Re: Crime and punishment in cyberspace - 3 of 3

From: Jim choate

"Rights are the items of a citizens characteristic which are outside
the ability of that government to control within its charter. Rights
come before a government forms. If they didn't then you would not be
able to give it a charter."

	This is true in the sense that one has the right to exist and to 
function and in general to be oneself independent of artificial 
government  operations.

In Nature, you have a "right" to anything you like, but there may be no 
one besides yourself there to appreciate that fact and to deliver it.  
When a group of individuals associate and create agreements/charters, 
the delineation of rights serves to protect their separateness -  their 
property,   their privacy, their character - against encroachments from 
the group, by defining consciously where the boundary lines are to be 
drawn  -   what the individual can expect to keep, in exception to what 
everyone expects to share.

Once a group considers itself an official "society" of like-minded 
individuals, they often begin to demand "rights" which do not naturally 
belong to them or their society - or which they have not explicity 
agreed to share:

.  the right to have what others have created/produced
(like a service which nature does not automatically arrange for 
delivery  -  ex:  optical cables & the internet at 3200 bps)

.  the right to access what is not their own
(outside of what nature has naturally endowed them with  -   ex: computers)

"Self protection is a requirement in general against another individual and
not a society."

	A society of like-minded individuals can also be a threat to the 
safety of non-conformists, depending on how the group decides to 
respond to those who are not exactly like the others.

Blanc

> 
> "Rights are the items of a citizens characteristic which are outside
> the ability of that government to control within its charter. Rights
> come before a government forms. If they didn't then you would not be
> able to give it a charter."
> 
> 	This is true in the sense that one has the right to exist and to 
> function and in general to be oneself independent of artificial 
> government  operations.
> 
> In Nature, you have a "right" to anything you like, but there may be no 
> one besides yourself there to appreciate that fact and to deliver it.  
> When a group of individuals associate and create agreements/charters, 
> the delineation of rights serves to protect their separateness -  their 
> property,   their privacy, their character - against encroachments from 
> the group, by defining consciously where the boundary lines are to be 
> drawn  -   what the individual can expect to keep, in exception to what 
> everyone expects to share.
>
Would you pray tell why these are not 'rights' under that government and
why they are not as 'natural' as any other right?

> Once a group considers itself an official "society" of like-minded 
> individuals, they often begin to demand "rights" which do not naturally 
> belong to them or their society - or which they have not explicity 
> agreed to share:
> 
> .  the right to have what others have created/produced
> (like a service which nature does not automatically arrange for 
> delivery  -  ex:  optical cables & the internet at 3200 bps)
> 
> .  the right to access what is not their own
> (outside of what nature has naturally endowed them with  -   ex: computers)
> 
 Seems to me these are all results of recognizing that property is a possesion
since even optical cables and such are property, either intellectual or 
otherwise. If a government, when formed, is given a charter which limits
the ability of others to access these possessions then I hold their is an
implied 'natural' right.
> not a society."
> 
> 	A society of like-minded individuals can also be a threat to the 
> safety of non-conformists, depending on how the group decides to 
> respond to those who are not exactly like the others.
>     
Only if the charter allows it. I refer you to Santyana.

> Blanc
> 
>

C'punks,

Well, I think we've beaten the "natural rights vs. legislated rights" 
horse too long.  Since Eric raised my consciousness about the purpose of 
this list, hopefully I can help put this old nag to merciful death.

For the purposes of this list, it is *irrelevant* whence right arise.  
Whether "privacy" is a right, a privilege or whatever, Cypherpunks 
want it.  We are in the business of securing privacy by whatever means 
are practical.  To a large degree this means via technology, but we'll 
graciously accept political solutions if they work.

No matter what side you of the "natural rights" question you are on, as a
Cypherpunk, you still want privacy.  Please let's drop this divisive,
time-consuming debate and get back to the code-writing work at hand.  
With courage and technology, we can have the privacy we want irrespective 
of what "they" have in mind for us.


 S a n d y