Gil Hamilton wrote:
> >I guess that's just the government demonstrating the point I'm making,
> >namely that it can take away at any time what it has given.
> >
> >it could also be the big bully showing the wannabe bully who's got more
> >muscle.
>
> OK, now I've got your definition of "right". It comes from the barrel of a
> gun. There's no fundamental principle here. No "right". Just bald force.
> Not much point in discussing it further then.
ehm, I actually didn't say that. I said that this is true for ARTIFICIAL
rights, like those of corporations. I would definitely not say that my
right to live, or speak, depends on guns. however, the right of a
corporation to, say, use a patentent technology to the exclusion of
everyone else, definitely depends on someone enforcing that artificial
restriction.
> >umpf, actually not. "good deal" here is definitely in the sense that
> >it's a the best one you'll get. try running a business NOT along the
> >lines the government has defined for you and you'll see what I mean.
>
> "Your rights are exactly what we tell you they are. And you'd better hope
> we don't change our minds about it."
that's what men with guns usually say, yes.
> >we are now again speaking about the "natural" and "inalienable" rights
> >of people, right?
>
> Well, I was. Hard to reconcile that with the definition that says a right
> is "whatever the Men With Guns decide to allow".
see above. this is one of the differences I see. add "artificial"
between "says a" and "right is" and I agree.
> This discussion has been very illuminating. It has shown that
> European-style privacy laws, at their most basic level and despite the
> high-minded rhetoric, represent theft of someone else's property (or, if you
> prefer, denial of a "natural right"). Not that most of us didn't already
> know that, but it's been interesting to observe as we dug through the layers
> of justification. There at the bottom is, in your words, the "big bully
> showing ... who's got more muscle."
oh, come on - you're not that simple. I was offering three different
(and conflicting) words on what people usually say about the M$ vs. DoJ
thing. I didn't say which one I believe is right. (I wouldn't dare - I
have such a strong opinion about M$ that my judgement is definitely
flawed.)
besides, I hardly represent europe. :)
