3 ms·

That is certainly one theory of government, but it is not the only one, or probably even the most popular one. For instance, we have many laws that infringe fre

That is certainly one theory of government, but it is not the only one, or probably even the most popular one. For instance, we have many laws that infringe free speech rights, and the great majority of people are perfectly fine with that. Your platonic ideal of “rights” isn’t the way rights actually work in the real world.

betwixthewires 5y ago
"We violate rights therefore it is fine to violate rights" The whole idea of rights is that they cannot be violated, period. There's no reason to even have for example a UN Declaration on Human Rights if they can just be violated for Good Reasons™. Rights are absolute or they don't exist.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  By your logic then they don’t exist. There is no place in the world that rights have been absolute, and there never has been.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    You miss my point. It doesn't matter if it has never happened, that just means we have failed ourselves. What matters is defining the concept of rights, exploring what they mean and what they are. I'm not talking about if they exist in practice in any specific country, I'm talking about "what are rights?" Rights are things reserved for individuals to hold unilaterally, sovereign over them, no democratic process or other consideration can take them away. That's the whole idea. That's at the core of the definition of the concept. Without that, the concept of rights doesn't exist.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> For instance, we have many laws that infringe free speech rights, and the great majority of people are perfectly fine with that. I think you'll find that most people who are okay with the laws you are referencing likewise disagree that those laws infringe free speech rights, rather, they view them as operating in a space outside of the proper conception of the right to free speech; the complexity isn't as much in the operation of rights as in the parameters of rights.
- ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
  let me weigh in as one of the above sample points to say, that sounds like "sometimes that right can be infringed" with more words, which yeah, I am okay with an alternate interpretation with the exact same implications might be "that right isn't absolute", which, yeah, I am okay with ultimately it's just semantics that fails to meaningfully address GP's comment
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    It's critically different. If, as real property analogy, I have fee simple title to a parcel part of which is subject to utility easement, the utility company’s access within the scope of the easement is not an infringement of my right of exclusive control, it is outside of the scope of that right. Similarly, most people who support laws that you see as “infringing” on the right of free speech who agree that a right with that name exists view the definition of the scope of that right more narrowly than the people who see the law as an infringement.
    - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
      you've twice said "most people" don't view the "fire in a theater" analogy to be a limitation on a right, yet here I am, one of those people, telling you that yes, I do indeed view it as one
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > you've twice said "most people" don't view the "fire in a theater" analogy to be a limitation on a right, No, I haven't. In fact, I’ve said nothing in this thread about that analogy (and nothing at all about it, IIRC, on HN except [in summary form] that it has fuck-all to do with the actual law, either now or when it originally appeared as dicta in an abomination of a decision.) Nor have I said anything about what “most people” view as a “limitation” on a right. What I’ve said is about that most people who support a given law that others characterize as an “infringement” of the right do bot view it as an infringement, but as an act outside the scope of the meaning of the right. > yet here I am, one of those people Even if literally everything you said preceding this wasn't false, “one” ≠ “most”, except in a particular degenerate case where it is also “all”.

betwixthewires 5y ago

"We violate rights therefore it is fine to violate rights" The whole idea of rights is that they cannot be violated, period. There's no reason to even have for example a UN Declaration on Human Rights if they can just be violated for Good Reasons™. Rights are absolute or they don't exist.

amanaplanacanal 5y ago
By your logic then they don’t exist. There is no place in the world that rights have been absolute, and there never has been.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  You miss my point. It doesn't matter if it has never happened, that just means we have failed ourselves. What matters is defining the concept of rights, exploring what they mean and what they are. I'm not talking about if they exist in practice in any specific country, I'm talking about "what are rights?" Rights are things reserved for individuals to hold unilaterally, sovereign over them, no democratic process or other consideration can take them away. That's the whole idea. That's at the core of the definition of the concept. Without that, the concept of rights doesn't exist.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> For instance, we have many laws that infringe free speech rights, and the great majority of people are perfectly fine with that. I think you'll find that most people who are okay with the laws you are referencing likewise disagree that those laws infringe free speech rights, rather, they view them as operating in a space outside of the proper conception of the right to free speech; the complexity isn't as much in the operation of rights as in the parameters of rights.

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
let me weigh in as one of the above sample points to say, that sounds like "sometimes that right can be infringed" with more words, which yeah, I am okay with an alternate interpretation with the exact same implications might be "that right isn't absolute", which, yeah, I am okay with ultimately it's just semantics that fails to meaningfully address GP's comment
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  It's critically different. If, as real property analogy, I have fee simple title to a parcel part of which is subject to utility easement, the utility company’s access within the scope of the easement is not an infringement of my right of exclusive control, it is outside of the scope of that right. Similarly, most people who support laws that you see as “infringing” on the right of free speech who agree that a right with that name exists view the definition of the scope of that right more narrowly than the people who see the law as an infringement.
  - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
    you've twice said "most people" don't view the "fire in a theater" analogy to be a limitation on a right, yet here I am, one of those people, telling you that yes, I do indeed view it as one
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > you've twice said "most people" don't view the "fire in a theater" analogy to be a limitation on a right, No, I haven't. In fact, I’ve said nothing in this thread about that analogy (and nothing at all about it, IIRC, on HN except [in summary form] that it has fuck-all to do with the actual law, either now or when it originally appeared as dicta in an abomination of a decision.) Nor have I said anything about what “most people” view as a “limitation” on a right. What I’ve said is about that most people who support a given law that others characterize as an “infringement” of the right do bot view it as an infringement, but as an act outside the scope of the meaning of the right. > yet here I am, one of those people Even if literally everything you said preceding this wasn't false, “one” ≠ “most”, except in a particular degenerate case where it is also “all”.