Natural law, Common Law, Property Rights. Testimonial Truth. Jury.
These are the properties of the discipline of science.
We did not develop our tradition of natural law because of science.
We developed science because of our tradition of natural law.
We did not develop natural law by design.
We developed it because the voluntary organization of professional warriors in battle required us to.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-17 01:36:00 UTC
[M]AYBE IT’S NOT OBVIOUS: PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION: THE SHERIFF, THE KNIGHT, THE JUDGE It’s not belief. It’s not a religion. It’s law. A law for the prosecution of those who have engineered deceptions by which to confiscate our private and common property by appealing to our altruistic morality. Every Man A Sheriff, Every man a Knight, Every Man A Judge. No mercy. No forgiveness. No Tolerance. Make parasitism impossible leaving only participation in the market for the production of commons, goods, and services, the only possible means of survival.
[M]AYBE IT’S NOT OBVIOUS: PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION: THE SHERIFF, THE KNIGHT, THE JUDGE It’s not belief. It’s not a religion. It’s law. A law for the prosecution of those who have engineered deceptions by which to confiscate our private and common property by appealing to our altruistic morality. Every Man A Sheriff, Every man a Knight, Every Man A Judge. No mercy. No forgiveness. No Tolerance. Make parasitism impossible leaving only participation in the market for the production of commons, goods, and services, the only possible means of survival.
[D]rones Hovering 1) We probably need to maintain a right of Transitus (transit) but not a right of Observo(observation) or Usus (use) for drones. I can’t see how to get around this. That means that you must have the ability to navigate but not the ability to observe. (this is pretty easy. we put blinders on horses, we can put a horizontal blinder on transiting drones. 2) Rights of Observo(observation) into human activity(not territory alone) require either permission or warrant. In other words, if you have a big ranch, or a territorial view, and the drone is silent, and in transit, it is hard to say that this infringes on your actions. However if your actions are being observed,such that you are put at risk of either embarrassment for normal activities (sex, affection, emotional release, play), or put at risk for predation (gathering information with which to engage in the imposition of costs), then 3) What I would expect to see otherwise is the equivalent of camouflage netting, designed to defeat drones, or active repulsion systems designed to blind them when attempting to observe homes. 4) What I hope someone creates is drones that kill other drones. These are very cheap to make, and a ‘necessary’ defense mechanism against the possibility of predation enhanced by observation (spying). As a criminal endeavor it is quite easy to use drones to look for homes to rob. It is also easy to use drones to attack power lines. So a drone in motion at altitude is somewhat hard to criticize. While a drone hovering or exploring private property is not.
[D]rones Hovering 1) We probably need to maintain a right of Transitus (transit) but not a right of Observo(observation) or Usus (use) for drones. I can’t see how to get around this. That means that you must have the ability to navigate but not the ability to observe. (this is pretty easy. we put blinders on horses, we can put a horizontal blinder on transiting drones. 2) Rights of Observo(observation) into human activity(not territory alone) require either permission or warrant. In other words, if you have a big ranch, or a territorial view, and the drone is silent, and in transit, it is hard to say that this infringes on your actions. However if your actions are being observed,such that you are put at risk of either embarrassment for normal activities (sex, affection, emotional release, play), or put at risk for predation (gathering information with which to engage in the imposition of costs), then 3) What I would expect to see otherwise is the equivalent of camouflage netting, designed to defeat drones, or active repulsion systems designed to blind them when attempting to observe homes. 4) What I hope someone creates is drones that kill other drones. These are very cheap to make, and a ‘necessary’ defense mechanism against the possibility of predation enhanced by observation (spying). As a criminal endeavor it is quite easy to use drones to look for homes to rob. It is also easy to use drones to attack power lines. So a drone in motion at altitude is somewhat hard to criticize. While a drone hovering or exploring private property is not.
[W]ell, I am not sure we should unless we want to subsidize the production of more ideas and opinions than can be produced without subsidy. And the evidence is that we produce far more ideas and opinions than the market will bear. Propertarianism says the opposite: that you may not sell those ideas and opinions without contributing a percentage of the income to the author. We call this the Creative Commons license. Which is that creative products cannot have commercial use without compensation, but have free use for non-commercial use. This strategy does not violate the test of productivity or parasitism. This would have an enormous impact on the publishing industry, all of which would be for the better. One of the reasons, if not the most important reason that we have sh_t art, literature and cinema, is that the creative subsidy of copyright protection shifts the quality downward. This is what I object to, and I consider immoral. I do not consider individual cases of ip protection (subsidy generation) necessarily bad if they are to produce goods that the market cannot afford to. In other words, I consider IP an effective method with which a market can conduct off-book research and development at low cost and risk. In fact, I cannot think of a better combination of incentives than the private sector taking all the risk and paying all the cost of failure, and only profiting if they succeed. This is a great set of incentives.
[W]ell, I am not sure we should unless we want to subsidize the production of more ideas and opinions than can be produced without subsidy. And the evidence is that we produce far more ideas and opinions than the market will bear. Propertarianism says the opposite: that you may not sell those ideas and opinions without contributing a percentage of the income to the author. We call this the Creative Commons license. Which is that creative products cannot have commercial use without compensation, but have free use for non-commercial use. This strategy does not violate the test of productivity or parasitism. This would have an enormous impact on the publishing industry, all of which would be for the better. One of the reasons, if not the most important reason that we have sh_t art, literature and cinema, is that the creative subsidy of copyright protection shifts the quality downward. This is what I object to, and I consider immoral. I do not consider individual cases of ip protection (subsidy generation) necessarily bad if they are to produce goods that the market cannot afford to. In other words, I consider IP an effective method with which a market can conduct off-book research and development at low cost and risk. In fact, I cannot think of a better combination of incentives than the private sector taking all the risk and paying all the cost of failure, and only profiting if they succeed. This is a great set of incentives.
IP: WHY SHOULD AN AUTHOR HAVE THE RIGHT TO INCOME ON IDEAS AND OPINIONS?
Well, I am not sure we should unless we want to subsidize the production of more ideas and opinions than can be produced without subsidy. And the evidence is that we produce far more ideas and opinions than the market will bear.
Propertarianism says the opposite: that you may not sell those ideas and opinions without contributing a percentage of the income to the author. We call this the Creative Commons license. Which is that creative products cannot have commercial use without compensation, but have free use for non-commercial use.
This strategy does not violate the test of productivity or parasitism.
This would have an enormous impact on the publishing industry, all of which would be for the better.
One of the reasons, if not the most important reason that we have sh_t art, literature and cinema, is that the creative subsidy of copyright protection shifts the quality downward.
This is what I object to, and I consider immoral.
I do not consider individual cases of ip protection (subsidy generation) necessarily bad if they are to produce goods that the market cannot afford to. In other words, I consider IP an effective method with which a market can conduct off-book research and development at low cost and risk. In fact, I cannot think of a better combination of incentives than the private sector taking all the risk and paying all the cost of failure, and only profiting if they succeed. This is a great set of incentives.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 04:33:00 UTC
DRONES HOVERING
1) We probably need to maintain a right of Transitus (transit) but not a right of Observo(observation) or Usus (use) for drones. I can’t see how to get around this. That means that you must have the ability to navigate but not the ability to observe. (this is pretty easy. we put blinders on horses, we can put a horizontal blinder on transiting drones.
2) Rights of Observo(observation) into human activity(not territory alone) require either permission or warrant. In other words, if you have a big ranch, or a territorial view, and the drone is silent, and in transit, it is hard to say that this infringes on your actions. However if your actions are being observed,such that you are put at risk of either embarrassment for normal activities (sex, affection, emotional release, play), or put at risk for predation (gathering information with which to engage in the imposition of costs), then
3) What I would expect to see otherwise is the equivalent of camouflage netting, designed to defeat drones, or active repulsion systems designed to blind them when attempting to observe homes.
4) What I hope someone creates is drones that kill other drones. These are very cheap to make, and a ‘necessary’ defense mechanism against the possibility of predation enhanced by observation (spying). As a criminal endeavor it is quite easy to use drones to look for homes to rob. It is also easy to use drones to attack power lines.
So a drone in motion at altitude is somewhat hard to criticize. While a drone hovering or exploring private property is not.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 03:35:00 UTC
MAYBE IT’S NOT OBVIOUS: PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION: THE SHERIFF, THE KNIGHT, THE JUDGE
It’s not belief. It’s not a religion. It’s law. A law for the prosecution of those who have engineered deceptions by which to confiscate our private and common property by appealing to our altruistic morality.
Every Man A Sheriff, Every man a Knight, Every Man A Judge.
No mercy. No forgiveness. No Tolerance.
Make parasitism impossible leaving only participation in the market for the production of commons, goods, and services, the only possible means of survival.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 01:56:00 UTC