 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » What is a Right?... |
|
Page 8 of 8 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Rod Speed... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anarcissie wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Demon Buddha wrote
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.
No one said anything about not being skeptical.
Its the opposite of faith.
We don't live in a binary universe.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]A person may be generally skeptical, yet believe that
the earth is round and the sun will rise in the morning.
[/quote]
Yes, skeptical just means that the evidence is considered instead of using faith.
It does not mean that all claims are rejected.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Yes, but plenty consider the case for a particular approach too.
[quote]This works -- some of the time. Yet it depends on several significant unknowns.
[/quote]
Waffle. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anarcissie wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
Anarcissie <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You're wrong about copyright,
[/quote]
Nope. If you restate something in your own words, there is no infringement of copyright.
[quote]and in any case it was just an example of the
numerous limitations placed on free expression
[/quote]
There is no limitation on your free expression when
you are free to restate something in your own words.
[quote]even though there seems to be an inexhaustible supply of it.
[/quote]
You would have been better to use the restrictions on defamation/libel instead of copyright. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 11:56 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
Anarcissie <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You're wrong about copyright,
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.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
I particularly like beating up copyright. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 9:35 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 9:25 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 8:51 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 1, 1:11 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:24 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 30, 6:19 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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?
No ruling class.
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'?
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.
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?
[/quote]
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anarcissie wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
Anarcissie <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You're wrong about copyright,
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.
You're wrong.
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]If I were not lazy I would look up and cite the cases.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]Of course there is some dispute, as when someone reverse-engineers
a computer program and then writes essentially the same code.
[/quote]
Thats not restating something in your own words.
And look and feel is nothing like a breach of copyright of a document either.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
But cant even get the basics right on what is actually illegal. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anarcissie wrote
[quote]tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
Anarcissie <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
Anarcissie <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
Anarcissie <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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?
No ruling class.
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'?
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.
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?
Some are weak-minded and must be helped to remain
within the strictures of propriety as given by the gods.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Only for supersticious fools. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 6:23 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 9:35 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:25 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 8:51 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 1, 1:11 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:24 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 30, 6:19 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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?
No ruling class.
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'?
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.
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?
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.
[/quote]
Since you have reversed yourself from one post to the next, I feel my
point is made.
-tg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<6cb9f17c-0a28-4cbf-a92e-cd57806f1385 at (no spam) v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcissie at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 11:56 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) 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.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
You might enjoy the book, _ Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of
Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity_. Highly
recommended. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Stafford wrote
[quote]Anarcissie <anarcissie at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) 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.
[/quote]
And NOT ONCE has any US court EVER found that the
restatement in your own WORDS is a breach of copyright.
[quote]Of course there is some dispute, as when
someone reverse-engineers a computer program
and then writes essentially the same code.
[/quote]
Thats not WORDS.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Doesnt say a damned thing about that the restatement in your own WORDS is a breach of copyright. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:29 pm
|
|