The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Breaking News * Feds Arrest Website Owner (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..8..13..18..23..27~28~29~30 [Next]
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
We are already sure what a "right" is. You are the one who is trying to change the commonly accepted definition.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
No, I'm trying to stick with the established concept of "natural rights," as set forth by the likes of Hobbes, Locke, Paine, etc.

To quote Paine:

"It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice."

You are attempting to reduce rights to little more than privileges.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Now you have gone back to a metaphysical definition of rights. Paine, Hobbes, Locke, et al, were all DEISTS and based their philosophy on a principle that you have already rejected. They did NOT see rights, as you so, as rising from the concept of the ownership of ones body.

What did arise from their philosophy was the very system of government that our forebears laid out in the US Constitution - a document whose legitimacy you have constantly challenged an rejected. You should also note that Paine, in the quote you cited was referring to charters issued by the crown that established the so-called "rights" of the colonists.

THAT is the inherent contradiction in your argument that you have failed to acknowledge or address.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
You're trying to reduce the right of an owner to voluntarily do what he wants to with it; namely transfer it to another in an agreed-upon exchange. Who are you to say that person X cannot do as he pleases with his right? If Bob says, "I wrote a great book, but I'll only share it to someone who relinquishes his right to copy it for provision to third parties," and I am willing to waive that right, you as a third party are infringing on MY right by saying that I can't waive it for a bargained-for advantage. That's between Bob and me.

I think that part of the problem is that you reject the widely accepted "bundle of rights" concept of property. For instance, you argue "What has he lost?" when referring to diminished sales resulting from infringement. Analogously, I could argue that you haven't lost anything if I let myself into your house while you're not there. What's the problem with trespass? There's your house, right where you left it. As any first year law student can tell you, though, it's not "the thing"; it's the rights associated with the thing, including the right to exclude others. That's a right that can be transferred, and independently of the sale of the house.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Mr. Cassidy, just because they put a "creator" at the start does not mean their conclusions were wrong, nor that I can't agree with them. Also, in spite of an appeal to a deity, the concept os rights the formulated was still built from reasoned principles. They are not contingent on a creator, so your point becomes nothing more than a red herring at this point.

As for the constitution and the attempts at formulating a government that is "voluntarily" accepted by the people, they are simply failed experiments. People are just as beholden, if not more so, to the state now as they were to the king. Attempting to make a ruling system that was some how consistent with these principles was nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2012-02-07 11:11, LobowolfXXX wrote:
You're trying to reduce the right of an owner to voluntarily do what he wants to with it; namely transfer it to another in an agreed-upon exchange. Who are you to say that person X cannot do as he pleases with his right? If Bob says, "I wrote a great book, but I'll only share it to someone who relinquishes his right to copy it for provision to third parties," and I am willing to waive that right, you as a third party are infringing on MY right by saying that I can't waive it for a bargained-for advantage. That's between Bob and me.

I think that part of the problem is that you reject the widely accepted "bundle of rights" concept of property. For instance, you argue "What has he lost?" when referring to diminished sales resulting from infringement. Analogously, I could argue that you haven't lost anything if I let myself into your house while you're not there. What's the problem with trespass? There's your house, right where you left it. As any first year law student can tell you, though, it's not "the thing"; it's the rights associated with the thing, including the right to exclude others. That's a right that can be transferred, and independently of the sale of the house.


Lobo, can you permanently waive all your rights, and become a slave?
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2012-02-07 11:15, gdw wrote:
Mr. Cassidy, just because they put a "creator" at the start does not mean their conclusions were wrong, nor that I can't agree with them. Also, in spite of an appeal to a deity, the concept os rights the formulated was still built from reasoned principles. They are not contingent on a creator, so your point becomes nothing more than a red herring at this point.

The arguments of Paine, et al, do nothing to support your position because the fundamental premises on which they were based are completely contrary to your own. Your misrepresentation of their philosophy is the true red herring being employed here.

As for the constitution and the attempts at formulating a government that is "voluntarily" accepted by the people, they are simply failed experiments. People are just as beholden, if not more so, to the state now as they were to the king. Attempting to make a ruling system that was some how consistent with these principles was nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.


It's hardly a red herring. It is the fundamental flaw that renders your argument inconsistent. You have failed to establish that all rights flow from the premise that one owns his own body. Your statement, not mine.

We already know that you consider constitutional government to be a failed experiment. Interesting, though, that when you were asked to provide a successful example of the anarchic system you advocate, the best you could come up with was a link to an anarchist article praising a Somalian telecommunication company which has managed to survive amidst the chaos.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-02-07 11:25, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-02-07 11:11, LobowolfXXX wrote:
You're trying to reduce the right of an owner to voluntarily do what he wants to with it; namely transfer it to another in an agreed-upon exchange. Who are you to say that person X cannot do as he pleases with his right? If Bob says, "I wrote a great book, but I'll only share it to someone who relinquishes his right to copy it for provision to third parties," and I am willing to waive that right, you as a third party are infringing on MY right by saying that I can't waive it for a bargained-for advantage. That's between Bob and me.

I think that part of the problem is that you reject the widely accepted "bundle of rights" concept of property. For instance, you argue "What has he lost?" when referring to diminished sales resulting from infringement. Analogously, I could argue that you haven't lost anything if I let myself into your house while you're not there. What's the problem with trespass? There's your house, right where you left it. As any first year law student can tell you, though, it's not "the thing"; it's the rights associated with the thing, including the right to exclude others. That's a right that can be transferred, and independently of the sale of the house.


Lobo, can you permanently waive all your rights, and become a slave?

Even if one cannot, the conclusion that one can't waive ANY of them doesn't follow from the premise that one can't waive ALL of them. Can one not commit suicide, thereby permanently waiving his right to life?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-02-06 13:12, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-02-06 12:49, gdw wrote:
There are many things mislabeled "rights," often under the guise of "legal rights" which are actually privileges, this has, unfortunately, done plenty to obfuscate the issue.


Fine. Call it what you want. When I sell you a book I retain the "privilege" of exclusive copyright. And you are not granted the "privilege" of reproducing or selling it. (Nor do you have any inherent right to.)

Glad that's settled.


I think this is probably the best construction that will comport with GDW's framework. If copying is a moral right, then fine. One doesn't have the legal privilege of exercising a moral right that one has contracted out of (contracts being, by definition, legally enforceable promises). I find this no more troubling than other legal consequences for, say, exercising the right to speech by hiring someone commit murder. Actually, less so, because the limitation derives directly from one's own contract.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Devious
View Profile
Inner circle
2120 Posts

Profile of Devious
Quote:
On 2012-02-07 00:04, DanHarlan wrote:
GDW--
Oh, right. Right on. I didn't rightly understand your righteously right-angled definition of rights until right now, although it was right there, but now I think I've got it right. Please, go right ahead. After all, that's your right, right?

We were all talking about permissions and restrictions while using the generally accepted term "rights" to indicate those granted or controlled by agreement. Technically, not taking away RIGHTS, but merely agreeing that one won't do something (even if one has a RIGHT to)... which you've agreed we can agree on... as long as we don't call it a "right." Also, we might allow something by agreement that is beyond the scope of your definition of RIGHTS, and we... in our stubborn adherence to common terminology... may have mindlessly called it a "right" when, in fact, it is a permission.

I apologize for assuming you were speaking the same language as me.
--Dan Harlan

:applause:
I'm Alright Smile
Devious Deceptions
"Gadol Elohai!"
L'Chaim!
DanHarlan
View Profile
V.I.P.
Ohio
953 Posts

Profile of DanHarlan
Quote:
Speaking the same language would be the point. Words have meanings. If we are discussing whether it not one can maintain an inherent copy"right" over information in the possession of others, then we should make sure we are clear on what a "right" is.

The sun doesn't actually "rise" or "set." I get it, but you're just being a Paine. Yes, by strict adherence to technical specifics "natural inherent personal rights" (or RIGHTS) cannot ever be given or taken. Even a willing servant has the RIGHT to be free (if you even accept that as a RIGHT), but chooses not to exercise that RIGHT. No one (technically) "waives" RIGHTS... they just agree not to use one or more of their "natural inherent personal rights" for a given time. Likewise, I can't actually grant you any additional RIGHTS... I can merely grant permissions, especially in cases where your actions might restrict one or more of my RIGHTS. Also, logically, under strict adherence to the concept of RIGHTS, if I enslave you I have not taken away your RIGHTS... you still have them... I just won't let you use them.

Unnonirregardless, I know you understand the complexity of our language when it fits your agenda. Just in case... when we say "limits your rights" we actually mean "limits your permission to exercise what may be considered as your rights" and other-such-thus-and-thus-likewise. Spelling out the obvious is tedious when intelligent people already understand context. Just in case... when I say "spelling out the obvious" I'm not actually talking about SPELLING (which, by the way, is expressing a word by each of its constituent letters one-at-a-time in sequence from the first to the last), I actually mean "taking the time to explain a rudimentary concept that is easily understood."

Oh, hey, I do have a question... what gives you the RIGHT to own property?
--Dan Harlan
Visit My Site @

www.danharlanmagic.com
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2012-02-07 11:47, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-02-07 11:25, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-02-07 11:11, LobowolfXXX wrote:
You're trying to reduce the right of an owner to voluntarily do what he wants to with it; namely transfer it to another in an agreed-upon exchange. Who are you to say that person X cannot do as he pleases with his right? If Bob says, "I wrote a great book, but I'll only share it to someone who relinquishes his right to copy it for provision to third parties," and I am willing to waive that right, you as a third party are infringing on MY right by saying that I can't waive it for a bargained-for advantage. That's between Bob and me.

I think that part of the problem is that you reject the widely accepted "bundle of rights" concept of property. For instance, you argue "What has he lost?" when referring to diminished sales resulting from infringement. Analogously, I could argue that you haven't lost anything if I let myself into your house while you're not there. What's the problem with trespass? There's your house, right where you left it. As any first year law student can tell you, though, it's not "the thing"; it's the rights associated with the thing, including the right to exclude others. That's a right that can be transferred, and independently of the sale of the house.


Lobo, can you permanently waive all your rights, and become a slave?

Even if one cannot, the conclusion that one can't waive ANY of them doesn't follow from the premise that one can't waive ALL of them. Can one not commit suicide, thereby permanently waiving his right to life?


Again, no more than speaking is giving up your right to keep quiet.
We also seem to have slipped from retaining/transferring/selling rights to waiving them. If by "waive" you mean simply refraining from using/exercising/invoking ones right, then I'm sure we agree. Partially also my fault for using the term as well.

Your "right to life" is not an obligation to live, the same as your right to speak freely is not an obligation to. Breaking rights down into specifics beyond your right to do with your body and and property as you wish seems to lead to obfuscations like this, and those who protest assisted suicide as being a violation of ones right to life. We don't generally see the same conflict/concussion over your right to speak and your right to remain silent.
Both are examples of exercising the same right, based from ones control over ones own body. It is your right to choose what is done with your body, the same way entering into a boxing match is an exercise of rights, not an act of "giving up" any rights.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Mr. Harlan, yes, absolutely. Rights are not much without the liberty to use them.
But this is not about being pedantic. It's about, and, from where I've been arguing, always has been about, whether or not you have a natural right to control what other people do with their physical property, or information you give them.
Your "rights" over property come from your possession of said property. If we are to consider information property, then you have a natural "right" to do with the information you possess as you wish. You can make agreements as to whether or not you will exercise those rights, certainly, but that doesn't mean you don't have the right to copy information, nor that the originator has a natural right to a monopoly over copying said information when others possess it.

As for a right to own property, I'd love to discuss it, as it is one element that I am not 100% sold on. That is, not completely sold on the arguments put forth as I understand them, ie. Lockean homesteading. However it is one of the few things I am willing to, at least temporarily, accept for practical/pragmatic reasons.
If we cannot own (have exclusive control over an object) then how can we even eat, to over simplify it.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
The problem is not with the arguments you are not yet "sold on" but rather with the arguments you are attempting to sell.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
The arguments I'm attempting to sell are simply that you are the only one with any inherent control over your body, thus you are the only one with any natural rights over your body. Of course others posses similar rights. If your rights are over the use of your own body, and the same for others, then you obviously have no right to do to another without their consent, as they are the only ones with the right to decide for them selves. In other words, your rights end where another's begin.

If you attempt to argue against this, you are already accepting the premises. You are exercising your own control over your body to argue. Also, assuming you are attempting to engage in a discussion, you are also accepting that I control myself, as you are appealing to me to choose to engage in discourse, and potentially change my mind, as it is my mind to change. If you did not accept this, then why engage in discussion at all? Why not just force me to agree? If my rights aren't steaming from my self ownership, or you don't accept this, then why not just attempt to control me yourself?
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Down the rabbit hole we go. Or, rather, through the looking glass:

Quote:
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"


Sorry, I'm not into Humpty Dumpty logic today.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Mr. Cassidy, these arguments predate me and come from minds much greater than my own. Self ownership is simply axiomatic.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
To touch back on the "creator bestowed" rights argument, it is itself virtually a non sequitur. The presumption that a creator bestowed us with rights doesn't directly lead to WHAT the rights are. The bible doesn't exactly layout the bill of rights. Not to limit it to just the bible of course.
Even more so, considering the deist roots, there's even less to base any outline of rights on as a deist view of god is one who merely created, and then has nothing to do with us. As such there is nothing, in that world view, to even remotely consider a communication of the rights we were bestowed with, so we are left with reasoning as the actual basis for rights.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Exactly! And if reasoning, as you say, is the actual basis of rights, you've just contradicted your assertion that rights are inherent. Inherency, by definition, would predate reasoning.

You are beginning to argue with yourself.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27145 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Which creator?

How could one know if one was bestowed or not?

Dan brought up a point raised earlier (Does the cow have a right to its milk) with one of two big questions as regards the notion of rights and things in the world:
1) What gives one the right to claim ownership of a thing?
2) What accommodations do we make as regards any right that our young or frail might have, that they themselves may not exercise, yet we attribute to them nonetheless?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Breaking News * Feds Arrest Website Owner (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..8..13..18..23..27~28~29~30 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.24 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL