Fortunately, the laws that magically make "intellectual property" "exist" are national laws.
Any poor country can create such things, or not, as it chooses.
Apparently, you've never heard of the IMF and how they operate on global trade.
Wow - you sound like some bible-thumper with nothing to back up anything but "It's the word of God!" I've tried to answer your questions, respond to your issues, and point out where your understanding may be flawed, but all you've got to respond with is "Nah nah nah I can't hear you!"
I'm done you, except to just leave this right here.
First 3, and it was there, and I wasn't selective.
Nope. Try again. I signed out of my google account, cleared cache, tried different browsers - it's not there. I can only assume your cookies are selectively finding stuff to validate your (skewed) perspective.
You are wrong again. You've been wrong on everything you've said
I don't think you've demonstrated that at all.
and never addressed any of my questions, just cut them because you can't answer them.
Actually, I addressed all of them, but you ignored my answers, or didn't understand them. Let's see...
AK Mark asked
Which ones? The ones in the states I've lived wanted to push "states rights" to eliminate Roe v Wade, then make abortion illegal. They want to take over the government, then tell you what to do, same as all the others, well, that and abolish taxes on the rich and increase them on the poor.
Curunir_wolf responded:
Well people can call themselves whatever they want, but if they're pushing that kind of agenda they aren't people I would consider libertarian and not anyone to whom I would lend support....
and more...
AK Mark asked
If I declare CO2 to be an unwanted pollutant, can I sue GM for making pollution machines?
This was actually addressed before the question, not in a direct response to you, but it was in the same thread:
You can't expect police to go around arresting people because you have an irrational fear of them. If they actually assault or initiate force against you, then, yes, government should step in to help.
AK Mark asked
If I declare CO2 to be an unwanted pollutant, can I sue... my neighbor for breathing?
That's actually an interesting question, but I would say that while the actual direct answer is "yes", ultimately your neighbor would counter-sue for YOUR breathing, and as neither of you can exist without breathing, neither of you (or the government) can force you to stop, as that would violate your most fundamental right to exist.
AK Mark asked
Does it matter if it's benzine and my children have cancer?
Certainly it does. There is long-standing precedent for holding polluters for the liability of the damage they cause, and government has a role in ensuring that those harmed are made whole, where possible, and ending further damaging behavior.
AK Mark asked
Which assumption is wrong? What step of logic is wrong?
I'm actually convinced I answered this, but you simply didn't like my answer. You even dismissed everything in the video I posted that tried to explain it simply, until it mentioned "property rights", and then you jumped on that and went back to this idea that only property owners have rights, without understanding the video at all. I'll try one more time.
It's your assumption that property confers rights that is wrong. That's not true. While property rights of an individual are important (read John Locke's Second Treatise of Government), it is only one of the three important pillars of inherent rights, the others being life and liberty. None of the three can exist without the others. The "property" in this philosophy is not specific to real property, but includes an individual's right to own property in general, whether real, personal, monetary or consumable, the clothes on your back or the property you have contracted with another to secure on your behalf. So the assumption that is wrong is that somehow it is only landowners, or the wealthy, that have rights. Every living person is entitled to all the same and equal rights.
To put it simply, you have 2 and only 2 options on the subject of property rights: (1) You have a right to own property, or (2) You ARE property.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to discuss libertarianism. I see you just want to go on with some rhetorical bullshit as a way to demonize it instead to support whatever collectivist ideology you prefer.
I tried a google of libertarianism, and that ridiculous treatise by the avowed socialist Van Duffel didn't show up in any of the first four pages, so you're obviously being selective based on your attempt to discredit and misinterpret the philosophy.
The Wikipedia link you supplied is perhaps more instructive:
Libertarianism is a type of political philosophy that emphasizes freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a government of small scope relative to most present day societies or no government whatsoever.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.
Which is fully consistent with the point I was making, and contradicts your incredible assertion that "you have to own property to have any rights.". There is a discussion regarding a distinction between something the author calls "Propertarian / non-propertarian", in which there is a description of the "propertarian" variety as "implicitly, recognizes as the sole source of legitimate authority private property". Frankly, I've never heard of these sub-categories, but they might be construed to support your assertions, except that these are OPPOSITE views of property (contrasted with non-propertarian philosophy), both rather minor sects of the overall topic, and could in no way be construed to describe libertarianism as a whole.
Libertarianism is certainly no way a "religion" to me, but it is an excellent starting premise for determining the correct way to determine how the necessary evil of government should be run. At least, the basic ideas, without the radical extremes of propertarian and non-propertarian ideas, and probably a few others that have been associated in academia with libertarianism that also do not influence anyone in the real world.
If "you" is the source of the rights, why do I not have the right to enter into agreements with others freely
Who said you didn't?
If "you" is the source of rights, why do all versions of libertarianism tie rights to force or property?
[citation needed]. My version of libertarianism doesn't "tie rights to force or property", so your assertion is hereby proven false. Your right to property is based on your right to (first) own yourself, and (next), by extension, own other property. Initiation of force is cause for LOSS of your rights, (you have violated the rights of another through the use of force).
but libertarianism is based on the initiation of force. If you disagree, go argue with libertarians.
In other words "I'm going to put this bullshit right here, and there's no way for you to refute it."
Got it.
Apparently you are operating on a very specific definition of "libertarian" not shared by anyone else on the planet
No, that would be YOU. If you can actually cite a source for this fucked-up understanding, I will apologize for calling you full of shit.
The problem is that libertarian basis of rights is not "YOU" but force. Whoever initiates it is wrong. So if you don't own land, you initiate force just existing.
And, AGAIN, you have NO basis for this argument. It's nonsensical. You have a right to exist. You have a right to be here. That's what "inherent" means.
You keep asking for me to refute something, but you haven't even stated a premise for your conclusion.
All you did was repeat the bullshit that I already pointed out was wrong.
If someone doesn't own property, they have no rights.
No, Mr. Myopic, as I already pointed out, your most important property is YOU. That is a libertarian basis of inherent rights. I suppose you prefer to spend your time banging on the door of your slavemaster, along with all the other collectives, demanding to be assigned some slaves of your own?
Libertarians are feudal. Rights come with property, and there are no inherent rights or rights derived from any other sources.
You have it pretty twisted around, there. Rights don't "come with" property, but libertarians, alone among all other political ideologies, recognize property rights as inherent. Progressives and those on the left work to eliminate property rights entirely - your property is something you pay rent for, and any activity you wish to use your property for is only allowed by petitioning the government for permission. Republicans are no better, even as they claim to support property rights, collectivist rights of government and corporations run rough-shod over any individual's property rights, unapologetically.
Libertarian principles recognize that either you have a right to property - or YOU become the property of someone else. So claiming "libertarians are feudal" is complete bullshit without any semblance of evidential support.
What has you confused is the basis of an individual's fundamental rights that starts with "YOU own YOU". That is, while everyone else claims "social contract" or collectivism that subjects a person to the whims of either a majority or a hegemony, libertarians recognize that each individual owns himself. If you don't recognize that basic right, then you are a slave, and all the debate is just about who gets to be the slavemaster.
Well I was speaking specifically about "small l" libertarians, not the party, which frankly has too much baggage and is too marginalized to have any significant political influence at all. It's really no more than a drinking club.
But, you're right, libertarians are not anarchists, even though some try to characterize them that way.
Which ones? The ones in the states I've lived wanted to push "states rights" to eliminate Roe v Wade, then make abortion illegal. They want to take over the government, then tell you what to do, same as all the others, well, that and abolish taxes on the rich and increase them on the poor.
Well people can call themselves whatever they want, but if they're pushing that kind of agenda they aren't people I would consider libertarian and not anyone to whom I would lend support. I won't get into the "life/choice" debate other than to say we need to err on the side of individual autonomy. As far as taxes, they should be as simple and minimal as possible, but if you're arguing about whether a particular change in the tax code is progressive or regressive, then the libertarian principals are already lost, because you've entered a debate about social engineering instead of how most efficiently to raise revenue to support the core functions of government.
That's the problem: I don't want the government to leave me totally alone, I'd like it to protect me from some of my fellow citizens who bear superiority complexes of such intensity that they represent a danger to me and everyone else on the face of the earth.
Sounds like you have an irrational fear. You can't expect police to go around arresting people because you have an irrational fear of them. If they actually assault or initiate force against you, then, yes, government should step in to help. That's a core function of government that all libertarians agree they should do.
Well, when you consider that they generally also want to leave alone the corporations and robber-barons that have a long history of horribly abusing the disproportionate power they wield at every opportunity, yeah it is more than a little scary.
Which have traditionally, and these days to the highest degree ever, have used the coercive power of government to maintain their power. Without all those government grants of market monopolies, public-private-partnership scams, bailouts, tax privileges, excessive regulatory barriers to entry of competitors, and on and on, the market would quickly decimate those "abusive" corporations that poorly serve their customers.
Even back in the days when some corporations had revenues that could be compared to some proportion of the government's, they could not hold on to a dominant position for long before they were challenged by smaller players. Standard oil was quickly losing market share LONG before the "trust bust", which was really an unnecessary exertion of government power for the sake of power.
The true role of government should be to protect all people from those that would initiate force or fraud against another to get what they want. As long as they do that, the people will always have more power than corporations, which must serve or die.
If the average American is no longer entitled to "The American Dream", the perhaps the 1% is no longer entitled to take all of the American Dream for themselves, either.
I think that's the old American Dream you're talking about. The American Dream has now been redefined by the current administration to something amounting to "just getting by".
Wow, the fallacies come fast and strong with that one;) My favorite is the deadpan "In region after region, if one model predicted a tendency toward more flooding, the other tended to predict drying," as if the two can't happen in the same region, and as if both aren't forecast predictions of a warmer climate.
... As if government planners can't use it to plan for the future. Oh, wait...
I don't know WTF you're talking about, but if you prefer do deal with all the crazy ads that the MSM puts on their sites, you could check the Washington Times, or just Google it yourself.
The bill says nothing about surveillance or any specific numbers. In fact, it appears to be about incorporating UAVs for atmospheric/wildlife research, as well as doing the regulatory due-diligence to enable unmanned commercial flights, should airlines begin to move that direction.
The "specific numbers" includes funding of $63.4 Billion, all for building drones, which comes to about 30,000 of them. Read the funding request.
All the language about next-gen air traffic control includes a push for unmanned commercial flights, but it's also intended to unify the manned and unmanned systems, which currently do not talk to each other, increasing the risk of drone / non-drone collisions (there have already been a couple of incidents.
We keep fighter jets, ships and even nuclear missiles on American soil (and waters) should we be worried about those too? It's barely newsworthy! I'd actually be surprised if there weren't drone bases here.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately, the laws that magically make "intellectual property" "exist" are national laws. Any poor country can create such things, or not, as it chooses.
Apparently, you've never heard of the IMF and how they operate on global trade.
As long as google doesn't completely fall apart for one week every year, they're pretty much got amazon cornered.
Not so sure about that. Now that Google has made massive changes to their policies, I think at this point Amazon clearly has them beat.
Wow - you sound like some bible-thumper with nothing to back up anything but "It's the word of God!" I've tried to answer your questions, respond to your issues, and point out where your understanding may be flawed, but all you've got to respond with is "Nah nah nah I can't hear you!"
I'm done you, except to just leave this right here.
Okay, here's a shorter response, then.
First 3, and it was there, and I wasn't selective.
Nope. Try again. I signed out of my google account, cleared cache, tried different browsers - it's not there. I can only assume your cookies are selectively finding stuff to validate your (skewed) perspective.
You are wrong again. You've been wrong on everything you've said
I don't think you've demonstrated that at all.
and never addressed any of my questions, just cut them because you can't answer them.
Actually, I addressed all of them, but you ignored my answers, or didn't understand them. Let's see ...
AK Mark asked
Which ones? The ones in the states I've lived wanted to push "states rights" to eliminate Roe v Wade, then make abortion illegal. They want to take over the government, then tell you what to do, same as all the others, well, that and abolish taxes on the rich and increase them on the poor.
Curunir_wolf responded:
Well people can call themselves whatever they want, but if they're pushing that kind of agenda they aren't people I would consider libertarian and not anyone to whom I would lend support. ...
and more ...
AK Mark asked
If I declare CO2 to be an unwanted pollutant, can I sue GM for making pollution machines?
This was actually addressed before the question, not in a direct response to you, but it was in the same thread:
You can't expect police to go around arresting people because you have an irrational fear of them. If they actually assault or initiate force against you, then, yes, government should step in to help.
AK Mark asked
If I declare CO2 to be an unwanted pollutant, can I sue ... my neighbor for breathing?
That's actually an interesting question, but I would say that while the actual direct answer is "yes", ultimately your neighbor would counter-sue for YOUR breathing, and as neither of you can exist without breathing, neither of you (or the government) can force you to stop, as that would violate your most fundamental right to exist.
AK Mark asked
Does it matter if it's benzine and my children have cancer?
Certainly it does. There is long-standing precedent for holding polluters for the liability of the damage they cause, and government has a role in ensuring that those harmed are made whole, where possible, and ending further damaging behavior.
AK Mark asked
Which assumption is wrong? What step of logic is wrong?
I'm actually convinced I answered this, but you simply didn't like my answer. You even dismissed everything in the video I posted that tried to explain it simply, until it mentioned "property rights", and then you jumped on that and went back to this idea that only property owners have rights, without understanding the video at all. I'll try one more time.
It's your assumption that property confers rights that is wrong. That's not true. While property rights of an individual are important (read John Locke's Second Treatise of Government), it is only one of the three important pillars of inherent rights, the others being life and liberty. None of the three can exist without the others. The "property" in this philosophy is not specific to real property, but includes an individual's right to own property in general, whether real, personal, monetary or consumable, the clothes on your back or the property you have contracted with another to secure on your behalf. So the assumption that is wrong is that somehow it is only landowners, or the wealthy, that have rights. Every living person is entitled to all the same and equal rights.
To put it simply, you have 2 and only 2 options on the subject of property rights: (1) You have a right to own property, or (2) You ARE property.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to discuss libertarianism. I see you just want to go on with some rhetorical bullshit as a way to demonize it instead to support whatever collectivist ideology you prefer.
I tried a google of libertarianism, and that ridiculous treatise by the avowed socialist Van Duffel didn't show up in any of the first four pages, so you're obviously being selective based on your attempt to discredit and misinterpret the philosophy.
The Wikipedia link you supplied is perhaps more instructive:
Libertarianism is a type of political philosophy that emphasizes freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a government of small scope relative to most present day societies or no government whatsoever.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.
Which is fully consistent with the point I was making, and contradicts your incredible assertion that "you have to own property to have any rights.". There is a discussion regarding a distinction between something the author calls "Propertarian / non-propertarian", in which there is a description of the "propertarian" variety as "implicitly, recognizes as the sole source of legitimate authority private property". Frankly, I've never heard of these sub-categories, but they might be construed to support your assertions, except that these are OPPOSITE views of property (contrasted with non-propertarian philosophy), both rather minor sects of the overall topic, and could in no way be construed to describe libertarianism as a whole.
Libertarianism is certainly no way a "religion" to me, but it is an excellent starting premise for determining the correct way to determine how the necessary evil of government should be run. At least, the basic ideas, without the radical extremes of propertarian and non-propertarian ideas, and probably a few others that have been associated in academia with libertarianism that also do not influence anyone in the real world.
If "you" is the source of the rights, why do I not have the right to enter into agreements with others freely
Who said you didn't?
If "you" is the source of rights, why do all versions of libertarianism tie rights to force or property?
[citation needed]. My version of libertarianism doesn't "tie rights to force or property", so your assertion is hereby proven false. Your right to property is based on your right to (first) own yourself, and (next), by extension, own other property. Initiation of force is cause for LOSS of your rights, (you have violated the rights of another through the use of force).
but libertarianism is based on the initiation of force. If you disagree, go argue with libertarians.
In other words "I'm going to put this bullshit right here, and there's no way for you to refute it."
Got it.
Apparently you are operating on a very specific definition of "libertarian" not shared by anyone else on the planet
No, that would be YOU. If you can actually cite a source for this fucked-up understanding, I will apologize for calling you full of shit.
Just for completeness, here's your sign.
The problem is that libertarian basis of rights is not "YOU" but force. Whoever initiates it is wrong. So if you don't own land, you initiate force just existing.
And, AGAIN, you have NO basis for this argument. It's nonsensical. You have a right to exist. You have a right to be here. That's what "inherent" means.
You keep asking for me to refute something, but you haven't even stated a premise for your conclusion.
All you did was repeat the bullshit that I already pointed out was wrong.
If someone doesn't own property, they have no rights.
No, Mr. Myopic, as I already pointed out, your most important property is YOU. That is a libertarian basis of inherent rights. I suppose you prefer to spend your time banging on the door of your slavemaster, along with all the other collectives, demanding to be assigned some slaves of your own?
Libertarians are feudal. Rights come with property, and there are no inherent rights or rights derived from any other sources.
You have it pretty twisted around, there. Rights don't "come with" property, but libertarians, alone among all other political ideologies, recognize property rights as inherent. Progressives and those on the left work to eliminate property rights entirely - your property is something you pay rent for, and any activity you wish to use your property for is only allowed by petitioning the government for permission. Republicans are no better, even as they claim to support property rights, collectivist rights of government and corporations run rough-shod over any individual's property rights, unapologetically.
Libertarian principles recognize that either you have a right to property - or YOU become the property of someone else. So claiming "libertarians are feudal" is complete bullshit without any semblance of evidential support.
What has you confused is the basis of an individual's fundamental rights that starts with "YOU own YOU". That is, while everyone else claims "social contract" or collectivism that subjects a person to the whims of either a majority or a hegemony, libertarians recognize that each individual owns himself. If you don't recognize that basic right, then you are a slave, and all the debate is just about who gets to be the slavemaster.
Well I was speaking specifically about "small l" libertarians, not the party, which frankly has too much baggage and is too marginalized to have any significant political influence at all. It's really no more than a drinking club.
But, you're right, libertarians are not anarchists, even though some try to characterize them that way.
Which ones? The ones in the states I've lived wanted to push "states rights" to eliminate Roe v Wade, then make abortion illegal. They want to take over the government, then tell you what to do, same as all the others, well, that and abolish taxes on the rich and increase them on the poor.
Well people can call themselves whatever they want, but if they're pushing that kind of agenda they aren't people I would consider libertarian and not anyone to whom I would lend support. I won't get into the "life/choice" debate other than to say we need to err on the side of individual autonomy. As far as taxes, they should be as simple and minimal as possible, but if you're arguing about whether a particular change in the tax code is progressive or regressive, then the libertarian principals are already lost, because you've entered a debate about social engineering instead of how most efficiently to raise revenue to support the core functions of government.
Well, yea. Can't expect Timmy to admit any of that, can you?
Yet the threat is real. Our leaders' failure to establish plans to ensure that our Constitution survives is irresponsible.'
The majority of those leaders are a bigger threat to the survival of the Constitution where they are than if they are gone.
That's the problem: I don't want the government to leave me totally alone, I'd like it to protect me from some of my fellow citizens who bear superiority complexes of such intensity that they represent a danger to me and everyone else on the face of the earth.
Sounds like you have an irrational fear. You can't expect police to go around arresting people because you have an irrational fear of them. If they actually assault or initiate force against you, then, yes, government should step in to help. That's a core function of government that all libertarians agree they should do.
Well, when you consider that they generally also want to leave alone the corporations and robber-barons that have a long history of horribly abusing the disproportionate power they wield at every opportunity, yeah it is more than a little scary.
Which have traditionally, and these days to the highest degree ever, have used the coercive power of government to maintain their power. Without all those government grants of market monopolies, public-private-partnership scams, bailouts, tax privileges, excessive regulatory barriers to entry of competitors, and on and on, the market would quickly decimate those "abusive" corporations that poorly serve their customers.
Even back in the days when some corporations had revenues that could be compared to some proportion of the government's, they could not hold on to a dominant position for long before they were challenged by smaller players. Standard oil was quickly losing market share LONG before the "trust bust", which was really an unnecessary exertion of government power for the sake of power.
The true role of government should be to protect all people from those that would initiate force or fraud against another to get what they want. As long as they do that, the people will always have more power than corporations, which must serve or die.
If the average American is no longer entitled to "The American Dream", the perhaps the 1% is no longer entitled to take all of the American Dream for themselves, either.
I think that's the old American Dream you're talking about. The American Dream has now been redefined by the current administration to something amounting to "just getting by".
Next time, save space and say "I have no fucking idea what Libertarianism is, and because I'm a partisan hack, it SKEEEERS ME! MY TEAM".
Well of COURSE libertarians scare people. They want to take over the government, then have it leave you alone!
The horror!
Start having big trekkie parties like these guys. Maybe you'll get lucky.
Wow, the fallacies come fast and strong with that one ;) My favorite is the deadpan "In region after region, if one model predicted a tendency toward more flooding, the other tended to predict drying," as if the two can't happen in the same region, and as if both aren't forecast predictions of a warmer climate.
... As if government planners can't use it to plan for the future. Oh, wait...
Let me guess, the "violence" you are talking of is actually the fact that you have to pay taxes to finance part of the society that is supporting you?
Just like chimps, the coercive hierarchy is primarily enforced by the mere threat of violence. And, similarly, an occasional example must be made.
It's the "Windows" part.
Not really going to rely on a 9/11 truther.
I don't know WTF you're talking about, but if you prefer do deal with all the crazy ads that the MSM puts on their sites, you could check the Washington Times, or just Google it yourself.
The bill says nothing about surveillance or any specific numbers. In fact, it appears to be about incorporating UAVs for atmospheric/wildlife research, as well as doing the regulatory due-diligence to enable unmanned commercial flights, should airlines begin to move that direction.
The "specific numbers" includes funding of $63.4 Billion, all for building drones, which comes to about 30,000 of them. Read the funding request.
All the language about next-gen air traffic control includes a push for unmanned commercial flights, but it's also intended to unify the manned and unmanned systems, which currently do not talk to each other, increasing the risk of drone / non-drone collisions (there have already been a couple of incidents.
We keep fighter jets, ships and even nuclear missiles on American soil (and waters) should we be worried about those too? It's barely newsworthy! I'd actually be surprised if there weren't drone bases here.
Right. I mean, they are planning to deploy 30,000 drones over US skies, so obviously they bases for all those drones.