3 ms·

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. Nothing about what you said is correct. The FIRE in a crowded theater argument has nothing to do with property rights. I

by donatj 7y ago

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. Nothing about what you said is correct. The FIRE in a crowded theater argument has nothing to do with property rights. It's about creating dangerous situations. Deep fakes aren't infringing anyone else's property rights, other than maybe very tenuously arguably considering likeness "intellectual property". In the United States however you have no expectation of privacy in public, so a photograph taken of you in public is fair game. See: Paparazzi

TomMckenny 7y ago
>I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law Actually I wonder where this family ideas come from. There must be some engine promulgating the bizarre notion that the only real rights are property rights and all others must derive from them or be dismissed.
- randallsquared 7y ago
  That engine is consistency. It just doesn't apply to actually existing law.
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    So they will return North America to the Indians? And antebellum mansions to the descendants of the slaves who built them? Perhaps it is merely a _claim_ of consistency just convoluted enough that those who are advantaged by the ideology can jump on board.
- User23 7y ago
  That engine is libertarianism, which is basically just objectivism that isn't firing on all cylinders. This post is not an endorsement of objectivism by the way, both are ludicrous. Taleb nailed this: there is no single perfect scale-independent political philosophy. A quick pass at what I prefer at various scales: Family: Something a lot like Communism (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). Neighborhood: Libertarianism (mutal respect for property boundaries and common spaces). City/Town: Democracy. State: Republic. Federal: Federal Republic. Obviously these are just my preferences, although I think the family level one is virtually universal among people who want their families to succeed. The point isn't that I'm right or wrong about any level, it's that different systems are optimal for different scales.
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    It's interesting that the first two seem to be more or less universally implemented through out the world. Although the neighbor level seems to be "leave each other alone including territoriality but aid in the event of emergency". It's interesting that many of the most notorious times are when that neighborhood level breaks down: Moments of extremely intrusive totalitarianism such as the European witch trials, China's cultural revolution, cults. It's also interesting that people seem to naturally form similar organization up to the neighbor sized groups but above that anything can happen. I'm guessing this is the result of evolving in essentially neighborhood sized groups. I suspect there is something useful to be found in this stuff.

by donatj 7y ago

TomMckenny 7y ago

>I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law Actually I wonder where this family ideas come from. There must be some engine promulgating the bizarre notion that the only real rights are property rights and all others must derive from them or be dismissed.

randallsquared 7y ago
That engine is consistency. It just doesn't apply to actually existing law.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  So they will return North America to the Indians? And antebellum mansions to the descendants of the slaves who built them? Perhaps it is merely a _claim_ of consistency just convoluted enough that those who are advantaged by the ideology can jump on board.
User23 7y ago
That engine is libertarianism, which is basically just objectivism that isn't firing on all cylinders. This post is not an endorsement of objectivism by the way, both are ludicrous. Taleb nailed this: there is no single perfect scale-independent political philosophy. A quick pass at what I prefer at various scales: Family: Something a lot like Communism (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). Neighborhood: Libertarianism (mutal respect for property boundaries and common spaces). City/Town: Democracy. State: Republic. Federal: Federal Republic. Obviously these are just my preferences, although I think the family level one is virtually universal among people who want their families to succeed. The point isn't that I'm right or wrong about any level, it's that different systems are optimal for different scales.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  It's interesting that the first two seem to be more or less universally implemented through out the world. Although the neighbor level seems to be "leave each other alone including territoriality but aid in the event of emergency". It's interesting that many of the most notorious times are when that neighborhood level breaks down: Moments of extremely intrusive totalitarianism such as the European witch trials, China's cultural revolution, cults. It's also interesting that people seem to naturally form similar organization up to the neighbor sized groups but above that anything can happen. I'm guessing this is the result of evolving in essentially neighborhood sized groups. I suspect there is something useful to be found in this stuff.