Tom Vogt writes:
>why am I discussing the point? because I think that most people are not
>aware that our legal framework is this arbitrary. but if it is, that
>means it can be changed. if we're not satisfied with the way that
>corporations act anymore (regarding privacy, for example) we can change
>the laws that the corporation's existence (AS a corporation) is based
>on, since there are no "natural" or "inalienable" rights that we could
>violate.
And the point I'm making is that the corporation represents the people that
own it and therefore it *does* have "natural" and "inalienable" rights and
that when you violate those rights, you violate the rights of the owners.
You seem to be saying that there's nothing wrong with simply defining away
the rights of the owners by changing the legal fine print that establishes
the government's treatment of the corporation. ("Oh, that property just
belongs to a Corporation; it doesn't belong to Real People. And the
corporation doesn't have any rights to life or liberty or property so we can
just take it if we want it.")
Well, since governments typically don't recognize the natural rights of
individuals (even those, like the United States, that give lip service to
them), I don't disagree that this has happened, is happening and will
continue to happen in the future.
But it's Wrong, and Evil, and over time inevitably leads to a government
that encompasses more and more of daily life, and regulates more and more,
and recognizes the rights of individuals less and less. The laws pile up
higher and higher, and each year at an increasing rate. And everyone,
especially cypherpunks, should fight it tooth and nail.
- GH
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
