I'm asking for more rights, not restrictions (was Re: Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?)

[mindfuq at comcast.net]

* Jim Choate <ravage at einstein.ssz.com> [2003-08-02 23:06]:
> 
> > This is a cop out.
> 
> No, you asked for an explanation. The book is an excellent one. Just
> another example of you wanting somebody else to do it for you.

Right, the book may be an explanation of law and democracy- no one is
arguing that, but you're statement is a cop out, because you're not
willing to back your statements with a supporting arguement.  "Go read
a book" fails as a supporting argument because it lacks the connection
you're trying to draw with your statement.

> > Speak for yourself.
> 
> I never speak for others, that's their job.

Then don't try to use someone elses book as your words.

> > For all we know, you didn't read this book.
> 
> Irrelevant.

This is relevent, because by not drawing connections necessary to
support your argument, you're not offering any reason for your readers
to believe that reading this book will add any support to your
statements.

> For all we know you can't read. You might be having somebody else read and
> write this text that supposedly comes from you. Not my problem or of any
> interest to me really.

Now this is irrelevant, because even if I couldn't read, my arguments
would still stand.  I could be blind, doesn't matter.

> By the way your commentary is a ad hominim attack and tends to weaken your
> argument.

To point out an ad hominem attack is not an argument to begin with, so
there's no argument to weaken here.  It merely points out a fallacious
argument, if anything to help you, because your reader already
disposed of your ad hominem, and it already reflected poorly on you.
Consider it "help", FYI, for future reference.  There's no reason to
hold back a netettiquite lesson when one is due.  

Everyone could smell the bullshit.  All I did was identify what kind
of bullshit it was and slapped a label on it for confirmation.  You
shouldn't consider ad hominems as a form of counter attack, or an
arguement that is weak or strong, but rather just feedback that your
argument in question failed to be effective.  Making an ad hominem
argument is just like making no argument at all.

Some people in forums have developed a way to embed ad hominems in
good intellectual content, but your ad hominems are coming out in a
pure form.  You should try to at least inject some intellect into your
ad hominems so we can all get something from them.  If you don't at
least do this much, you'll end up getting filtered out in peoples
procmail scripts.

> > explain why you think I miss the purpose of law in a democracy.
> 
> Your commentary.

So you have nothing to add to this?  An argument that goes unaddressed
is also an argument lost, so if you leave this alone, it will fail to
be effective, just as your ad hominem failed to be effective.

> >  If you don't, your argument falls with it's own dead weight
> 
> If I don't what, explain my self? I did, I suggest that you read "We". My
> argument at no point requires 'We' and I've explained my views much better
> than you have.

Again, you haven't made any sort of philosophical connection between
your unsupported comment and this book.  Basically, you copped out of
the argument.

> > - one beauty of free speech: ideas without merit fall,
> 
> That's a laughable one. How come religions like Christianity still hang
> around then? Peoples belief that gay marriage is a sin and will cause the
> collapse of western civilization? Or that government is 'good'?

No one said YOU had to agree with an idea for it to have merit.

> > good ideas are carried as far as they're worth.
> 
> Not hardly. If that were so then this discussion would have been resolved
> 200 years ago. It isn't, and it won't be 200 (or 2,000 for that matter)
> years from now. Your thesis is bogus.

The problem is that you're analyzing this from a bipolar perspective.
It's actually a fallacy to argue that there are only two sides to
something, and one must be the correct one.  This is what you're
implying by expecting a quick resolution.  Multiple competing ideas
often have merit.  Just because one perspective is a good one, does
not mean the competing ideas are worthless.  Because the idea of
absolute unequaled free speech is a good one, and ideas that limit
free speech also have merit and support from the greatest thinkers of
our time, you can't expect a quick resolution, despite the fact that
you can only see one side to this as being one with any strength.

> > > Actually it's a perfect comparison. Anyone can put stuff on your front
> > > porch. They can't take it away or read it, that is using personal property
> > > without permission. Hence, people have a -right- to send you mail. They
> > > don't have a right to read your mail without permission.
> >
> > No one has this right.  There is no inherent right to put stuff on
> > someones front porch.
> 
> Right to speak and press. People have a right to speak their mind and they
> have a right to use a press to spread it around.

Yes, as long as it doesn't interfere with other rights.  As soon as it
does, you can't expect all rights can win protection.

> You better talk to a lawyer and do some deeper thinking. People have a
> right to contact you, you have the right to tell them to go away. You
> don't have the right to be hermit.

They don't have a right to contact me in certain ways.  ie. they don't
have a right to break my door down to make contact with me.  They may
have a right to contact me if they use a form of contact that doesn't
infringe on my rights.  And, correct, I don't have an inherent right
to be a hermit.  Your point?

> Your views of 'individualism' are the exact sort that Hayek and others
> warn against.

Why would they warn against this?

> >  And yes, to remove any doubt, I can put up a
> > sign making it clear that such an act is trespassing.
> 
> That is correct, YOU are responsible for it. And even that is a perfect
> defence since there is still a public access to your property where it
> meets public property, an easment (ie the place where a sidewalk goes). In
> most cities it ranges from 3 to 4 ft. from the curb. That property is managed
> under imminent domain concepts even though you are responsible for its
> upkeep and such.

What's your point here?

> > I don't know if people have a right to send me mail; but my argument
> > is that reguardless of whether they have this right, I should have a
> > private right of action to claim $500 per spam mail.
> 
> I have no problem with a 'private right', sue in civil court till the cows
> come home. That's not what you're talking about or promoting.

This is *exactly* what I'm advocating.  I want to have a private right
action against spammers, and I want that to be a protected right via
tort law.

> You're talking about of both sides of your face.

Lost ya there.