3 ms·

If yes (and it's a big if) that's just one data point. You can just as easily argue that the industrial revolution changed the labor landscape and personal righ

If yes (and it's a big if) that's just one data point. You can just as easily argue that the industrial revolution changed the labor landscape and personal rights would have entered british common law either way. Another law that defended the rights of feudal landowners was the fugitive slave act so if there's a pattern here I'm not seeing it.

drdeca 11y ago
Well, of course not all things that benefit one group benefit everyone overall, and not everything which benefits Apple benefits us. That doesn't mean that our interests don't somewhat align with those of Apple in this case. Iirc, the Magna Carta was one of the first to establish the limitation of the powers of kings, though the direct benefeciaries were not the common persons. Analogously, I think this conflict , if it ends in Apple's favor, helps reinforce limits on the powers of the government. Is that not true? An individual, or a group of a few common people could not win against the government in a situation like this, just as the common people could not have gotten something like the Magna Carta. It seems analogous?
- awinter-py 11y ago
  Absolutist divine-right monarchy was an invention; maybe the magna carta was an early legal precedent defeating that concept in europe. But this is coming 2000 years * after * athenian democracy. What became the roman empire under legendary nut-jobs like caligula began as a republic formed from small city-states. So you can change in both directions. This is a really interesting question (and I'm not a historian so don't take my 'legal advice' here). I think it's important to distinguish between causes. Maybe industrial laborers never would have thought of forming a middle class in 18th century europe without the magna carta. Or maybe rights to life, property & due process are things anyone would choose any time the question is raised, but ordinary europeans couldn't get them until they could earn a living without negotiating with a feudal landowner. My vote is for economics. I'm not likely to ever be in the situation apple is in. I'm more concerned about the courts compelling me to give my password than compelling me to write a backdoor to a device that I sold to the DOT.

drdeca 11y ago

Well, of course not all things that benefit one group benefit everyone overall, and not everything which benefits Apple benefits us. That doesn't mean that our interests don't somewhat align with those of Apple in this case. Iirc, the Magna Carta was one of the first to establish the limitation of the powers of kings, though the direct benefeciaries were not the common persons. Analogously, I think this conflict , if it ends in Apple's favor, helps reinforce limits on the powers of the government. Is that not true? An individual, or a group of a few common people could not win against the government in a situation like this, just as the common people could not have gotten something like the Magna Carta. It seems analogous?

awinter-py 11y ago
Absolutist divine-right monarchy was an invention; maybe the magna carta was an early legal precedent defeating that concept in europe. But this is coming 2000 years * after * athenian democracy. What became the roman empire under legendary nut-jobs like caligula began as a republic formed from small city-states. So you can change in both directions. This is a really interesting question (and I'm not a historian so don't take my 'legal advice' here). I think it's important to distinguish between causes. Maybe industrial laborers never would have thought of forming a middle class in 18th century europe without the magna carta. Or maybe rights to life, property & due process are things anyone would choose any time the question is raised, but ordinary europeans couldn't get them until they could earn a living without negotiating with a feudal landowner. My vote is for economics. I'm not likely to ever be in the situation apple is in. I'm more concerned about the courts compelling me to give my password than compelling me to write a backdoor to a device that I sold to the DOT.