rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ...

[Parminder]

> I like that, the old "as long as we can afford it" clause. ALAWCAI. If
> Parminder adds that to all his positive rights claims the
> realist/economist in me will be satisfied, or at least abate.

Thanks again. Accordingly, I have suggested a tentative 'may' to be added in
the part on positive and collective rights. Hope you can agree to this.

As for "the old "as long as we can afford it" (ALAWCAI) clause, you know
that some kind of ALAWCAI is applicable to all rights, even to the negative
ones. 

You yourself mention article 29 of UDHR as an ALAWCAI clause. Within this
group we have provisions in the charter that can be used to 'limit' what may
be considered by someone as his FoE. For certain kinds of postings we can
limit posting rights and or unsubscribe a list participant altogether. We
are limiting some's FoE just because we collectively (a word you hate)
cannot afford it, right. 

Do you not agree with this ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this list?

In fact in light of certain recent behavior on this list, about which I ma
getting many complaints, it may be found necessary collectively (again) to
revisit the ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this list, because we may have
discovered that there are some other kinds of behavior which one may
consider his FoE, but it may not be possible for the group to 'afford' if we
have to remain effective etc.

> (I should add that in some of these linguistic equality cases I would
> actually opt for requiring people to pay for it. For example, if voting
> is done by Internet in a multilingual society, or if an international
> institution produces authoritative documents, then I think individuals
> in major linguistic groups have a right to demand that ballots or
> translations of laws/policies be made available to them. Even if it does
> cost more. Because it affects the basic individual right to political
> representation and voice, on which most other rights hinge. But there is
> still some kind of a ALAWCAI clause in there, because no society can
> cater to all of the very small linguistic groups that might exist)

You know, when you say that you agree to what you agree to above, we are
really far away form each other in our views. No one advocates rights in
manner that will jeopardize the way our society and economy works, and the
basic needs for incentives to work, and economic awards as per incentive. It
is only for conditions that fall outside what *normal* working of the
society and economy covers that the meaning of these rights - positive as
well as collective - becomes operational. You described one special
circumstance above where the 'collective' may need to 'pay' for fulfilling
someone's right. Others are able to think of some other situations like this
one. We all do agree that we need to be cautious in balancing rights, and
the basic requirements of healthy working of the society (and the economy.

Parminder 



Parminder 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:34 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tapani Tarvainen
> Subject: RE: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ...
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org]
> > But perhaps I should yield to the more forgiving interpretation that
> > such rights are implicitly limited by circumstances, have an implicit
> > "as long as we can afford it" -clause.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> I like that, the old "as long as we can afford it" clause. ALAWCAI. If
> Parminder adds that to all his positive rights claims the
> realist/economist in me will be satisfied, or at least abate.
> 
> One could consider Article 29 states' "ALAWCAI clause" for freedom of
> expression.
> 
> > And it can be interpreted as an obligation to Internet
> > designers to not prevent or hamper it being used in whatever
> > languate one chooses. But if you intepret it as a positive right,
> > i.e., that Internet should be provided to you ready-made in your
> > own language, I ask: who should pay for it?
> 
> Indeed. Ask not only who should pay for it -- because it's easy to
> volunteer someone else to pay for my benefits -- but ask also whether
> making such a demand is the best way to get such content in one's own
> language produced? Are there not more effective policy options? Is there
> a danger that this kind of demand will act as a substitute for those
> more effective options?
> 
> (I should add that in some of these linguistic equality cases I would
> actually opt for requiring people to pay for it. For example, if voting
> is done by Internet in a multilingual society, or if an international
> institution produces authoritative documents, then I think individuals
> in major linguistic groups have a right to demand that ballots or
> translations of laws/policies be made available to them. Even if it does
> cost more. Because it affects the basic individual right to political
> representation and voice, on which most other rights hinge. But there is
> still some kind of a ALAWCAI clause in there, because no society can
> cater to all of the very small linguistic groups that might exist)
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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