In that case the issue is not the enforcement of the laws, but the laws themselves. Take up issue with the particular law if you have an issue with it. We don't stop enforcing laws, simply because a few are stupid. We don't go soft on rapists for fear that in prosecuting sex crimes we might be opening the doors to illegalize masturbation.

The air between two grown men is fine, as long as it is between two grown men, you don't see two grown men talking about banging out their wives at the same table as their children now do you? Because in the real world, people exercise a level of self control. So tell me again, why it is all good when you're doing essentially the same thing, just hiding behind a monitor while doing so? Why do we think it's our right to just forget about decency and self control as soon as we're alone in some room hiding behind a computer screen?

Wake up, the internet is still a public space. Freedom of speech applies, but so does common sense and decency. The half of the partnership that seems to be left out as soon as everyone jumps online.

free markets 101
 

Right now, we have the government/State making and enforcing laws, rules and regulations and that in no way stops the activities you mentioned. It is naive to think that just because you have the Government/State regulating things that there won't be any crime. If history teaches us one thing it is that the State is unable to provide the security services it claims to provide. The never ending excuses the State uses, is that it fails because it does not yet have enough power. It's already illegal to defraud people, yet fraud still exists and continues to be perpetrated on a daily basis. Over the last 200 years the State has acquired more and more power and has started interfering more and more with our daily lives all because that would somehow be needed to keep us safe, to fight crime, to protect the children, to protect our mental health, to, to fight terrorism,... Yet crime still exists. Terrorism still exists. Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
When will we learn that giving the state more and more power does not bring progress? Violating people's privacy, monitoring what they do online, harassing people at airports, deciding what sites they can visit etc. does not keep them safe. Forcing people to pay money to give it to "those in need", does not end poverty. Forcing employers to pay certain minimum wages, does not help the poor. Having the state police the net, will not bring back 2001 style sales.

In a free world (free market), crime would still exist. Phishers, fraude, malware,... would still exist. As long as there are human beings, crime will exist. However, the difference between a free world and the State is that while the State constantly grows bigger and bigger and collects more power at the expensive of the people, in a free world people are free to deal with problems, dangers, crime themselves.

If you are afraid of catching a malware infections, you can reconfigure your system to make it more secure, you can download or buy protection software, you can chose to avoid certain sites, you can chose to buy another security package if you are not happy with your previous package, you can chose not to go online, you can chose to recover your system from an image after you've browsed the web, you can buy operating system A instead of operating system B if B has a bad security record,....

Let's say you keep all your valuables in your living room and don't lock your doors and a criminal walks in and steals everything. Do you blame the State and ask them to make more laws and regulations or do you start locking your doors? What if you did lock your doors but the burglar was able to pick one of the locks? Do you ask the State to make more laws (for example a law to require everyone to install a certain type of lock. A law that would be enforced by police officers that come by to check if you have the correct type of locks and will fine you if you use a different type of lock (maybe even a better one))? Or do you buy and install a better lock or maybe even add an alarm system or maybe even put your valuables in a safe...? If the next burglar notices you have a special lock that would take a very long time to pick he might not even bother trying and head over to your neighbor. If your neighbor has also secured his house, the burglar might not even bother trying that house as well and head over to the next house. Maybe that house isn't as secure, but maybe the owner will learn his lesson and install better locks so he won't get burglared again in the future.

Thing is, we are all individuals, we are all different, we are all good at different things, we come up with lots of different solutions to fix problems,... Who do you think will come up with the most, the most efficient, the most effective solutions to problems? Millions of people freely deciding what they want and need and what they are willing to do or invest to get it or fix it or secure it? Or Government officials that don't know what they are talking about, that rely on corporate lobbyists for information and have no real incentive to find the best solution? Who do you think will able to defend your life and property? You, who have a very good incentive? Or the police who have no incentive? It's not like if you can stop buying protection services from the police and start buying protection services from another company.

Even if you gave the state 100% control over our lives, the still would not be able to end crime. Environments with 100% of State control already exist: prisons. A prison is a facility where you have no rights: the State determines where you sleep, what you eat, when you can exercise, what you can read, when the lights go out, when you have to get up, what clothes you can wear, if you can have visitors, how long they'll keep you there,...
And guess what? Murder, rape,... still happen in that environment with 100% State control.

The Sate make it illegal to use certain chemical substances for recreational uses. And in the name of this "war on drugs" they constantly violate people's property rights, but at the same time they are willing to admit that they will never be able to keep drugs out of the prisons. If they are unable to keep a substance they prohibit out of an environment they have 100% control over, why do we even believe the state when they say they need more power, more control over our daily lives to "fight drugs"?
If the state is unable to prevent murder or rape in an environment they have 100% control over, why do we trust they will keep us safe outside of that environement?

Are you saying antitrust laws prevent monopolies? You do realize the first antitrust laws were welcomed by the larger cartels as a way to protect their market share, right?

First of all, you need to understand what a monopoly is. A common misconception is that having a monopoly means you have a very large market share. Monopolies are not based on scale. Monopolies are based on force. You only have a monopoly if your forcibly prevent someone from entering the market.

The only monopolies are those of the Sate (aggression, security and judicial services) and those granted by the State.

Like Ludwig von Mises said, There's Government (intervention) and there's the Market, there is no 3rd option. The problem here is that people seem to think that State means order and justice and the Market means chaos. This couldn't be further from the truth. The State means chaos. The State constantly changes the rules... they even agree that it is now impossible to merely count the number of laws and regulations you have to abide by. If you can't even count them, how can you expect not to violate them? The State creates a system of fear, chaos and uncertainty. The State constantly creates more rules and regulations, all in the name of protection us while in reality only the State and those big corporation that are in bed with the State benefit from them.

In a free world (free market), there is order. There is the non aggression principle: All human beings are master of their own body and property and are free to do what they want with it as long as they don't cause damage to another human being or his property. This means you are free to buy property, trade or sell property, give things to charity etc but the second you damage another human being's property he has the right to retaliate.

I voted yes.

You are either subject to laws or not. No middle ground. You can't say laws we have can stay and no laws can be passed in the future. You can't say we can't have laws that are specifically for the Internet.

I know you would like to. But I live in the real world. Must come live in fantasy land for my holiday. :1orglaugh

You must live next door to Sally.

Seriously we have loads of people who have 0 respect for other peoples property ruining our business. Even if you do create something that people want. Todays problems is without any laws the result would be total anarchy.

Exactly. Those things don't appear on the Internet because of laws.

Most arguing the other side just want to pick and choose the laws they like. Do they want a total amnesty for child porn sites on the Internet?

The original concept of the Internet as a place above the constraints of political control. And look what it gave you. A place where people can say "Fuck your laws, I'm above them I'm on the Internet."

Well that's not going to last. Get used to it.

What ever the outcome of this poll.

The Internet is subject to the law and will be more and more subject to it in the future. Adapt or die.

What has the government ever done to protect your business?

People check their brain at the door when they go online. This thread is proof.

But that's like saying, "what has the government ever done to stop you from being robbed while walking to the store?" You can't point to any specific thing, but if the government didn't worry about laws, you would have probably been robbed many more times in your life.

Look, what I'm saying is: People are master of their own body and property and are free to do with their body and property what they want as long as they don't cause damage to another person or his property. That's 1 very basic rule/principle to prevent injustice. A principle that doesn't change depending on the situation or your geographical location.

Now, if you want an organization like that State... basically an organization that enforces its own set of rules onto people who just happen to be living within certain artificial borders... an organization that constantly creates new rules, rules that are not aimed at preventing injustice but at serving the system... an organization that infringes on people's rights... an organization that violates people's property rights... all in the name of safety and efficiency.... then the burden of proof is on you. Then you need to prove that the State is more efficient, better at providing safety than the free market. then you need to come up with some numbers that support your claim.

btw: I have been robbed... well, at least they tried... and they didn't succeed... not because the State stopped them, because the state did nothing to stop them... The robbers didn't succeed because I defended my property.

Sure. Somalia, Ivory Coast, Sri Lanka, or take your pick. There's lots.

I think you're giving humanity too much credit. Don't kid yourself, if there were no laws being enforced in North America or Europe, we'd degenerate into the exact same society those poor bastards are forced to live in.

I do agree that the government seems to have overdosed on steroids over the past couple decades, but nonetheless, we do need laws and they do need to be enforced regardless if those actions are done offline or online.

The only basic rule (can call it Law if you want) is the nonaggression principle. Once you go beyond that, you start committing acts of injustice.

The places you mentioned are no different from the US or EU. In those places, large gangs of thugs terrorize the population... that essentially is what the State is and does over here. Over here they may be wearing nice suits and have more guns and have created the impression of legitimacy over time, but they are essentially the same. A big gang of thugs enforcing their own set of rules and using aggression to do so. The fact that some gangs are more brutal than other gangs, the fact that some gangs enforce sharia law and other gangs enforce laws that were created by politicians who are in bed with large corporations, the fact that one gang has been in power longer than another gang... Those fact do not legitimize the power of any of those gangs.

In a free world, justice would be enforced. There would be lots of different protection services to chose from. companies selling those services would have an incentive to raise the quality and keep the prices low if they don't want to lose clients. You could also defend yourself or chose not to defend yourself. You could form alliances with your neighbors. In some parts of the world, like South Africa for example... groups that once would have been called militia's or vigilante's and private medical services have already proven to be more efficient than the State.

You seem to be forgetting that Governments are made up out of normal people. People don't turn into allknowing, unselfish, superhumans when you vote for them in an election. If you are worried people would commit acts of injustice if there were no such thing as the State, then why aren't you worried that those same people might abuse their power if you elect them to office and basically give them control over every aspect of your life?

Except for the fact the populous gets to elect who those thugs & gang leaders are. We don't get to elect who's in charge of the Bloods, Crips, or Hells Angels.

I do agree to an extent though, and Hells Angels are a perfect example. There's been many times where they came into a neighborhood, took over the drug trade, and kicked all the low-life thugs out. In general, everyone was very appreciative of them coming in, because they're not going to cause you a problem unless you first make one, whereas the lowlife thugs were causing everyone problems.

Nonetheless, that doesn't actually work, and you can't allow humans to police themselves. For example, look at Iraq, after the US disbanded the government & military. It was total anarchy. People had to setup neighborhood watch programs, but unlike the US, these consisted of groups of neighbors rotating nights, carrying around AK-47s at 3am to ensure a militia doesn't rape their wife & kids, and steal all their possessions.

That's the exact world we'd live in if we didn't have laws in place, and a government to enforce them. I'll agree, the government has overstepped their bounds, and many laws we have should be repealed, but nonetheless, we do need laws and they do need to be enforced.

I'm sorry, but that thinking is just delusional. I'm sorry, but things wouldn't play out like that AT ALL. If you don't believe me, again, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, Republic of Congo, and the list goes on, and on, and on...

You do understand that other countries can access the interwebz as well yes? :helpme

we always need to set boundaries.

and there will always be those who push them.

not because the act they request actually turns them on... its because its "forbidden".

You can "roleplay" for these fuckers or pass them along... but whats next???

The less you offer... the more they want.


Sabby:)

Its not a long shot to say there will be a universal internet law in our future.

(hopefully Im dead by then)


Sabby:)

Well some do even when it's obviously a trick question for the slow thinkers. And warned to think about it first.

What stops a company like Microsoft buying up main service providers and any other service that controls people access to the WWW?

Is it a little law about Net Neutrality?

With the Internet not subject to any laws, someone could turn your Internet connection into another version of your cable TV connection. Your basic connection allows you to see this list of sites, if you want to surf Torrents you need the Torrent package, if you want to surf porn sites you need the Porn package, if you want to surf social network site you need that package emails also come with an extra charge and so on. The profit potential is amazing.

Microsoft or Google or some other company would control the Internet.

Don't fear the little scammers from an Internet not subject to laws and controls. Fear the big man.

There's no such thing as real freedom. We need laws and regulations to maintain the illusion of freedom.

So you dream of some sort of Utopia where everyman is free to decide on his own course of actions, the laws he will abide to and no controlling influence above him.

So go buy a desert island and live there in the fear that no one with a bigger gun than yours decides to live there with you as his slave.

In the real world there's always controls and always someone in charge of you. The concept of freedom as you see it doesn't exist and couldn't exist. Whether it's a democratically elected council on a kibbutz or a Senate there are people laying down the law.

Just pray you have some input and chance to turn the system around because the alternative is dictatorship, by a few men. Usually backed by there army.

Prove the State is "more efficient, better at providing safety than the free market." Prove there is such a thing as the free market. I've never seen it. Even on your desert island you're controlled by Mother Nature.

= I had more power than them.

Next time you might not. In your dream world you definitely wouldn't. Think harder.

I stopped reading there to change my pants, I pissed myself with laughter. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

THE PRIVATE PRODUCTION OF DEFENSE:
https://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

The Myth of National Defense:
http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

The Declaration of Independence was based on the same idea...

Thanks for that post :thumbsup
nice to see that I'm not the only one that understand Internet is not a U.S.A property

I think not.

Yeah, no shit.


Tell that to the poor fucks who live in Australia.

They're about to enter into a virtual dark age that will most certainly last a few years and could go on for as long as a lifetime for many of them.

Australia isn't Iran. What's happening there could happen anywhere.

Watch what you wish for.
.

I laughed because in a previous post you hinted you protected your property with aggression. Then you abdicate we all live by non aggression treaties. Independence wasn't gained by non aggression.

The problem with your dream is it would never work without men around you to make sure those who don't agree don't come gunning for you. Your dream is unworkable.

Society needs rules and laws to hold it together and make it work.

Look at what Barry-xlovecam wrote. Someone decided to ban something they didn't like and it was struck down by LAWS.

WITHOUT THOSE LAWS OTHERS COULD DECIDE WHAT YOU WATCH AND WHAT YOU DON'T WATCH VERY EASILY.

Do you want the Internet in the hands of Google or Microsoft or some faceless corporation?

There's a difference between force and aggression.

Aggression = initiating the use of force against some one and violating that person's rights.

When someone commits an act of aggression, when he violates your property rights, he essentially gives up his own rights and you can use force to defend yourself/to retaliate.

Like I've said many times before. In a world without the State, there would still be crime. But instead of being forced to buy protection services from the State (the state essentially is a company that sells many services like protection), you would buy them from a private protection company you chose. Or you would defend yourself or you would form an alliance with some of your neighbors or some shopkeepers would hire protection to keep their streets safe (because safer streets would attract more customers) etc...

The only difference between the current system is that those private security companies would actually have an incentive to do a good job because otherwise they would loose clients. The State/Police don't care about their 'clients' because the State simply forces everyone to pay for their substandard services.


Like I said, the basic non-aggression principle suffices. It's what Bastiat called The Law. It's when Jefferson referred to when he wrote about inalienable rights. It's what Spooner called Natural Rights. It's what Hoppe called the Natural Order. It's what some like to call Rational Rights. It's the original meaning of "The Rule Of Law".

Google and Microsoft are private companies, they can use their property in any way they want. Personally I don't agree with a lot of the things Google does and stands for so I don't use their services, I don't use Gmail, I don't click their ads, I encourage other people to stop using them,...

There should definitely be no violence exposed on net...in and out of adult....but if controlling would help...i don't know. And of course, nobody should steal my videos:)...if controlling would help ... I don't know :)...As some say, maybe governed controls would steal more :)

Of course there should be laws, but you're saying we can't pick and choose which laws? Does that even make sense?

Fucking retarded thread. :2 cents:

who cares about 2257 its a joke anyway

Who was running that show? :2 cents:

:Oh crap:Oh crap

And the Internet with a clear lack of controls has turned out to be even shittier. Unless you profit by being one of those shitting on others rights.

An Internet not subject to the law = child porn being published online. The producing of the content is illegal, publication on the Internet is illegal. No laws makes publishing legal. Makes shaving legal, piracy legal, scamming cards online legal, phishing legal and so many other things that are illegal are suddenly made legal if you do it inside the haven of the Internet.

This is why there was no 3rd option, a little trap to see who was thinking it through. Liketopnotch, standup guy if there were no laws selling enriched uranium online would be legal. Not sure about the physical aspect of delivery and receiving. But the actual selling of it online would be legal.

Would piracy be greatly reduced? If the law on copyright theft was enforced, if it were expanded to make advertisers and billing processors liable to be sued, then yes it would be greatly reduced. Laws don't stop crimes, they reduce them and allow law enforcement to do their jobs. Some seem to think unless a law stops everything 100% it shouldn't be passed. figure that one out for yourselves, IMO great argument for criminals.

Yes some of the replies are retarded. That was why I put it up, to attract and expose the retards. And criminals. Amazed at all those who think the Internet should not be subject to laws. Subject to the laws of the lands, adjusted to fit online. Plus some to fit online only like piracy. Like hitting processing companies and advertisers who support them.

Yes some people would be hit hard by such laws, some will have to be very careful who they do business with. Will it effect the over all revenue of the Internet. Yes it will increase. Maybe not in porn, but in other areas it will. People will not be able to pirate music, programs, films as easily and widespread as they do today. Big Tubes won't be allowed to have "User Uploads" so will have to have legal content. Which means buying it. Or less updates.

Will any of this mean less people spend money online? No way.

Will it mean more people will buy online? Yes, maybe not in porn that has cherished the free porn model. :(

Will it mean some will lose income or have to change the way they do business? Yes, welcome to the world of "Adapt or Die". :1orglaugh

Of course no one gets the chance to pick and choose laws, that would be idiocy.

the only one retarded here is you with your shit out of date content

if there is no law on the net, there shouldn't be anywhere else either, then if someone steals your content, you can just shoot the thieves and rid the world...

oh, and no, I didn't read all the posts in this thread....

Unless while they steal your content they shoot you as well. :Oh crap

Have you got anymore bright ideas?

The US laws should not apply to the whole fucking Internet.

i wholly support the "ban old men from yelling at clouds on the internet" act as well.

Agreed

Just the sites that can be accessed from the US.

Or are you a Russian site that scams cards, pirates content, sells child porn, that a person in the US can access and pay to join should be allowed?