3 ms·
> we have an inalienable right to travel. That doesn't mean we have to travel. But isn't that what "right" already means?
by ggambetta 9y ago
> we have an inalienable right to travel. That doesn't mean we have to travel.
But isn't that what "right" already means?
- nolok 9y agoNo. You have some rights you can waive away. Remember that "warranty void if removed" sticker from a few days ago, or eula in general? Inalienable rights can't be taken off, even by yourself.
- ggambetta 9y agoI'm not referring to that part. I'm confused because OP says "an inalienable right to travel [...] doesn't mean you have to travel", but it seems to me that you don't need "inalienable" for that - "a right to travel" by itself also doesn't mean you have to travel.
- tzs 9y agoRight (no pun intended). In general, a right to X means you can do X, not that you have to do X. But the original article said that the new law would add an inalienable right to remuneration, and said that meant publishers would be required to demand payment. That made it sound like when a right is inalienable in the EU, you must exercise it. In the US, inalienability affects how hard it is for others to stop you from exercising the right, both intentionally and unintentionally. It is still your choice whether or not to actually exercise it, and depending on the particular right you may also be able to freely agree by contract to not exercise it.
- PeterisP 9y agoIf you have a right to travel, then you can agree that you won't travel. If you have an inalienable right to travel, then you can travel no matter what, and can't enter into a binding agreement that you won't travel; you can publicly declare that you won't and sign an agreement expressing that you won't, and then do it anyway.
- eecc 9y agoWell apparently you can agree to forfeit rights unless they’re inalienable