On 5/19/06, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Notice that I said "freedom" and not "rights".
I believe that forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is morally wrong.
This -- the difference between "freedom" and "rights" -- is a very important distinction. (And I think that most people don't really realize how important it is.)
"Freedom" is something you either have or something that someone has taken away from you. (Also, as a side note, you have "liberty" when you have "freedom".)
"Rights" are something granted to you.
Now, a "right" could try to embody a "freedom". (And this has caused some people to use the word "right" and "freedom" as if they were synonyms -- as if they meant the same thing. When, in fact, they have completely different meanings.)
But often "rights" do NOT embody a "freedom".
(For example, patent law [which was created to promote the sciences and useful arts] grants people "rights" to a state enforced monopoly. But patent law does NOT embody a "freedom". In fact, it takes away freedom. The people who created patent law had good intentions . They wanted to promote the sciences and useful arts. However, the enforcement of patent law still forcibly takes away people's freedom.)
(As I mentioned somewhere else in this conversation) I find it better to rewrite sentences that use the word "rights" in terms of the word "freedom". It makes things much much clearer.
So,... if you'll indulge me... think about what is being suggested to be done to the (people at the) Telco and Cable cartels. And think about it in terms of "freedom" instead of "rights".
Are they having their freedom taken away? (Forget about if you like or hate these Telco and Cable cartels. Forget about if you like or hate how they are trying to make a Tiered Internet. And forget about the "rights" the government grants you, and just consider "freedom". Are they having their freedom taken away?)
I think they are. (You of course will need to decide this for yourself.)
Now consider this. Is it morally wrong to forcibly take away someone else's freedom?
I believe it is. (You of course will need to decide this for yourself.)
(If you don't believe this, then fair enough,... but then we should probably have another discussion because believing that forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is NOT morally wrong means that you MUST also believe that slavery is NOT morally wrong.)
If you do in fact believe that forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is morally wrong, and you believe that the (people at the) Telco and Cable cartels are having their freedom forcibly taken away, then you must also believe that this is morally wrong (regardless of whether you like them or what they are doing).
See ya
Short answer... Yes, I believe such laws are wrong.
Long answer... it is actually the enforcement of that law that could potentially be a wrongful act. Basically, it depends on what is or isn't done. Did someone have their freedom forcibly taken away from them. If so, then something morally wrong was done.
But, I do understand that there were good intentions in creating laws like these. However, other methods should have been used. (I probably sound like a broken record but....) The road to hell is payed with good intentions. And,.... The ends do NOT justify the means.
See ya
On 5/19/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I do NOT want to see a Tiered Internet. However, I must keep my morals. And given I believe that forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is morally wrong. Then I must also believe that regulating the Internet (even to prevent a Tiered Internet) is morally wrong too.I would argue that you are leaving out a key point .... forcibly taking away someones rights is a VERY different thing from from making a law that prevents that someone from infringing on an others rights.
Notice that I said "freedom" and not "rights".
I believe that forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is morally wrong.
This -- the difference between "freedom" and "rights" -- is a very important distinction. (And I think that most people don't really realize how important it is.)
"Freedom" is something you either have or something that someone has taken away from you. (Also, as a side note, you have "liberty" when you have "freedom".)
"Rights" are something granted to you.
Now, a "right" could try to embody a "freedom". (And this has caused some people to use the word "right" and "freedom" as if they were synonyms -- as if they meant the same thing. When, in fact, they have completely different meanings.)
But often "rights" do NOT embody a "freedom".
(For example, patent law [which was created to promote the sciences and useful arts] grants people "rights" to a state enforced monopoly. But patent law does NOT embody a "freedom". In fact, it takes away freedom. The people who created patent law had good intentions . They wanted to promote the sciences and useful arts. However, the enforcement of patent law still forcibly takes away people's freedom.)
So,... if you'll indulge me... think about what is being suggested to be done to the (people at the) Telco and Cable cartels. And think about it in terms of "freedom" instead of "rights".
Are they having their freedom taken away? (Forget about if you like or hate these Telco and Cable cartels. Forget about if you like or hate how they are trying to make a Tiered Internet. And forget about the "rights" the government grants you, and just consider "freedom". Are they having their freedom taken away?)
I think they are. (You of course will need to decide this for yourself.)
Now consider this. Is it morally wrong to forcibly take away someone else's freedom?
I believe it is. (You of course will need to decide this for yourself.)
(If you don't believe this, then fair enough,... but then we should probably have another discussion because believing that forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is NOT morally wrong means that you MUST also believe that slavery is NOT morally wrong.)
If you do in fact believe that forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is morally wrong, and you believe that the (people at the) Telco and Cable cartels are having their freedom forcibly taken away, then you must also believe that this is morally wrong (regardless of whether you like them or what they are doing).
See ya
Is it wrong to make a law that prevents discrimination against a group of people just because that law would remove the right to have a discriminatory school or business?
Short answer... Yes, I believe such laws are wrong.
Long answer... it is actually the enforcement of that law that could potentially be a wrongful act. Basically, it depends on what is or isn't done. Did someone have their freedom forcibly taken away from them. If so, then something morally wrong was done.
But, I do understand that there were good intentions in creating laws like these. However, other methods should have been used. (I probably sound like a broken record but....) The road to hell is payed with good intentions. And,.... The ends do NOT justify the means.
See ya
Making a law that takes away the right to act in a way that violates someone elses right ... isn't an immoral regulation. And I'd argue its not taking away a right at all ... its protecting one.
--
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
Make Television http://maketelevision.com/
SPONSORED LINKS
| Fireant | Individual | Typepad |
| Use | Explains |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
