2 ms·

I'm not sure you can cede certain rights and, even if so, I'm still not okay with it. Just because something isn't against the law does not mean I'm okay with i

by KGIII 9y ago

I'm not sure you can cede certain rights and, even if so, I'm still not okay with it. Just because something isn't against the law does not mean I'm okay with it. If this is how it works, it is broken. Require an injunction from a court of law, perhaps? It's broken. Please fix it.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> I'm not sure you can cede certain rights and, even if so, I'm still not okay with it. Sure, you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't contract away your right to vote, and there are some others. Your interest in transferable property like a domain name, you absolutely can cede, in whole or in part, by contract. That's what makes markets work. > Just because something isn't against the law does not mean I'm okay with it. What, specifically, are you not okay with? What are the bounds of the limits of the right to contract that out want to impose to correct it?
- KGIII 9y ago
  I'd start with the ability to take away their property without any oversight, independent authority, and appeal process. You shouldn't even be able to cede that right by contract. A private company took their property. I'm not okay with that. I'd probably be willing to compromise and say they have to give them five business days to move the domain name. It's not like DNS is hard to host. I'd rather they be forced to use some sort of independent body, complete with appeals and representation. Markets work because of property rights. While the registrars have some, they are the least harmed. This isn't something I'm comfortable with, even if it's Nazis. I'd much rather it go through some sort of court/arbitration prior to revocation. They weren't abusing the service, they were just being crappy people. Which, I might add, seems to be a running theme for Nazis.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I'd start with the ability to take away their property without any oversight, independent authority, and appeal process. There is oversight, independent authority, and appeal process as long as the courts are open. And the property isn't “taken away”, though there is a temporary impairment of its use. > You shouldn't even be able to cede that right by contract. That makes no sense if you can cede the property itself by contract. Even if the degree of arbitrary control you suggest was done it would be identical to ceding the underlying property and recieving back limited and terminable use from the party to whom it had been ceded. Clearly, in a world where you can transfer the property, you should be able to do this, as well. > A private company took their property No, they absolutely did not.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      So, if bring your car back, sixty days after taking it, it wasn't taken away? They took their property. They are deprived of its use. It really can't be more clear. That they may get it back later doesn't mean it wasn't taken.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > So, if bring your car back, sixty days after taking it, it wasn't taken away? If you give me your car as part of a contracted arrangement where, in certain circumstances, you will temporarily lose your access to it, then I haven't taken it from you, even if those circumstances materialize (as a result of your action or otherwise.) I may have denied you access to it, but that happens all the time, with all kinds of property, in contracted relationships, without prior involvement of an outside arbiter.
        KGIII 9y ago
        And there are many times when this can not happen. Example? Eviction. That requires a process, complete with appeals. Good. Do that. This is not okay, even if Nazis suck.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > And there are many times when this can not happen. Example? Eviction. That requires a process, complete with appeals. Good. Sure. Now where is the argument that the special protection granted to real property tenants but not applied to most other contractual property arrangements should be paralleled for domain name registration? > This is not okay, even if Nazis suck. Repetition of a conclusion is not an argument for it.

by KGIII 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

> I'm not sure you can cede certain rights and, even if so, I'm still not okay with it. Sure, you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't contract away your right to vote, and there are some others. Your interest in transferable property like a domain name, you absolutely can cede, in whole or in part, by contract. That's what makes markets work. > Just because something isn't against the law does not mean I'm okay with it. What, specifically, are you not okay with? What are the bounds of the limits of the right to contract that out want to impose to correct it?

KGIII 9y ago
I'd start with the ability to take away their property without any oversight, independent authority, and appeal process. You shouldn't even be able to cede that right by contract. A private company took their property. I'm not okay with that. I'd probably be willing to compromise and say they have to give them five business days to move the domain name. It's not like DNS is hard to host. I'd rather they be forced to use some sort of independent body, complete with appeals and representation. Markets work because of property rights. While the registrars have some, they are the least harmed. This isn't something I'm comfortable with, even if it's Nazis. I'd much rather it go through some sort of court/arbitration prior to revocation. They weren't abusing the service, they were just being crappy people. Which, I might add, seems to be a running theme for Nazis.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I'd start with the ability to take away their property without any oversight, independent authority, and appeal process. There is oversight, independent authority, and appeal process as long as the courts are open. And the property isn't “taken away”, though there is a temporary impairment of its use. > You shouldn't even be able to cede that right by contract. That makes no sense if you can cede the property itself by contract. Even if the degree of arbitrary control you suggest was done it would be identical to ceding the underlying property and recieving back limited and terminable use from the party to whom it had been ceded. Clearly, in a world where you can transfer the property, you should be able to do this, as well. > A private company took their property No, they absolutely did not.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    So, if bring your car back, sixty days after taking it, it wasn't taken away? They took their property. They are deprived of its use. It really can't be more clear. That they may get it back later doesn't mean it wasn't taken.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > So, if bring your car back, sixty days after taking it, it wasn't taken away? If you give me your car as part of a contracted arrangement where, in certain circumstances, you will temporarily lose your access to it, then I haven't taken it from you, even if those circumstances materialize (as a result of your action or otherwise.) I may have denied you access to it, but that happens all the time, with all kinds of property, in contracted relationships, without prior involvement of an outside arbiter.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        And there are many times when this can not happen. Example? Eviction. That requires a process, complete with appeals. Good. Do that. This is not okay, even if Nazis suck.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > And there are many times when this can not happen. Example? Eviction. That requires a process, complete with appeals. Good. Sure. Now where is the argument that the special protection granted to real property tenants but not applied to most other contractual property arrangements should be paralleled for domain name registration? > This is not okay, even if Nazis suck. Repetition of a conclusion is not an argument for it.