3 ms·
So first, you produce an example that literally has nothing to do with repair. Then your point about the gun is even more absurd. Depriving somebody else of the
by ksk 10y ago
So first, you produce an example that literally has nothing to do with repair. Then your point about the gun is even more absurd. Depriving somebody else of their right to life has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Sorry, you will have to excuse me as I have better things to do and do not wish to engage you further.
- twblalock 10y agoYou are very good at missing the point. Those examples demonstrate that ownership does not automatically give one the right to do whatever they want with the things they own. Therefore, one cannot assume that any right, including one to repair the things you own, is in the category of rights automatically granted by ownership. After all, not even making copies is in that category. Why would repair be?
- wfo 10y agoShooting someone is not "doing whatever you want with the things you own". Neither is copying a book. Both require that you commit an unrelated crime -- one by creating an entirely new object which violates the law, the other by committing assault with this object as you could with any other.
- randomdata 10y agoIsn't that the parent's point? If copying a book you own can be a crime, so can repairing an item you own. Both restrictions are equally arbitrary. While only one of those may be illegal today, there is no reason they couldn't both be illegal tomorrow. There is nothing inherit to ownership that prevents the latter from becoming a crime at some point.