BT and TalkTalk challenge Digital Economy Act

[JJMcClure]

For people like me all rights come from other humans - whether by law, custom or agreement.

Such as?

[christopheravell]

My whole point is that rights are nothing more than wants, what else could they be? Were cavemen born with the right to a good education, or to abort their babies, or to have freedom of speech? Of course not, those things didn't exist in their context, in fact back then cavemen had the right to take other people's wives if they were bigger or stronger. Aztec priests had the right to sacrifice people. The spanish inquisition had the right torture people (the CIA seem to think they have he same right). It's only since we became 'civilised' that we have time for indulgences like social housing and privacy so now we want these things we consider those to be our right too.

Rights are simply wishful thinking made real by majority action. Anything you can think of can be labled a 'right', if you want it and enough people agree with you, it's your right. Utterly meaningless unless you can enforce it.

Rights are abilities not limited by anyone or anything who has authority over you. Be it government, God, or the caveman next cave over. Essentially everything is your right until it is taken from you; your "rights" therefore represent your abilities. So, in essence in a pure philosophical sense, we all (with some exception) have the same rights because rights are not grated but are in fact taken away. Without any limits, there are unlimited rights. So the context is simply backwards. Rights are not wants they are things we are capable of doing that have not had boundaries applied to them by those in authority.

[JJMcClure]

Essentially everything is your right until it is taken from you;

Exactly, so they're pretty meaningless and arbitrary really aren't they if anything you can imagine is your right. We're not born with 'rights', they're not intrinsic or inherent, we can't even agree on what should be a right and what shouldn't, we just decide what they are when the need arises and if we can't enforce them then they're a waste of brain space and we certainly shouldn't be basing debates on them.

So, we have no right to privacy, we just have some people who want it, and some who aren't bothered or disagree and some who have more pressing concerns and would laugh at something so trivial as a desire for privacy.

[christopheravell]

Exactly, so they're pretty meaningless and arbitrary really aren't they if anything you can imagine is your right. We're not born with 'rights', they're not intrinsic or inherent, we can't even agree on what should be a right and what shouldn't, we just decide what they are when the need arises and if we can't enforce them then they're a waste of brain space and we certainly shouldn't be basing debates on them.

So, we have no right to privacy, we just have some people who want it, and some who aren't bothered or disagree and some who have more pressing concerns and would laugh at something so trivial as a desire for privacy.

Well, actually I am saying kind-of the opposite. We are born with every right (based on our abilities) and they are taken away. Our right to privacy is based on our ability to keep something private. Right now, we basically all have the right to privacy of our thoughts. We have that right because we have the ability to keep our thoughts private. In the future, this right could be taken away (mind reading technology - wowzers!) So rights are not something we want, it is something we have the ability to achieve that hasn't been taken away. Some people want to RETAIN that ability (to keep things private) and others do not care... What was this thread about anyway? Do we have the right to change the subject mid-thread? It appears so -- because we have the ability unless Clinton takes it away that is...

[Clinton]

We are born with every right (based on our abilities) and they are taken away.

I can align myself with that.

Till we become a communist country in which case I reserve the right to reverse my opinion on rights.

[JJMcClure]

We are born with every right (based on our abilities) and they are taken away.

So, we're 'born with' rights huh. Is that everyone? Because the second someone somewhere doesn't think they're born with the same rights that you think you're born with it makes a mockery of the whole concept, you can't have some people born with some rights and some other people born with some other rights. What about back dating rights, did cavemen have the right to privacy? Of course not so that means rights materialise according to current requirements making them pretty arbitrary, they don't exist unless someone wants them.

And lastly, it just doesn't matter what you think you're rights are if you can't enforce them so that makes them a bit pointless. All in all, rights aren't worth the effort we've all put into discussing them. Let's talk about laws instead, at least they make sense. If you're legally entitled to your privacy, that's entirely different and entirely more meaningful than having the right to privacy which menas nothing whatsoever.

[christopheravell]

So, we're 'born with' rights huh. Is that everyone? Because the second someone somewhere doesn't think they're born with the same rights that you think you're born with it makes a mockery of the whole concept, you can't have some people born with some rights and some other people born with some other rights. What about back dating rights, did cavemen have the right to privacy? Of course not so that means rights materialise according to current requirements making them pretty arbitrary, they don't exist unless someone wants them.

No, everyone is born with the same rights... They are just taken away. Do you have the right to murder me? No -- why? Because someone has taken that right away. Cavemen were born with the right to privacy -- you are misunderstanding the concept. Something becomes a right when it is an ability you have that isn't taken away. If you were born in the world alone (with no authority), with nobody else around you would have the "right" to do anything you wanted to do because there would be nobody to take away your "rights". Rights are NOT established on what is allowed, they are established on what is not taken away. Therefor we are all born with the same rights; some people just have those rights taken away immediately.

[JJMcClure]

No, everyone is born with the same rights... They are just taken away. Do you have the right to murder me? No -- why? Because someone has taken that right away. Cavemen were born with the right to privacy -- you are misunderstanding the concept. Something becomes a right when it is an ability you have that isn't taken away. If you were born in the world alone (with no authority), with nobody else around you would have the "right" to do anything you wanted to do because there would be nobody to take away your "rights". Rights are NOT established on what is allowed, they are established on what is not taken away. Therefor we are all born with the same rights; some people just have those rights taken away immediately.

Could have sworn I answered this already but my post aint here so maybe I imagined it.

You're talking about ideas Christpoher, that's all a right is, an idea. They don't physically exist, they don't come as part of being human, it's just something we made up and they remain in the realm of made up until someone enforces them. The only reason I don't have the right to murder you is that the majority of people agree with you that no one should have that right, but not everyone..... There are plenty of people throughout history who believed they had the right to murder who they wanted and promptly did so in their hundreds and thousands and even millions sometimes. They had the right because they thought they did and were able to enforce it, I bet the royal mass murderers would even argue they were born with the right.

All the people they murdered who thought they had a right not to be murdered? Guess they were wrong. So unless the majority agree, rights mean nothing and that makes them flexible and arbitrary and entirely subjective.

[Clinton]

I don't know what happened to your post, Rich.

An idea is distinct from a right in that it's a product of a sentient mind. A patient's rights aren't affected because his comatose mind prevents him from forming ideas, but because his body prevents him from enforcing those rights.

Most rights we consider our basic and human rights come from legislation. However, there are rights that derive from our very existence - moral rights. Apartheid in Africa: Blacks didn't have the same legal rights but the rest of the world argued - quite correctly - that they had the same moral rights.

Many famous philosophers have, like you, questioned the legitimacy of moral rights and raised interesting questions about conflict of rights. The "right" to take the life of someone who has the right to keep it would, I suppose, be one such conflict.

[JJMcClure]

An idea is distinct from a right in that it's a product of a sentient mind. A patient's rights aren't affected because his comatose mind prevents him from forming ideas, but because his body prevents him from enforcing those rights.

You're talking about rights as if they'd exist even if we didn't and are an indisputable, tangible fact of nature and that we didn't make them up and that's where we disagree. They're just an idea, like a country or democracy, just shared ideas. Strangely, no one ever believes in a right that actually makes life harder for them, somehow they always favour the person espousing them.

As for the patient not being able to enforce his rights, that's what I've been saying all along, they're meaningless if you can't enforce them because they're not written in stone and indisputable and actionable without question.

Most rights we consider our basic and human rights come from legislation. However, there are rights that derive from our very existence - moral rights. Apartheid in Africa: Blacks didn't have the same legal rights but the rest of the world argued - quite correctly - that they had the same moral rights.

We can divide rights into different types? What other kind of rights are there as well as moral?

Many famous philosophers have, like you, questioned the legitimacy of moral rights and raised interesting questions about conflict of rights. The "right" to take the life of someone who has the right to keep it would, I suppose, be one such conflict.

That's just one of many conflicts about rights, it's just one more aspect of them that ultimately makes them meaningless. Talk to me about laws because they make sense, but the second anyone mentions 'rights' all I hear is 'what I want or happen to believe'...