 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of MacFall
Show Posts Messages
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
91
The Rubber Room - Not Safe for Work / Re: Why the opposition to pacifism?
« on: November 12, 2010, 09:13:39 PM »Eric. EricFromMichigan on the boards. Massive troll. He used the same methods as this dude, and the same methods as Nathyn.
Wait... Nathyn was on here? Holy crap, I've been dealing with that jackhole since 2003 on the Protest Warrior board, back in my neocon days. He followed some of us to a smaller forum when PW went down, and I bet $20 he found his way to this bbs when a few people from that site started coming here.
92
The Rubber Room - Not Safe for Work / Re: Why the opposition to pacifism?
« on: November 12, 2010, 09:01:45 PM »Do you guys realize how similar these tactics are to those of many statists?
Describe elaborate problem that no one has a perfect solution for-- crime, traffic accidents, drug abuse, war.
Therefore -> THE STATE. (Which has drastically failed to solve these problems as well)
So if I don't have a perfect answer for some carefully contrived problem (like whichever graphically depicted rape scenario), I have to accept your solution exactly as presented, even though it's clearly not a perfect solution either?
We're not arguing from effect here; we're arguing the validity of moral principles. If you can't take a moral principle to its absolute theoretically possible extreme (which means it can be absurdly unlikely, but still theoretically possible) without contradicting yourself, then the principle is false.
Pacifism (defined as absolute refusal to use force in any scenario) is inconsistent whilst one is protected from the violent by those willing to use defensive force, unless the pacifist also disapproves of the choice of others to use violence on his behalf. And in that case it is no longer a "personal choice" but an absolute moral proposition. And as an absolute moral proposition, it would result in all those persons capable of choosing pacifism dead at the hands of those pathological cases who are not so capable. In other words, the persistence of the principle depends upon its violation in some cases.
That is a contradiction, and it renders the proposition false. But there is no such contradiction in proportional, defensive force as permitted by the non-aggression principle.
93
The Rubber Room - Not Safe for Work / Re: Why the opposition to pacifism?
« on: November 12, 2010, 08:42:51 PM »
If every single human were a pacifist, then pacifism would make sense. If every human were capable of being convinced of the wrongdoing of their actions, and more importantly, if they cared, then pacifism would still be a defensible position. But in the real world, there is such a thing as pure evil. There are such things as people who kill because they like it. If everyone who had the basic human ability to make moral decisions chose pacifism, then the ones who are left - the truly evil cases, the ones who are more like animals than humans, would simply kill until they got too physically tired, or bored, or ran out of victims. How can absolute refusal to defend the innocent against initiatory force be anything but an anti-life view? How can one claim to be in favor of innocent life if one would not end that which would destroy innocent life utterly if it had the power to do so?
95
General / Re: "Live Free or Die" page on Facebook
« on: November 12, 2010, 08:25:07 PM »
Bet Dale's opinion doesn't count to that crowd since he's one of them homos.
96
General / Re: Sterotypes You Conform To
« on: November 12, 2010, 05:47:28 PM »
I conform pretty hard to the "libertarians are a bunch of nerdy, unathletic white guys who never get laid" stereotype, except that I'm not angsty about never getting laid.
Also, the starving artist/freelancer who would rather remain poor than have another boss (besides his customers).
Also, the starving artist/freelancer who would rather remain poor than have another boss (besides his customers).
97
The Show / Re: Intellectual property
« on: November 12, 2010, 04:39:52 PM »
Not exactly true, Dale. For example, you could give a mining company the right to use your property to access minerals near the surface (which is different from selling the minerals themselves) either temporarily or in perpetuity. If the latter, while you still own all the other rights to the use of that property, you may not interfere with the mine's access to those minerals as defined by the transfer of title without purchasing those rights back from the mine.
And that right of partial transfer must be available to the property owner, because full control implies the control of disposal as well. A person may prefer to sell the rights to access (or an easement, using an older definition of the word) minerals on the property in perpetuity in exchange for a lump sum now, rather than leasing those rights for a greater total sum in the future. His would be the right to do so.
Current real estate law does not usually allow for partial transfer of title in perpetuity, but it would in a system of law that fully respects the right of property owners to do as they wish with the property in terms of disposal.
And that right of partial transfer must be available to the property owner, because full control implies the control of disposal as well. A person may prefer to sell the rights to access (or an easement, using an older definition of the word) minerals on the property in perpetuity in exchange for a lump sum now, rather than leasing those rights for a greater total sum in the future. His would be the right to do so.
Current real estate law does not usually allow for partial transfer of title in perpetuity, but it would in a system of law that fully respects the right of property owners to do as they wish with the property in terms of disposal.
98
The Show / Re: Intellectual property
« on: November 11, 2010, 10:22:52 PM »
Partial title can be transferred for property, and in real estate that is considered "ownership". But it isn't really ownership unless you have the full and exclusive use of the property. Deed restrictions obviously preclude full use. What you own under a restricted deed is the right to certain uses of the property; the seller of the deed retains ownership of the other uses listed as encumberments. Neither party really owns the property as a unit; they respectively own the rights to different uses of it. If the deed holder sells the deed to someone else, the encumberments still remain on the property, as rights retained by the issuer of the deed. If the second party in this scenario attempts to sell an unencumbered property, he is defrauding the third party, who is in fact purchasing a restricted deed, with the original owner having the right to enforce the restrictions, he being the factual owner of the title to the uses of the property which they describe.
The difference between that and IP, as I mentioned above, are the facts of physical property and explicit agreement. The holder of a restricted deed can no more justly transfer an unencumbered property to a third party, than he could justly sell a stolen watch to a third party. But in the IP scenario, if Al shows Bob his idea under the contractual term that Bob may not show it to Charles, and then Charles nevertheless comes into possession of the idea, Al cannot take the idea away from Charles. Because it is now in Charles's mind, and hence, it is Charles's idea. Nothing has been stolen from Al by the fact of Charles having come into possession of the idea, nor are Al's rights violated if Charles uses his property to express the idea. Al's only claim is against Bob, with whom he had an explicit contract, because no property of Al's was transferred, justly or unjustly, to Charles.
The difference between that and IP, as I mentioned above, are the facts of physical property and explicit agreement. The holder of a restricted deed can no more justly transfer an unencumbered property to a third party, than he could justly sell a stolen watch to a third party. But in the IP scenario, if Al shows Bob his idea under the contractual term that Bob may not show it to Charles, and then Charles nevertheless comes into possession of the idea, Al cannot take the idea away from Charles. Because it is now in Charles's mind, and hence, it is Charles's idea. Nothing has been stolen from Al by the fact of Charles having come into possession of the idea, nor are Al's rights violated if Charles uses his property to express the idea. Al's only claim is against Bob, with whom he had an explicit contract, because no property of Al's was transferred, justly or unjustly, to Charles.
99
The Show / Re: Looking for ideas for the FTL drinking game
« on: November 11, 2010, 10:01:06 PM »
And finish a drink every time a caller is drunk?
That sounds like a vicious circle to me...
100
The Show / Re: Intellectual property
« on: November 11, 2010, 03:05:36 PM »
No, because with deed restrictions you are dealing with actual property, and the restriction is agreed to explicitly. Likewise, it is possible for a person to agree, explicitly and in specific instances, not to use one's property to express certain ideas. But IP relies on the notion that merely by existing, all persons have implicitly agreed not to use their property to express ANY idea over which the originator wishes to retain such control. No such agreement exists.
102
General / Re: Recipe Thread (Working on the title)
« on: November 11, 2010, 01:58:19 PM »
Yeah, we make roasted garlic all the time.
& the vampires shall not darken your door
Of course not. Vampires are sparkly now, didn't you get the memo?
103
General / Re: Communist Party of India Press Release
« on: November 11, 2010, 01:32:35 PM »
Did they use Google Translate or something?
104
The Show / Re: Looking for ideas for the FTL drinking game
« on: November 11, 2010, 01:27:19 PM »
Oh I've got one: every time Mark calls Ian crazy.
105
The Show / Re: Looking for ideas for the FTL drinking game
« on: November 11, 2010, 01:26:37 PM »Every time Ian mentions bureaucrats.
Holy crap. I'd be plastered within the first hour, and my natural tolerance is way higher than most people's.