rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ...

[Jeffrey A. Williams]

Avri and all,

  I get the impression that we are trying to parse too finly here.
An "Internet Bill of Rights" IS a political statement/document,
if and when it has been compleated.  It also is not a new idea
or concept as some here are very aware.  What's important is
IMO, what is enforcable as a "Right" stated in such a protential
document such as an "Internet Bill of Rights" that has a direct
impact to what the Internet IS, or may become.  Ergo
natural "Rights" are a set of "Rights" that are not related to
the Internet or it's use.

Avri Doria wrote:

> On 3 Sep 2008, at 15:28, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
> >
> > My understanding is that such natural rights are even narrower than
> > constitutional rights but, again,
>
> a derivation from first principles.  i think it can be argued that all
> constitutional rights can be derived from natural rights.
>
> > I am not an expert.
>
> not sure i know what that means.  i think that in this issue we are
> exploring conflicting concepts and one's degree of expertise is
> secondary.
>
> >
> >
> > As an aside, natural rights played a major role in the design of the
> > continental version of intellectual property rights. Such a natural
> > right of the author to his work doesn't exist in the american
> > copyright law. So, it seems even natural rights need to be (legally)
> > secured to keep their relevance.
>
> relevance is a funny word.  certainly if we make a tight binding of a
> right and its enforceability, then its being written into law becomes
> a measure of relevance.
>
> but i believe that if something it is a right, it is one whether there
> is an enforcement capability or not.  law and its enforcement occupy a
> certain rung on a scale of justice, but not the only rung, and one
> cannot argue that the only things that are right are those that are
> legal.  it is a safe place to hang an argument because law is a
> measure of what we have all agreed to, but it is not the measure of
> right or the measure of how far we have gotten in our agreements on
> what is right.
>
> fortunately with instruments like th UDHR, we have a basis on which to
> argue a full panoply orf rights.  wheether they have all been
> enshrined in natural constitutions of laws yet, they are there by
> reference due to one agreements in becoming members of the UN.
>
> it is empty, for example, to ague that there is no right to education
> even if the government of a particular country has not law to provide
> it as that country - if a UN member - has already committed itself to
> supplying it.  lkewise with freedom of expression and the right to
> work and to work for equal pay.  Just because countries have not yet
> enshrined these rights into law, they have agreed to them.  they may
> not be enforceable yet, but they are both derivative of natural rights
> and fundamental human rights.
>
> >
> >
> > Regarding the relationship between rights and authority I think,
> > yes, authority plays a major role on two dimensions. The one
> > dimension would be protection against authority while the other
> > would be securing rights by an authority. This all depends on one's
> > understanding of the concept of right in the first place.
>
> I agree it plays a role, what I am arguing is that it is not a
> necessary condition for rights to exist.  I would argue in fact that
> rights have priority over authority and authority that is in
> contravention to rights is not fully legitimate as authority.
>
> a.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
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