[governance] Rights in IG research

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 18/08/2008, at 9:49 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:

>  Rights Avri, and never disputable.  To suggest such is an exercise
> in illogic of monumental proportions...  Rights either exist and are
> recognized, or they are not.  In America we have "Enailiable Rights"
> that phrase is self defining, it is not disputable legally.  It is  
> often
> disputed on the edges, and as when a dispute is attempted, it is
> usually resoundingly defeated, and pardon the pun, rightly so!
>
>  Recent Supreme court case regarding 2nd amendment right to
> bare arms is such an example of the upholding properly of
> "Enailiable Rights".  I believe this right *May* extend to the
> Internet as well, given DDOS attacks, IPhijacking, Domain
> Name Tasting, IDtheft due to poor security policies and
> practices, Whois security breaches and accuracy dificiencies,
> Fast-Fluxing, Domain Name Hijacking by Registrars a la RegistryFly,
> Godaddy, and Enom, Phishing, ect., ect...


Excuse me for saying so, but your thinking is extremely woolly here.   
Rights are indeed disputable, depending on their source.  In  
particular, the example you give of the right to bear arms under the  
US Constitution is certainly a legal right (in America), but is it  
generally also considered to be a (universal) moral right?  Absolutely  
not!  In fact you have chosen the most pilloried US constitutional  
right of all as your example.

Legally, the only universal rights are those contained in  
international law such as the International Covenant on Civil and  
Political Rights.  Morally, the content of human rights can be posited  
either by deontological (eg. Kantian) or teleological (eg.  
utilitarian) means.  Whilst the former is predominant (and  
philosophically grounds the International Covenant), in neither case  
is their content undisputable.  That is a dangerous proposition.

Going back to first principles, any universal human right posited by  
deontological means must be traced back to the fundamental human  
autonomy that is assumed to flow from their state of nature and be  
intuitively accepted by all in (at least liberal) society.  These  
include the inalienable rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of  
happiness" referred to in your Declaration of Independence, to which  
you have obliquely referred.

Much more disputable as moral rights are the legal rights contained in  
the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights.  Whilst in  
favour of such rights (eg. by Habermas) it is stated that an  
individual cannot act as an equally autonomous member of liberal  
society unless they are fed, clothed and educated, it is arguable that  
this does not require, for example, a human right to paid holidays, as  
the Covenant posits.

The right to development that Milton questions is in the same  
category, only more so because not only is it debatable as a moral  
right, but it is not even a legal right under international law.  In  
my view the right to development is an aspiration rather than a right,  
but of course it is politically convenient for those advocating for it  
to clothe their aspirations in the language of universal rights.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance