4 ms·
The whole thing about rights is that you do not have to pay for them. If I have a right to vote, you cannot justify doing something that denies me the option to
by mannykannot 5y ago
The whole thing about rights is that you do not have to pay for them. If I have a right to vote, you cannot justify doing something that denies me the option to vote by claiming it is worth something to me.
I am principally concerned here with the actions of organizations that create problems for third parties, such as when their actions, or failure to act, facilitate fraud against people who are not their customers.
- kube-system 5y agoWhat makes you think there is no financial cost to the right to vote? https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/election-costs.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electi... It’s a cost we can all agree on, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
- mannykannot 5y agoI didn't say it does not exist, I said it does not work as a justification for actions that infringe on rights.
- kube-system 5y agoSure, especially when we’re talking about rights that are almost universally agreed upon. But it could be a good justification for something like “the right to talk to customer support for Candy Crush”. The OP didn’t specify which companies he was trying to contact.
- mannykannot 5y agoIt was the originator of this thread (endsleigh) who framed the issue in terms of rights and their value. I am pointing out that this is not a useful way to look at it. Here, you are asking, in effect, whether a Candy Crush player has any such right in the first place, and I think it is completely reasonable to say they do not in such trivial matters. As I mentioned in my original post, I am mainly concerned with third parties, several of whom have shown up in the broader discussion, but customers and ex-customers could have reasonable issues with retroactive policy changes to issues such as privacy.