Re: Crime and punishment in cyberspace - 3 of 3
From: Jim choate "Rights are the items of a citizens characteristic which are outside the ability of that government to control within its charter. Rights come before a government forms. If they didn't then you would not be able to give it a charter." This is true in the sense that one has the right to exist and to function and in general to be oneself independent of artificial government operations. In Nature, you have a "right" to anything you like, but there may be no one besides yourself there to appreciate that fact and to deliver it. When a group of individuals associate and create agreements/charters, the delineation of rights serves to protect their separateness - their property, their privacy, their character - against encroachments from the group, by defining consciously where the boundary lines are to be drawn - what the individual can expect to keep, in exception to what everyone expects to share. Once a group considers itself an official "society" of like-minded individuals, they often begin to demand "rights" which do not naturally belong to them or their society - or which they have not explicity agreed to share: . the right to have what others have created/produced (like a service which nature does not automatically arrange for delivery - ex: optical cables & the internet at 3200 bps) . the right to access what is not their own (outside of what nature has naturally endowed them with - ex: computers) "Self protection is a requirement in general against another individual and not a society." A society of like-minded individuals can also be a threat to the safety of non-conformists, depending on how the group decides to respond to those who are not exactly like the others. Blanc
"Rights are the items of a citizens characteristic which are outside the ability of that government to control within its charter. Rights come before a government forms. If they didn't then you would not be able to give it a charter."
This is true in the sense that one has the right to exist and to function and in general to be oneself independent of artificial government operations.
In Nature, you have a "right" to anything you like, but there may be no one besides yourself there to appreciate that fact and to deliver it. When a group of individuals associate and create agreements/charters, the delineation of rights serves to protect their separateness - their property, their privacy, their character - against encroachments from the group, by defining consciously where the boundary lines are to be drawn - what the individual can expect to keep, in exception to what everyone expects to share.
Would you pray tell why these are not 'rights' under that government and why they are not as 'natural' as any other right?
Once a group considers itself an official "society" of like-minded individuals, they often begin to demand "rights" which do not naturally belong to them or their society - or which they have not explicity agreed to share:
. the right to have what others have created/produced (like a service which nature does not automatically arrange for delivery - ex: optical cables & the internet at 3200 bps)
. the right to access what is not their own (outside of what nature has naturally endowed them with - ex: computers)
Seems to me these are all results of recognizing that property is a possesion since even optical cables and such are property, either intellectual or otherwise. If a government, when formed, is given a charter which limits the ability of others to access these possessions then I hold their is an implied 'natural' right.
not a society."
A society of like-minded individuals can also be a threat to the safety of non-conformists, depending on how the group decides to respond to those who are not exactly like the others.
Only if the charter allows it. I refer you to Santyana.
Blanc
C'punks, Well, I think we've beaten the "natural rights vs. legislated rights" horse too long. Since Eric raised my consciousness about the purpose of this list, hopefully I can help put this old nag to merciful death. For the purposes of this list, it is *irrelevant* whence right arise. Whether "privacy" is a right, a privilege or whatever, Cypherpunks want it. We are in the business of securing privacy by whatever means are practical. To a large degree this means via technology, but we'll graciously accept political solutions if they work. No matter what side you of the "natural rights" question you are on, as a Cypherpunk, you still want privacy. Please let's drop this divisive, time-consuming debate and get back to the code-writing work at hand. With courage and technology, we can have the privacy we want irrespective of what "they" have in mind for us. S a n d y
participants (3)
-
Blanc Weber -
Jim choate -
Sandy Sandfort