of whiskey in his hand when he looked up at me and let me tell you, he wasn't smiling at all.  Sure, I didn't realise the fissile material was in his bunker and he just wanted to test the electronics before launching it into the sun; Yeah, and was cleaning the circuit boards with alcohol and hit a snag just before looking up at me.  But he should have realised that he was behaving as if he were about to detonate it.  Sorry, I goofed."

Is this discussion over now?

Ah, sorry, Serenity is the name of the movie based on the Firefly TV series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_(film)
SPOILER






In summary, a space sci-fi flick where the interplanetary government is taking over and oppressing the planets, and a group of smugglers (the heroes) are rebels fighting against it. That world is plagued by some really messed up race of what used to be humans, who kill indiscriminately and cannibalize their victims. In the movie you find out that the source of those super-violent cannibals was a government experiment on a distant planet, where they forced everyone to take drugs that would make them docile and nonviolent. Most of the planet's population became so docile and apathetic, they just sat there and did nothing until they died.

No - we are what we are.  The trick is to acknowledge that we are prone to irrational violence and plan accordingly.  Army, police, courts, weapons and walls are all needed.  Equipping people with nukes, chemical or biological weapons would simply mean that we all die and personally I don't think that's a good outcome.

You are now editing my posts to avoid the fact that your logic is flawed.

Fail.  

Really, its sad that you can't argue your case so you reduce yourself to comparing apples to oranges or weapons to consumables.  Can't you at least try to make an intelligent response?

I don't know . Might be . Is it a movie? If it is i need to watch it. But does it matter?