Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For example, the freedom to earn a living
The freedom to *attempt* to earn a living is all that I can justify. If someone chooses a business model that infringes the rights of other people, there's no "right to earn a living" doing that. Likewise, if someone just chooses a *stupid* business model, or even fails utterly at a *good* business model, they don't have "the right to earn a living" regardless. > ability to control one's labour I don't see how an author has any right to control their labour that extends beyond *where they put* their labour. Once they've given their labour in exchange for some mutual consideration, they have no "right" to control what the other party does with it; just as a person whistling a tune has no "right" to control what I do with that tune once it's in my head. The dividing line I draw is: freedom is being able to determine one's own actions and thoughts, without harming or being harmed by others. Extending that to attempts to restrict or enforce actions by others is going beyond freedom into *power* over others, which is *not* a right. -- \ "The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must | `\ not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true." | _o__) —Albert Einstein | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
