Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 93.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 11:55:35 AM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 11:27:59 AM

The odd thing here is that you assume my right to life is less important than a random stranger's right to a nuke and I have to be prepared to die in order that they have their "liberty".

You have the right to not be threatened or attack. How exactly is someone merely possessing a bomb a threat to you? The same logic applies to guns, knives, heavy objects. Shall we just cover the planet in foam padding for you? No, wait. You could choke on the padding. I guess nothing is safe.

I am treating you as an adult capable of reasoned discussion. There is no comparison between someone committing suicide with a gun and someone committing suicide with a nuclear weapon. One is a private tragedy and the other kills everyone for miles about. You know this; so why are you making arguments you don't believe yourself?

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 19, 2011, 12:07:44 PM

Talk about taking the slippery slope argument and abusing it. I mean, the slippery slope argument is a good argument, but this is just abuse of it.

I'd rather slip in the direction of Libertarianism with much of it's uncertainty, than slip in the direction of Tyranny with a known outcome we've seen time and time again.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 11:55:35 AM

You have the right to not be threatened or attack. How exactly is someone merely possessing a bomb a threat to you? The same logic applies to guns, knives, heavy objects. Shall we just cover the planet in foam padding for you? No, wait. You could choke on the padding. I guess nothing is safe.

Talk about taking the slippery slope argument and abusing it. I mean, the slippery slope argument is a good argument, but this is just abuse of it.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 11:27:59 AM

The odd thing here is that you assume my right to life is less important than a random stranger's right to a nuke and I have to be prepared to die in order that they have their "liberty".

You have the right to not be threatened or attack. How exactly is someone merely possessing a bomb a threat to you? The same logic applies to guns, knives, heavy objects. Shall we just cover the planet in foam padding for you? No, wait. You could choke on the padding. I guess nothing is safe.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 11:36:11 AM

It is bizarre. He says I have to risk death and my property rendered uninhabitable and calls it libertarianism. Ron Paul would be shocked Shocked

People by and large would never ultimately be convinced of such insanity, so it's kind of pointless to argue with him. I mean, it would be like wasting your time and energy arguing with someone who says everyone has a right to hijack airliners and fly them into densely populated areas.

Oh wait. That's basically what he's arguing for. Could you imagine him presenting his ideas at a town hall meeting, or to Congress, or just about any group of people?

Like I've stated several times in the past, I wish there were more people in this forum who wanted to engage in discussing real stuff that would make a difference.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 19, 2011, 11:33:30 AM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 11:27:59 AM

The odd thing here is that you assume my right to life is less important than a random stranger's right to a nuke and I have to be prepared to die in order that they have their "liberty".

It's actually very sick and disgusting. I accused him of being "overly principled" and he couldn't understand how being overly principled is not necessarily a good thing.

It is bizarre. He says I have to risk death and my property rendered uninhabitable and calls it libertarianism. Ron Paul would be shocked Shocked

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 11:27:59 AM

The odd thing here is that you assume my right to life is less important than a random stranger's right to a nuke and I have to be prepared to die in order that they have their "liberty".

It's actually very sick and disgusting. I accused him of being "overly principled" and he couldn't understand how being overly principled is not necessarily a good thing.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 11:12:13 AM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 11:02:41 AM

You are saying that one guy who wants to have a nuke of his own would have the right to it regardless of what a million landowners around him say.

Not if he signs a contract saying that he agrees not to posses any such devices. There are so many reasons why nuclear weapons wouldn't be available to any suicidal nut but you're too busy looking for problems, not solutions.

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 11:02:41 AM

Libertarianism would suggest that we should pro-actively defend ourselves.

You can only defend yourself against a threat or an attack. A knife is my drawer isn't a threat. A gun in my safe isn't a threat. A bomb in my shed isn't a threat, unless of course, it could accidentally detonate at any time. You have to wait until there is an actual threat before you can defend yourself.

What you are saying is that if he doesn't sign any contract he can have the bomb. If he does and changes his mind, he can have the bomb. If its stolen by someone who hates your race or religion, they have the bomb. Keep in mind that you can't take it off a person or stop them once he has it. And you have no way to check if it will accidentally detonate - its on his property and you may not even know its there.

The odd thing here is that you assume my right to life is less important than a random stranger's right to a nuke and I have to be prepared to die in order that they have their "liberty".

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 11:12:13 AM

Not if he signs a contract saying that he agrees not to posses any such devices. There are so many reasons why nuclear weapons wouldn't be available to any suicidal nut but you're too busy looking for problems, not solutions.

Stupid. Signs the contract with whom? What if he signs it but then does nefarious things anyway? Who enforces what the contract says?

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 11:12:13 AM

You can only defend yourself against a threat or an attack. A knife is my drawer isn't a threat. A gun in my safe isn't a threat. A bomb in my shed isn't a threat, unless of course, it could accidentally detonate at any time. You have to wait until there is an actual threat before you can defend yourself.

Stupid. A knife in your drawer isn't a threat because it's in your drawer. A bomb in your shed doesn't get the "isn't a threat" status because it's in your shed.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 11:02:41 AM

You are saying that one guy who wants to have a nuke of his own would have the right to it regardless of what a million landowners around him say.

Not if he signs a contract saying that he agrees not to posses any such devices. There are so many reasons why nuclear weapons wouldn't be available to any suicidal nut but you're too busy looking for problems, not solutions.

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 11:02:41 AM

Libertarianism would suggest that we should pro-actively defend ourselves.

You can only defend yourself against a threat or an attack. A knife is my drawer isn't a threat. A gun in my safe isn't a threat. A bomb in my shed isn't a threat, unless of course, it could accidentally detonate at any time. You have to wait until there is an actual threat before you can defend yourself.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 10:53:27 AM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 08:23:01 AM

Not the same.

So you admit it then.

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 08:23:01 AM

You are proposing a system that guarantees a nuclear holocaust.

That's simply not true. The problem is that you don't understand libertarianism. All that it implies is that all human interactions should be voluntary. There's nothing stopping a million land owners in a contiguous geographical region from voluntarily saying "no nukes allowed on our land without special permission". It's actually very likely that would happen because who wants to live in an area where live nuclear weapons are going to be around. There's nothing stopping any and all regulations as long as they are voluntary.

Um no - you don't understand libertarianism. You are saying that one guy who wants to have a nuke of his own would have the right to it regardless of what a million landowners around him say. You are saying he doesn't have to tell anyone its there. And if he commits suicide with the nuke, well its tough luck for the million around him. They either die in the blast or move away to escape the radiation.

Can you not see that is a bad idea? There is nothing libertarian about saying people have to sit around and wait to be killed. Libertarianism would suggest that we should pro-actively defend ourselves.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 08:23:01 AM

Not the same.

So you admit it then.

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 08:23:01 AM

You are proposing a system that guarantees a nuclear holocaust.

That's simply not true. The problem is that you don't understand libertarianism. All that it implies is that all human interactions should be voluntary. There's nothing stopping a million land owners in a contiguous geographical region from voluntarily saying "no nukes allowed on our land without special permission". It's actually very likely that would happen because who wants to live in an area where live nuclear weapons are going to be around. There's nothing stopping any and all regulations as long as they are voluntary.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 08:19:30 AM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 08:14:41 AM

I want to live and any proposal that requires me to die is bogus.

Let's say you're dying from organ failure and there's only one donor but performing the transplant would kill her therefore she refuses. I say that you have no right to take those organs from you and I require you to die. Is that bogus or do you admit that in some cases you should die?

Not the same.

We have a system that works. It means that a nuclear holocaust is unlikely. You are proposing a system that guarantees a nuclear holocaust. In your vision, both I and the donor die and we have to die for the right to a nuclear weapon that neither of us really wants. And most likely, we will be killed by someone who doesn't know we exist.

Can you see the difference?

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 08:14:41 AM

I want to live and any proposal that requires me to die is bogus.

Let's say you're dying from organ failure and there's only one donor but performing the transplant would kill her therefore she refuses. I say that you have no right to take those organs from you and I require you to die. Is that bogus or do you admit that in some cases you should die?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 08:08:33 AM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 07:52:13 AM

Deontology is a bit vague. If you follow one particular school of deontology, by all means say so. Or else say where these "rights" you believe in come from?

Each individual has their own concept of rights and none of them is the "one true concept". Where they conflict, we can debate it or we can fight over it.

Not really. If I accept your idea, I have to sit at home and wait to die of radiation poisoning if the blast doesn't kill me. That consequence is so severe that I don't care about any other concept - I want to live and any proposal that requires me to die is bogus.

I know you will say that after I am dead, my right to a nuclear weapon still exists and that's special for you. But really, you have no right to ask people to die for your ideas.

So be logical - offer us something reasonable as a basis for your belief. Or else simply say that humanity is a lost cause and we all deserve to die.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 07:52:13 AM

Deontology is a bit vague. If you follow one particular school of deontology, by all means say so. Or else say where these "rights" you believe in come from?

Each individual has their own concept of rights and none of them is the "one true concept". Where they conflict, we can debate it or we can fight over it.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 07:47:51 AM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 01:25:24 AM

Fine. Reject consequentialism. Do you have any form of logic that you do accept?

I guess you aren't aware that consequentialism isn't a "form of logic". It's an ethical framework. I adhere to deontology. Where you would say, "X has bad consequences therefore we shouldn't do X", I would say, "X violates someone's rights therefore we shouldn't do X". You focus on consequences. I focus on rights.

Deontology is a bit vague. If you follow one particular school of deontology, by all means say so. Or else say where these "rights" you believe in come from?

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 01:25:24 AM

Fine. Reject consequentialism. Do you have any form of logic that you do accept?

I guess you aren't aware that consequentialism isn't a "form of logic". It's an ethical framework. I adhere to deontology. Where you would say, "X has bad consequences therefore we shouldn't do X", I would say, "X violates someone's rights therefore we shouldn't do X". You focus on consequences. I focus on rights.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 18, 2011, 09:40:16 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on September 18, 2011, 06:20:52 PM

Living in a black/white world must make things so much easier.

Consequences matter, very much so. However, they aren't the ONLY thing that matters.

So I'm curious what the ratio would be for you. Do you sacrifice 1 man for every 10, 1:100, 1:1000... etc?

Obviously you missed the post that you quoted, because you just proved what I said.

It's not ALL about consequences. The world is not black/white, it's not even many shades of gray, it's full color.

Under current law, how many innocent people are we allowed to kill to save a larger number of people? 0

Under current law, do we just anyone to have nuclear weapons because it's their "right" to do so, regardless of the consequences? No.

You CAN have it both ways, it just requires that you adopt a non-black/white view of the world and evaluate each situation by itself.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 18, 2011, 05:10:00 PM

It's quite telling that you you leave out the most important part of that quote. Here's the full quote:

Quote

Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism.

I reject consequentialism and all such types of arguments. To paraphrase one of my favorite songs, "If consequences dictate my course of action then it doesn't matter what's right. It's only wrong if I get caught." There's nothing logically necessary about "not doing X has bad consequences therefore we should do X". I can give you dozens of examples. Here's one, the universe will be destroyed unless we torture a child until she dies. Damn the consequences, torture is wrong.

Fine. Reject consequentialism. Do you have any form of logic that you do accept? Or can we accept that your views are illogical and that you express them in the knowledge that they are illogical?

Please let us know...

Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 93. (Read 105893 times)