Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 96. (Read 105875 times)

I stopped reading right there. Idiot.

Are you serious? I can spot a slippery slope fallacy when I see one. There's nothing complex about that. Don't mistake me pointing out that one thing doesn't necessarily lead to another for your constant arguments for special pleading. "The world is complex so let's just throw principles out the window." Even if the world ends up as a nuclear wasteland, I would choose that over violating a single person's rights. Let justice be done though the heavens may fall. One ideology does fit all. That's kind of the point. I didn't just read a single book either. I've read dozens. I'm not starry-eyed. I'm a sober realist. I understand that authority needs to be decentralized. Want to see someone like you describe? Take a look around at the people that think they can concentrate authority into the hands of a few people and not have it eventually wind up being abused. Take a look around at the people that think that "might makes right" and somehow people can give others rights which they do not have themselves. Engage in cheap-shot insults if you want. I really think it's funny how I admit I wasn't always a libertarian and you throw that back in my face as if its a bad thing to change ones mind. But don't fool yourself into thinking I'm anything but a stark realist that understands no system is ideal. At least libertarianism is justice. One last thing, keep insulting me personally and you will find yourself being ignored again.

I said that each nation on this planet does what it wants, mostly, and it's hard to get a supervising authority that regulates (the UN?) effectively, since each nation does what it wants, except when coerced or ganged up on by others. If you think of each nation as an individual or a business which owns property, then you have the exact model of libertarianism. The population within any given nation generally operates under house rules (i.e. a household) - one nation (or nations) generally can't tell another nation how to run their own household or tell them what to do on their land.

The world is kind of fucked up. Look no further than that to understand libertarianism.

As for your links, it appears that laws guided by regulation within the given nation aided in catching the uranium smugglers. Is something wrong with that?

Wheal . Guess i didn't . I thought you said regulation within a nation works. they almost got the Nuke , but (fortunately) they didn't wanted one , they wanted money . regardless of the regulations .

Huh? Do you understand what I said?

Give bitcoin2cash a prize! He has now entered into the dawn of understanding. He's now fully comprehending that there are many complex issues out there, and each bears addressing with knowledge applicable to the nature of the issue, and that the solution shouldn't be burdened with the one size fits all idealism that he has been preaching since he read a book on libertarianism and got all starry eyed with it.

So you admit that having intellectual property and public roads are separate issues from not living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Maybe we should focus on those things then instead of "what if you could buy nukes like you can guns"?

hmm seems it didn't quite work here.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?4436-Moldova-seizes-%EF%BF%BD7-million-worth-of-enriched-uranium

http://www.theonion.com/video/report-finds-troubling-rise-in-teen-uranium-enrich,19175/

Stop being silly.  Just because you have taken your argument to absurdity doesn't mean you have to wallow in it.

You argue that you don't care about the consequences of implementing your ideas.  So you are perfectly OK with human extinction provided the right to a nuke is respected before extinction takes place. 

I believe that we can decide what would be a nice society to live in and we can assign rights accordingly.  So I like films and support intellectual property rights.  I like being alive and support the non proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

See - no reach.  Simple clear logic and no need to have nukes going off every day.  You should try it.

So, your argument is that we need intellectual property laws and public roads or else we'll be living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? That's a bit of a reach isn't it?

Exactly.  Your principles live in dreamland forever while their consequence is a nuclear wasteland.  

And that's fine.  Just stop posting about  intellectual property, private roads and stuff.  In your vision, nuclear bombs are going off every day, there is no cure for cancer due to massive radiation dosages and road maintenance is not going to matter.

BTW: I don't know if you were trying to be clever with "argumentum ad consequentiams" but its a perfectly valid argument in ethics which is what we are talking about. 

I don't let argumentum ad consequentiams dissuade me from sticking to my principles.

Does it matter?  You are OK with millions dying as long as the right to a nuke is upheld.  In your world, there will be no people so how can there be society?

Most can't govern themselves but they can all govern others? No, if few can govern themselves then even fewer can govern others.

Ok bro. If you can't kill because there is a law that says you can't then you are the only person that should ever reproduce, if a law (some words on a paper) has a disabling effect on you.

Very interested in the answers to these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

That works well.  No problems at all since it was created.

I tell you what. I want to be practical here. Can you give me an example of a precise method of regulating nukes so I can review it? Please don't just say, we just need nuclear regulations generally. I loathe generalities. I can regulate every single human activity possible, if I think it has some illegitimate use.

I could regulate forks if I can poke you in the eye; as an example. Give me a specific example. Don't just say, "well geez there ought a be a law...". I've about heard enough of that to go around for a lifetime. I'm getting sick of it, to be perfectly honest.

Don't just make a law that automatically makes me a criminal. If I wasn't a criminal yesterday, and I acquired some "material matter" today, and now I am a criminal, I'm probably going to have a problem with it.

So you would go onto someone's private property, tell them that you think its unsafe for them to have a nuke and hope they hand it over?

That doesn't sound realistic.  How do you tell who is going to get drunk and press the red button?  How do you deal with guys who get upset and say no?  How do you deal with people who use their nuke to commit suicide before you get around to asking them to hand it over?

If I recall somewhere in this OP thread somebody said that you don't have to wait for a "bullet to rip thru your chest" before you defend yourself. You don't have to wait for the nuclear clouds, just follow the threatening bread crumbs and do something about that.

Admittedly, it was a little sad man had to create such a destructive object for us to worry about so incessantly.