Re: What is a Right?
*Anarcissie*
> ...a right is a moral claim...
That depends on the political framework you're using.
In liberalism, a right is an area of freedom and possibly
of entitlement within a legal framework that both limits
and protects it. But the political decision to employ
such a framework might be, say, utilitarian or
traditional rather than moral.
> belonging to an individual
Rights could belong to groups or categories.
> that prohibits
> all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
> For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from
> killing you. Similarly, your right to liberty prohibits all other
> persons from enslaving you, kidnapping you, or holding you prisoner
> against your will. Such rights are often said to be moral fences: They
> surround people and protect them from outside interference. They are
> said to be "negative rights" in that they stipulate things that other
> people may not do in their interactions with some individual. Your
> right to life says that I may not kill you. My right to liberty says
> that you may not enslave me.
> Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelsonhttp://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/dp/076...
*Anarcissie*
> On Oct 25, 12:44 am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:34:08 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> > <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
> > >all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
> > >For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from
> > >killing you.
>
>
> Not necessarily. As Anarcissie points out, rights exist within legal
> frameworks, although I don't think the framework is restricted to
> 'liberalism'. If you have a 'right to life', the legal framework may
> be designed to minimize the probability that you will be denied that
> right. One example would be deterrent effects of criminal law, another
> would be the provision of health care.
>
> In both cases, there is obviously no guarantee, but the 'right' can be
> said to 'exist' within the context of a State legal system. Outside of
> this, of course, the term is meaningless drivel.
I mentioned liberalism only because I thought people
would be familiar with it and it is liberals (libertarians)
who tend to be most excited about rights. Actually, we
don't need liberalism or the state to have rights, but
some sort of framework is necessary. Otherwise we
get silly formulations like "my right to swing my fist
stops where your nose begins", which cannot be
discovered or observed without violating them.
tg
> On Oct 25, 9:54 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 12:44 am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:34:08 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> > > <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
> > > >all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
> > > >For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from
> > > >killing you.
>
> > > So it's wishful thinking, then?
>
> > Not necessarily. As Anarcissie points out, rights exist within legal
> > frameworks, although I don't think the framework is restricted to
> > 'liberalism'. If you have a 'right to life', the legal framework may
> > be designed to minimize the probability that you will be denied that
> > right. One example would be deterrent effects of criminal law, another
> > would be the provision of health care.
>
> > In both cases, there is obviously no guarantee, but the 'right' can be
> > said to 'exist' within the context of a State legal system. Outside of
> > this, of course, the term is meaningless drivel.
>
> I mentioned liberalism only because I thought people
> would be familiar with it and it is liberals (libertarians)
> who tend to be most excited about rights. Actually, we
> don't need liberalism or the state to have rights, but
> some sort of framework is necessary.
What sort of 'framework'? Absent a State, with a functioning legal
system, there simply isn't any meaning to the term 'rights'. Of
course one may envision a legal system that is enforced independent of
the need for a State to control land/resources, and given the proper
conditions that might exist. But there would still be some degree of
coercion.
-tg
James A. Donald
> What sort of 'framework'? Absent a State, with a
> functioning legal system, there simply isn't any
> meaning to the term 'rights'.
If rights derive from the state and legislation, then
Hitler, Stalin, etc, did not violate anyone's rights.
Which conclusion is obviously silly.
Rights are what you have AGAINST the state and in
defiance of legislation. If the government gives you a
"right", then it cannot be a right: Example:"the right
to health care", which in practice means the right to be
put on a waiting list to be evaluated to see if someone
else thinks you need health care sufficiently to be put
on another waiting list to actually get it.
Rod Speed
> On Oct 25, 9:54 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 25, 12:44 am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:34:08 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>>
>>> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> ...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that
>>>> prohibits all other persons from acting in certain ways toward
>>>> that individual. For example, your right to life prohibits all
>>>> other persons from killing you.
>>
>>> So it's wishful thinking, then?
>>
>> Not necessarily. As Anarcissie points out, rights exist within legal
>> frameworks, although I don't think the framework is restricted to
>> 'liberalism'. If you have a 'right to life', the legal framework may
>> be designed to minimize the probability that you will be denied that
>> right. One example would be deterrent effects of criminal law,
>> another would be the provision of health care.
>>
>> In both cases, there is obviously no guarantee, but the 'right' can
>> be said to 'exist' within the context of a State legal system.
>> Outside of this, of course, the term is meaningless drivel.
>
> I mentioned liberalism only because I thought people
> would be familiar with it and it is liberals (libertarians)
> who tend to be most excited about rights.
Thats one hell of a stretch given who produced the Bill of Rights.
> Actually, we don't need liberalism or the state to have rights,
Correct.
> but some sort of framework is necessary.
Nope.
> Otherwise we get silly formulations like "my right
> to swing my fist stops where your nose begins",
Dont need some sort of framework to avoid stupiditys like that.
> which cannot be discovered or observed without violating them.
Wrong.
*Anarcissie*
Coercion fades off into persuasion and convenience. It
is not hard to imagine a community in which there was no
state but instead traditions were observed. These traditions
might prescribe, for example, that mothers of children be
granted a certain amount of land (Navaho) or have the
right to play certain songs, engage in certain rituals or
dances, invoke certain spirits, Feudal polities had longs
lists of rights, for example a lord might have a right to
summon various services from his vassals -- but I
suppose you might consider such a polity a state.
I have to add, at a certain risk of provoking ranting,
that some people believe that rights are given by
the gods, or arise out of nature. In this case the gods
or nature provide the framework.
holarchy
That is not correct, most obviously with religious law.
> Of course one may envision a legal system that is enforced independent
> of the need for a State to control land/resources, and given the proper
> conditions that might exist. But there would still be some degree of coercion.
But no state.
Rod Speed
> tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> What sort of 'framework'? Absent a State,
>> with a functioning legal system, there simply
>> isn't any meaning to the term 'rights'.
> If rights derive from the state and legislation, then
> Hitler, Stalin, etc, did not violate anyone's rights.
> Which conclusion is obviously silly.
> Rights are what you have AGAINST the state and in defiance of legislation.
Not necessarily. You also have rights against others not just the state.
> If the government gives you a "right", then it cannot be a right:
Mindlessly silly. Have fun explaining the Bill of Rights.
> Example:"the right to health care", which in practice means
> the right to be put on a waiting list to be evaluated to see
> if someone else thinks you need health care sufficiently
> to be put on another waiting list to actually get it.
Even sillier, most obviously with life threatening medical
problems where there is no waiting list whatever.
Rod Speed
Nope, most obviously with warlords etc.
And religious communitys in spades.
> I have to add, at a certain risk of provoking ranting,
> that some people believe that rights are given by
> the gods, or arise out of nature. In this case the
> gods or nature provide the framework.
Thats just one example where there is a framework,
doesnt substantiate your original claim that there are
no rights without a framework.
Michael Price
> >> What sort of 'framework'? Absent a State,
> >> with a functioning legal system, there simply
> >> isn't any meaning to the term 'rights'.
> > If rights derive from the state and legislation, then
> > Hitler, Stalin, etc, did not violate anyone's rights.
> > Which conclusion is obviously silly.
> > Rights are what you have AGAINST the state and in defiance of legislation.
>
> Not necessarily. You also have rights againstothers not just the state.
Yes but they are against the State or they are not rights.
>
> > If the government gives you a "right", then it cannot be a right:
>
> Mindlessly silly. Have fun explaining the Bill of Rights.
>
If you knew anything about the constitution you'd know that it
doesn't
claim to grant rights (either in the original or the amendments) only
to
recognise them. And the Bill of Rights has not actually guaranteed
rights (e.g. 2nd amendment.).
James A. Donald
> > If the government gives you a "right", then it
> > cannot be a right:
"Rod Speed"
> Mindlessly silly. Have fun explaining the Bill of
> Rights.
Those rights are not given by the government.
> > Example:"the right to health care", which in
> > practice means the right to be put on a waiting list
> > to be evaluated to see if someone else thinks you
> > need health care sufficiently to be put on another
> > waiting list to actually get it.
"Rod Speed"
> Even sillier, most obviously with life threatening
> medical problems where there is no waiting list
> whatever.
Cancer is life threatening, and the longer the operation
is delayed, the less likely it is to be successful.
There is a waiting list for cancer operations. Heart
disease is life threatening. There is a waiting list for
heart operations. And so on and so forth.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> James A. Donald wrote
>>> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>> What sort of 'framework'? Absent a State,
>>>> with a functioning legal system, there simply
>>>> isn't any meaning to the term 'rights'.
>>> If rights derive from the state and legislation, then
>>> Hitler, Stalin, etc, did not violate anyone's rights.
>>> Which conclusion is obviously silly.
>>> Rights are what you have AGAINST the state and in defiance of legislation.
>> Not necessarily. You also have rights against others not just the state.
> Yes but they are against the State or they are not rights.
Wrong, as always.
Pity about the right to life.
>>> If the government gives you a "right", then it cannot be a right:
>> Mindlessly silly. Have fun explaining the Bill of Rights.
> If you knew anything about the constitution you'd know
> that it doesn't claim to grant rights (either in the original
> or the amendments) only to recognise them.
Irrelevant to that claim about what cannot be a right.
> And the Bill of Rights has not actually guaranteed rights (e.g. 2nd amendment.).
Even sillier.
tg
***
> Coercion fades off into persuasion and convenience. It
> is not hard to imagine a community in which there was no
> state but instead traditions were observed.
Ah, the passive tense---but I didn't think you were a politician ;-).
There is a difference between persuasion and convenience (utility),
and persuasion is akin to coercion.
> These traditions
> might prescribe, for example, that mothers of children be
> granted a certain amount of land (Navaho) or have the
> right to play certain songs, engage in certain rituals or
> dances, invoke certain spirits.
Here's the problem. Let's say that Navajo child-rearing, minimally
coercive, results in universal adherence to tradition (some set of
rules). What purpose is served by having the term (or concept)
"rights"? Doesn't the behavior we are talking about then attach to
the actor (right action) rather than the person towards whom he is
acting?
>Feudal polities had longs
> lists of rights, for example a lord might have a right to
> summon various services from his vassals -- but I
> suppose you might consider such a polity a state.
>
> I have to add, at a certain risk of provoking ranting,
> that some people believe that rights are given by
> the gods, or arise out of nature. In this case the gods
> or nature provide the framework.
Eh. So what?
-tg
*Anarcissie*
The idea of a socially constructed framework for an
area of freedom which both protects and limits the
freedom seems to appeal to a lot of people for
both moral and utilitarian reasons.
> >Feudal polities had longs
> > lists of rights, for example a lord might have a right to
> > summon various services from his vassals -- but I
> > suppose you might consider such a polity a state.
>
> > I have to add, at a certain risk of provoking ranting,
> > that some people believe that rights are given by
> > the gods, or arise out of nature. In this case the gods
> > or nature provide the framework.
>
> Eh. So what?
So these people believe that rights exist without
the state or community traditions or any other
human agency. Since we don't know what's really
real, maybe there _are_ gods who endow us with
inalienable rights, or something like that.
tg
***
> > Here's the problem. Let's say that Navajo child-rearing, minimally
> > coercive, results in universal adherence to tradition (some set of
> > rules). What purpose is served by having the term (or concept)
> > "rights"? Doesn't the behavior we are talking about then attach to
> > the actor (right action) rather than the person towards whom he is
> > acting?
>
> The idea of a socially constructed framework for an
> area of freedom which both protects and limits the
> freedom seems to appeal to a lot of people for
> both moral and utilitarian reasons.
>
Sure, but this doesn't answer my question. The socially constructed
framework I describe attributes no 'rights' to individuals. It simply
articulates what in some traditions would be called Right Action. So,
if members of the community follow the rule "Thou shalt not kill.",
and the rule "Give of your wealth that your sick neighbor may be
cured.", and so on, what possible use is the idea of 'a right to
life'? This just seems like something that property-arians find
appealing; something that they can 'own'.
Rights have utility only in the situation where coercion is abundant
and cooperation is scarce---which describes our current condition of
State control of scarce resources and redundant populations.
> > >Feudal polities had longs
> > > lists of rights, for example a lord might have a right to
> > > summon various services from his vassals -- but I
> > > suppose you might consider such a polity a state.
>
> > > I have to add, at a certain risk of provoking ranting,
> > > that some people believe that rights are given by
> > > the gods, or arise out of nature. In this case the gods
> > > or nature provide the framework.
>
> > Eh. So what?
>
> So these people believe that rights exist without
> the state or community traditions or any other
> human agency. Since we don't know what's really
> real, maybe there _are_ gods who endow us with
> inalienable rights, or something like that.
Eh. So what?
-tg
Fred Weiss
> Rights have utility only in the situation where coercion is abundant
> and cooperation is scarce---which describes our current condition of
> State control of scarce resources....
You mean how the gov't closes off vast stretches of land and coastal
waters to logging, mining, and drilling?
Tiggy couldn't possibly mean that, could he?
Open those areas up and reduce the power of enviroHysterics to block
these activities and you will see how quickly supposedly "scarce
resources" become abundant.
>... and redundant populations.
Only Tiggy could come up with an expression like that.
Well, ok, maybe Pol Pot.
Fred Weiss
Tim
Still haven't got a handle on that scarcity issue, eh fault facts.
tg
Quantitative reasoning eludes many people. What is particularly
bizarre is that fundatarians will argue that if you tax one penny from
a billionaire, it is of great consequence, but to remove all the
trees from a forest, or all the fish from the sea, does not deplete
the resource.
Oh well....
-tg
Fred Weiss
> Quantitative reasoning eludes many people. What is particularly
> bizarre is that fundatarians will argue that if you tax one penny from
> a billionaire, it is of great consequence, but to remove all the
> trees from a forest, or all the fish from the sea, does not deplete
> the resource.
>
> Oh well....
>
> -tg
Economic reasoning eludes many people. Tiggy in particular.
If and when a resource does appear to be heading toward depletion, the
price goes up - the consequence of which is that (1) it is used more
efficiently and/or (2) investments are made in finding new supplies
(sometimes requiring the development of new technology) and/or (3)
substitutes are found.
This is why - despite dire predictions from "Club of Rome" types and
other enviroHysterics (not to mention similar types for the last
100+years) - the price of virtually all commodities adjusted for
inflation have been *flat to down* for decades.
Not only that but - because of the above factors - known reserves
never seem to fall no matter how much we use. Just by way of example,
at the very height of "Peak Oil" hysteria the legs were pulled out
from under the hoax by the discovery of vast new supplies - and this
even despite vast areas of the world being closed off from exploration
for various reasons (the most eggregoius and inexcusable reasons
coming from the US itself, e.g. ANWR).
Oh, well...
So bring it, Tiggy. Keep it coming. Give it your best shot.
Got any more brilliant comments to add to the discussion?
Fred Weiss
Rod Speed
Or maybe not and we decide that stuff for ourselves
because society works better with those rights etc.
*Anarcissie*
If people enjoy dealing with the world through property
relations and property-like entities, then that is "use" --
utility -- to them. It's a way of thinking about things. If
the tribal traditions prescribe that you can cut down and
use one tree from the tribal preserve per month, you can
construe that in a variety of more or less equivalent ways,
one of which is "owning" the right to one tree per month.
Perhaps the tribal traditions also prescribe that the
entitlement to one tree per month can be transferred
to another, so now you can "sell" or "give" the right to
someone. It's just a way of thinking and talking about
the situation.
> Rights have utility only in the situation where coercion is abundant
> and cooperation is scarce---which describes our current condition of
> State control of scarce resources and redundant populations.
Rights have utility if people like "having" them.
> > > >Feudal polities had longs
> > > > lists of rights, for example a lord might have a right to
> > > > summon various services from his vassals -- but I
> > > > suppose you might consider such a polity a state.
>
> > > > I have to add, at a certain risk of provoking ranting,
> > > > that some people believe that rights are given by
> > > > the gods, or arise out of nature. In this case the gods
> > > > or nature provide the framework.
>
> > > Eh. So what?
>
> > So these people believe that rights exist without
> > the state or community traditions or any other
> > human agency. Since we don't know what's really
> > real, maybe there _are_ gods who endow us with
> > inalienable rights, or something like that.
>
> Eh. So what?
So now you can see how rights may be connected to
religious and quasi-religious ideas like gods and
nature, thus advancing your understanding of your
fellow Usenetters, many of whom do seem to
approach the issue in a rather religious manner
(hence the hot talk about Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot,
who are not merely unpleasant and thankfully
deceased 20th-century politicians, but living
demons as well).
Rod Speed
James A. Donald wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote
>> James A. Donald wrote
>>> If the government gives you a "right", then it cannot be a right:
>> Mindlessly silly. Have fun explaining the Bill of Rights.
> Those rights are not given by the government.
So it was the fairys at the bottom of the garden that produced the Bill of Rights eh ?
Why didnt someone tell me ?
>>> Example:"the right to health care", which in practice means
>>> the right to be put on a waiting list to be evaluated to see if
>>> someone else thinks you need health care sufficiently to be
>>> put on another waiting list to actually get it.
>> Even sillier, most obviously with life threatening medical
>> problems where there is no waiting list whatever.
> Cancer is life threatening, and the longer the operation
> is delayed, the less likely it is to be successful.
> There is a waiting list for cancer operations. Heart
> disease is life threatening. There is a waiting list for
> heart operations. And so on and so forth.
There is no waiting list for those who are having a heart attack, you silly little pathological liar.
tg
Yes, and now you've set up a State with control of resources. I've
stipulated several times that 'rights' *are* meaningful when they are
part of such a legal system, with the enforcement capacity of a State
or State-like entity.
In the case *I* described, people who would think in terms of 'rights'
as property would do so for irrational religious reasons or as part of
a psycho-pathology. I'm sure that serial killers find utility in their
approach to the world as well.
-tg
*Anarcissie*
I don't see any necessary state, unless you're using
the term very, very broadly. A set of traditional beliefs
about how things should be done, enforced by the
people in general does not strike me as a state.
> In the case *I* described, people who would think in terms of 'rights'
> as property would do so for irrational religious reasons or as part of
> a psycho-pathology. I'm sure that serial killers find utility in their
> approach to the world as well.
That seems irrelevant. And everyone works off irrational religious
reasons, because our knowledge of the universe is extremely
limited and we have to proceed based on beliefs.
Nic
>
> - Show quoted text -
hey bitch aint never seen you on this site before! lookin fer a blow
bacj heh!?
Demon Buddha
>
> That seems irrelevant. And everyone works off irrational religious
> reasons, because our knowledge of the universe is extremely
> limited and we have to proceed based on beliefs.
Well put. Everyone on the planet is a "person of faith". It is in the
nature of things that we must have faith in something, even if only the
five senses born to us. To have no faith in those would necessitate
death. We simply could not function even on a minimal level.
tg
How is the 'tribal preserve' different from a State? Clearly, the
tribe controls the trees and excludes non-tribe members from using
them. Clearly, there is scarcity, otherwise why would there be a
limit on cutting?
Your problem is to demonstrate the meaning of 'the right to cut trees'
when there are more than enough trees. That's my point below. Your
response doesn't address that either.
-tg
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie wrote
>> That seems irrelevant. And everyone works off irrational religious reasons,
Nope, quite a few dont anymore.
>> because our knowledge of the universe is extremely
>> limited and we have to proceed based on beliefs.
Wrong again, perfectly possible to proceed based on what has been
established using rigorous science and just recognise that there are
still plenty of areas where our knowledge is still very limited.
> Well put.
Nope.
> Everyone on the planet is a "person of faith".
Only in the silliest sense that some have a faith in the value of rigorous science etc.
> It is in the nature of things that we must have faith in something, even if only the five senses born to us.
You dont even need a faith in those, you can have enough of a clue to
test what those senses appear to be suggesting and check if its misleading,
particularly when the consequences of being misled are very serious.
> To have no faith in those would necessitate death.
Mindlessly silly.
> We simply could not function even on a minimal level.
Even sillier. Nothing to stop you being skeptical about what
your senses appear to be telling you etc when it matters.
*Anarcissie*
No ruling class.
> Your problem is to demonstrate the meaning of 'the right to cut trees'
> when there are more than enough trees. That's my point below. Your
> response doesn't address that either.
I don't see any logical relation between the supply of
trees and the right to cut trees. There is a nearly
infinite supply of hot air, yet the right of free speech is
often bitterly contested. In the U.S., for example, if I
make a speech which is pretty much like someone
else's speech, I may well be punished as a violator
of copyright or a plagiarist. Some jurisdictions are
even more repressive.
*Anarcissie*
No one said anything about not being skeptical. You
still have to proceed on a basis of guesswork and
assumption in a universe which is largely unknown to
you.
Rod Speed
That is just plain wrong. It has to be exactly the same before you have any legal problem.
> Some jurisdictions are even more repressive.
And some where copyright is flouted with complete impunity.
Rod Speed
>>> Well put.
>> Nope.
>> Mindlessly silly.
Its the opposite of faith.
> You still have to proceed on a basis of guesswork and
> assumption in a universe which is largely unknown to you.
No you dont when the consequences are serious, you can usually
choose to just see how things play out, like with the GFC for
example. Play safe and avoid the most risky situations etc.
Jeffrey Turner
> On Oct 27, 4:16 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> James A. Donald wrote
>>
>>> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>> What sort of 'framework'? Absent a State,
>>>> with a functioning legal system, there simply
>>>> isn't any meaning to the term 'rights'.
>>> If rights derive from the state and legislation, then
>>> Hitler, Stalin, etc, did not violate anyone's rights.
>>> Which conclusion is obviously silly.
>>> Rights are what you have AGAINST the state and in defiance of legislation.
>> Not necessarily. You also have rights againstothers not just the state.
>
> Yes but they are against the State or they are not rights.
>>> If the government gives you a "right", then it cannot be a right:
>> Mindlessly silly. Have fun explaining the Bill of Rights.
>>
> If you knew anything about the constitution you'd know that it
> doesn't
> claim to grant rights (either in the original or the amendments) only
> to
> recognise them. And the Bill of Rights has not actually guaranteed
> rights (e.g. 2nd amendment.).
So go to Myanmar and explain to the generals that the people have
unalienable rights, which they are violating. Then insist that they
stop forthwith. Make sure your will is up-to-date first. I'm sure
the generals will enjoy their laugh.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
Beam Me Up Scotty
tg
Lost me there. Let's say there is a 100% vote of tribe members that
instructs the Tribal Police to prevent anyone from cutting more than
one tree per month. Are you saying the tribe members don't constitute
a 'ruling class'?
-tg
*Anarcissie*
We don't live in a binary universe. A person may be
generally skeptical, yet believe that the earth is round
and the sun will rise in the morning.
> > You still have to proceed on a basis of guesswork and
> > assumption in a universe which is largely unknown to you.
>
> No you dont when the consequences are serious, you can usually
> choose to just see how things play out, like with the GFC for
> example. Play safe and avoid the most risky situations etc.
Actually, what most people do is look around and see
what other people are doing, and do the same thing.
This works -- some of the time. Yet it depends on
several significant unknowns.
*Anarcissie*
You're wrong about copyright, and in any case it was
just an example of the numerous limitations placed on
free expression even though there seems to be an
inexhaustible supply of it.
*Anarcissie*
I specified that the tribal preserve and the custom of limiting
the cutting of trees was a tradition. In any case, if the entire
tribes votes, it is not a class. The limit on cutting was not
imposed because of scarcity, but because the gods decreed
it in dim antiquity, and anyway, everyone knows that cutting
down more than one tree a month is piggy and gross no
matter how many trees there are. Not everyone in the world
is a liberal utilitarian.
tg
If everyone knows that it is piggy and gross, and would not deviate
from tradition, why is it necessary to impose a limit? What would the
law that the Tribal Police are enforcing say?
-tg
Rod Speed
>>>>> Well put.
>>>> Nope.
>>>> Mindlessly silly.
Yes, but while we do indeed live in a colored world, black is ALSO the opposite of white.
And up is the opposite of down, even tho we dont live in a binary world too.
> A person may be generally skeptical, yet believe that
> the earth is round and the sun will rise in the morning.
Yes, skeptical just means that the evidence is considered instead of using faith.
It does not mean that all claims are rejected.
>>> You still have to proceed on a basis of guesswork and
>>> assumption in a universe which is largely unknown to you.
>> No you dont when the consequences are serious, you can usually
>> choose to just see how things play out, like with the GFC for
>> example. Play safe and avoid the most risky situations etc.
> Actually, what most people do is look around and see
> what other people are doing, and do the same thing.
Yes, but plenty consider the case for a particular approach too.
> This works -- some of the time. Yet it depends on several significant unknowns.
Waffle.
Rod Speed
>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> acting?
>>> No ruling class.
Nope. If you restate something in your own words, there is no infringement of copyright.
> and in any case it was just an example of the
> numerous limitations placed on free expression
There is no limitation on your free expression when
you are free to restate something in your own words.
> even though there seems to be an inexhaustible supply of it.
You would have been better to use the restrictions on defamation/libel instead of copyright.
*Anarcissie*
You're wrong. If I were not lazy I would look up and
cite the cases. Of course there is some dispute, as
when someone reverse-engineers a computer program
and then writes essentially the same code.
> > even though there seems to be an inexhaustible supply of it.
>
> You would have been better to use the restrictions on defamation/libel instead of copyright.
I particularly like beating up copyright.
*Anarcissie*
Some are weak-minded and must be helped to remain
within the strictures of propriety as given by the gods.
As for the tribal police, there aren't any. People who
violate the traditions are ostracized and mysterious
bad things happen to them, doubtless instigated if not
performed by the gods.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Anarcissie wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Anarcissie wrote
>>>>> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> The idea of a socially constructed framework for an
>>>>> No ruling class.
> You're wrong.
Nope.
> If I were not lazy I would look up and cite the cases.
You wont be able to find even a single one of a conviction for copyright
infringement when someone has restated something in their own words,
even in the completely fucked US legal system.
> Of course there is some dispute, as when someone reverse-engineers
> a computer program and then writes essentially the same code.
Thats not restating something in your own words.
And look and feel is nothing like a breach of copyright of a document either.
>>> even though there seems to be an inexhaustible supply of it.
>> You would have been better to use the restrictions on
>> defamation/libel instead of copyright.
> I particularly like beating up copyright.
But cant even get the basics right on what is actually illegal.
Rod Speed
> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> acting?
>>>>> No ruling class.
There are no gods, just an endless variety of crutches for
pathetically inadequate 'minds' and a variety of con jobs
to get fools to do what they would otherwise not do.
> As for the tribal police, there aren't any. People who violate
> the traditions are ostracized and mysterious bad things happen
> to them, doubtless instigated if not performed by the gods.
Only for supersticious fools.
John Stafford
<6cb9f17c-0a28-4cbf...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is generally unwise to declare right/wrong of tricky copyright cases
that have not yet been determined by a court. Every copyright case in
the USA is determined individually in court. It is often about nuance,
and judgement varies.
> Of course there is some dispute, as
> when someone reverse-engineers a computer program
> and then writes essentially the same code.
>
> > > even though there seems to be an inexhaustible supply of it.
> >
> > You would have been better to use the restrictions on defamation/libel
> > instead of copyright.
>
> I particularly like beating up copyright.
You might enjoy the book, _ Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of
Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity_. Highly
recommended.
tg
Since you have reversed yourself from one post to the next, I feel my
point is made.
-tg
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> There is no limitation on your free expression when
>>> you are free to restate something in your own words.
>> You're wrong. If I were not lazy I would look up and cite the cases.
> It is generally unwise to declare right/wrong of tricky copyright
> cases that have not yet been determined by a court. Every
> copyright case in the USA is determined individually in court.
> It is often about nuance, and judgement varies.
And NOT ONCE has any US court EVER found that the
restatement in your own WORDS is a breach of copyright.
>> Of course there is some dispute, as when
>> someone reverse-engineers a computer program
>> and then writes essentially the same code.
Thats not WORDS.
>>>> even though there seems to be an inexhaustible supply of it.
>>> You would have been better to use the restrictions
>>> on defamation/libel instead of copyright.
>> I particularly like beating up copyright.
> You might enjoy the book, _ Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of
> Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity_. Highly recommended.
Doesnt say a damned thing about that the restatement in your own WORDS is a breach of copyright.
Jeffrey Turner
You? You hid under your covers.