Re: Crime and punishment in cyberspace - 3 of 3
The concept of "rights" is really only meaningful in the context of a group of people, a society which has agreed to band together for some purpose. But since it can't be guaranteed that anyone would be educated on the matter of observing the delineated rights, or that having been educated they would respect them and observe limits upon
themselves in regard of these rights, it would be unwise to desist from the development of the tools and systems for self-protection.
Rather than spending effort developing technology for self-protection, wouldn't it be better to spend effort developing a society in which self-protection is unnecessary? Think of all the energy and resources that would be saved if people just got along. I think the cypherpunks should redirect their efforts into the fields of genetics and human behavior. Better people make a better world. A committee should be formed to develop specifications describing a good person. The committee could then launch a program to guide society to a future where everyone met or exceeded the recommended specifications. The project would include frequent quality assurance testing to guarantee rapid convergence to the desired goals. Individuals who did not meet the specifications would be removed from the program. Citizen-Unit Miller
Rather than spending effort developing technology for self-protection, wouldn't it be better to spend effort developing a society in which self-protection is unnecessary?
[...]
Individuals who did not meet the specifications would be removed from the program.
Ahhhh, good news. This program is well underway! Many intermediate successes to report and major milestones achieved. It's never too late (or too early) to be "removed" from the program!
The concept of "rights" is really only meaningful in the context of a group of people, a society which has agreed to band together for some purpose. But since it can't be guaranteed that anyone would be educated on the matter of observing the delineated rights, or that having been educated they would respect them and observe limits upon
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.
Rather than spending effort developing technology for self-protection, wouldn't it be better to spend effort developing a society in which self-protection is unnecessary? Think of all the energy and resources
Self protection is a requirement in general against another individual and not a society.
behavior. Better people make a better world. A committee should be
Truly a eugenic concept, by change do you listen to Wagner?
Citizen-Unit Miller
Ravage (a blank)
On Thu, 9 Jun 1994, Jim choate wrote:
The concept of "rights" is really only meaningful in the context of a group of people, a society which has agreed to band together for some purpose. But since it can't be guaranteed that anyone would be educated on the matter of observing the delineated rights, or that having been educated they would respect them and observe limits upon
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 [draft a charter]
Well, that's one view of rights. However, most attempts to base so called natural rights (i.e. rights that are somehow intrinsic to human existence) have been largely unsuccesful. It's a tough argument to make. Rights are entities that are granted to individuals by governments/agencies in a position to do so. They exist only after a charter is drafted, because it is their existence in the charter that gives them their power. The most obvious response when a right is asserted is to ask where it comes from, e.g. to ask "why do you have a right to privacy?" An answer that makes sense is to say that it is implied in this country's constitution, and therefore is applicable in this country. To suggest that such a right exists independent of a legal context gets you into some pretty tricky territory. You now have to make some claim about rights that are instrinsic to human existence, which implies that these rights must be common to all forms of social organization, a claim that is real tough to make about such "rights" as privacy and property. A value can exist prior to a charter... I might say, "gee, I value privacy, and I think this value ought to be legitamized by my new charter," but until that charter has been accepted, the right doesn't exist.
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 [draft a charter]
Well, that's one view of rights. However, most attempts to base so called natural rights (i.e. rights that are somehow intrinsic to human existence) have been largely unsuccesful. It's a tough argument to make.
Seems to me the 'inalienable rights' that are mentioned in our founding charter carry this argument quite well. I suspect they also 'prove' them as well. I am really not saying anything about 'natural' rights though. The point I am making is that a government is defined by what it can and can't do. This distinction is made at its creation through its charter.
Rights are entities that are granted to individuals by governments/agencies in a position to do so. They exist only after a charter is drafted, because it is their existence in the charter that gives them their power. The most obvious response when a right is asserted is to ask where it comes from, e.g. to ask "why do you have a right to privacy?" An answer that makes sense is to say that it is implied in this country's constitution, and therefore is applicable in this country.
To suggest that such a right exists independent of a legal context gets you into some pretty tricky territory. You now have to make some claim about rights that are instrinsic to human existence, which implies that these rights must be common to all forms of social organization, a claim that is real tough to make about such "rights" as privacy and property.
Since when isn't the Constitution a legal context?
A value can exist prior to a charter... I might say, "gee, I value privacy, and I think this value ought to be legitamized by my new charter," but until that charter has been accepted, the right doesn't exist.
On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, Jim choate wrote:
Seems to me the 'inalienable rights' that are mentioned in our founding charter carry this argument quite well. I suspect they also 'prove' them as well.
Claiming that certain rights are inalieable is hardly the same as "carrying the arguement" of their inalienablility. I hold that man has an inalienable right to free and unlimited supplies of cheesecake... does the fact that I say so "prove" that this is an inalienable right?
I am really not saying anything about 'natural' rights though.
Well, by claiming that rights exist prior to the formation of the state or charter, you are claiming that they come from the state of nature, or are inherent to the human condition. This is what is meant by the phrase "natural rights."
The point I am making is that a government is defined by what it can and can't do. This distinction is made at its creation through its charter.>
Exactly. Which is why rights come into existence only *after* the charter which declares them is accepted, not before.
Since when isn't the Constitution a legal context?
The Constitution is a "legal context," that's why we can use it to justify the existence of a right... we can say, for example, freedom of the press is a right because the Constitution says so. However, freedom of the press became a right only when the Constitution declared it, and not before. This is why, for example, housing is not at present a right, no matter how much some people think it should be. Housing will become a right only if and when the state decides to declare it a right.
Edward Hirsch writes
Well, that's one view of rights. However, most attempts to base so called natural rights (i.e. rights that are somehow intrinsic to human existence) have been largely unsuccesful. It's a tough argument to make.
Not so: In some matters it is a very easy to make. While I am very interested in this topic, we have drifted away from direct relevance to the cypherpunks mailing list. My WWW page is primarily about this and related matters. I urge those interested in this topic to access ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jamesd/index.html For example if you have a text interface to the internet o you could type lynx ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jamesd/index.html If you have a graphical interface to the internet you could type mosaic ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jamesd/index.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our | property, because of the kind of animals that we | James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from | the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. | jamesd@netcom.com
Edward Hirsch writes
Well, that's one view of rights. However, most attempts to base so called natural rights (i.e. rights that are somehow intrinsic to human existence) have been largely unsuccesful. It's a tough argument to make.
Not so: In some matters it is a very easy to make.
While I am very interested in this topic, we have drifted away from direct relevance to the cypherpunks mailing list.
I disagree strongly with this view. A implicit assumption with the entire c-punks/crypto discussion is that we have a right under our charter to use this technology through our rights to privacy, etc. While it may not address the technical aspects of crypto it does address the environment it exists in. No man is an island, and neither is crypto...
My WWW page is primarily about this and related matters. I urge those interested in this topic to access
Nice advertising...
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jamesd/index.html
For example if you have a text interface to the internet o you could type
lynx ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jamesd/index.html
If you have a graphical interface to the internet you could type
mosaic ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jamesd/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our | property, because of the kind of animals that we | James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from | the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. | jamesd@netcom.com
participants (5)
-
cort -
Edward Hirsch -
jamesd＠netcom.com -
Jim choate -
jim＠bilbo.suite.com