[extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Ah, but is it force to lie to someone and sell them poison when
> > they
> > > think they are purchasing food? 
> > 
> > Poisoning is illegal.
> 
> I didn't ask if it was legal.
> 
> > We are talking about LEGAL FORCE.
> 
> No, we're talking about force.  Assuming people don't do things if
> they're legal requires 100% effective enforcement - which not even
> the
> strictest, most draconian law enforcement agency in the world has
> achieved over any large group of people.

Incorrect. People tend to not do illegal things if there is a
significant risk of it costing them more than they will gain. Criminals
tend to stay out of jurisdictions that let their people walk around
armed, for instance, preferring jurisdictions that don't, because
police are far more effective in protecting criminals from the people
than in protecting the people from the criminals.

> 
> Besides, history shows that if you try to screw over a body of people
> long enough, hard enough, they will start tending to ignore any laws
> you write for them.  They will, inevitably, initiate force - and if
> your economy depends on exploiting their labor (as often happens in
> these situations), you will fall (once whatever stockpiles you have
> run out, without their production to renew said stockpiles), and
> everyone involved will suffer. It's happened again and again, and
> human nature has not changed in that regard.

Well, no, this isn't true. This shibboleth that 'violence never solves
anything' is a fake philosophy. The US revolution certainly solved
something, and a lot of people were better off for it. I could name
many others, but you get the point. 

You, and many others, have been taught by government schools and
government teachers that violence never solves anything because the
truth is that violence in the hands of the people tends to not solve
things in the favor of governments and their leaders/controllers, who,
as far as government teachers are concerned, are the only people who
matter anyways.

> 
> The government monopoly on force is supposed to prevent that, but of
> course that assumes the government is one that the people can stand.
> People can stand for a lot (see the crap that the USA is currently
> putting up with), but there is a limit.

Certainly, so long as they feel their own toast is getting buttered,
why should they care how dry and stale it is for people, say, in Iraq,
or Afghanistan, or Waco, etc...?

>  
> How about if companies don't allow, by contract, any agency with
> access to their food to call it poison? 

If you as a consumer cannot take such a demand by any organization as a
significant sign you should not do business with them, then that is
your own fault. Stupid is as stupid does.

> (Note that some companies are trying
> equivalent tactics today, using contracts to shut down any and all
> negative reviews of their products.)  The only information available
> to anyone else is that the company's product is good and wholesome.

And anyone who lets themselves get sucked into that deserves what they
get.

> > Depends on what information you are looking for. If you are fishing
> > for the intellectual property of a competitor, you have no standing
> > to make demands, and any attempt to get their information is theft.
> 
> Who decides what is and what is not intellectual property?  Certain
> companies would claim that all of your memories about them - or even
> the entire contents of any brain that has had any interaction with
> their products whatsoever (and thus been indelibly altered by the
> experience) - are their IP if they were the sole arbiter of what they
> could claim as their IP.

They don't decide who their final arbiter is. If you'd read the
articles I've pointed to, you'd understand this.

> > 
> > If a customer of a business is initiated against, he has standing
> > to pursue redress through the legal process for the tort committed
> > against him. If the customer chose to not inform the rest of the
> > public about
> > his or her private commercial relationship with the company and its
> > legal fallout, that is their business, not yours.
> 
> And if they don't have a choice?

Everyone has a choice. Not everyone has the resolve and self discipline
to see things through. If a company offers you and your lawyer a
settlement on condition of non-disclosure, it is your choice to accept
the settlement or not. Nobody is twisting your arm.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com