Re: Crime and punishment in cyberspace - 3 of 3

> The concept of "rights" is really only meaningful in the
> context of a group  of people, a society which has agreed to
> band together for some  purpose.  But since it can't be
> guaranteed that anyone would be educated on the matter of
> observing the delineated rights, or that having been
> educated they would respect them and observe limits upon 

> themselves in regard of these rights, it would be unwise
> to desist from  the development of the tools and systems
> for self-protection.
> 


Rather than spending effort developing technology for self-protection,  
wouldn't it be better to spend effort developing a society in which  
self-protection is unnecessary?  Think of all the energy and resources  
that would be saved if people just got along.  I think the cypherpunks  
should redirect their efforts into the fields of genetics and human  
behavior.  Better people make a better world.  A committee should be  
formed to develop specifications describing a good person.  The committee  
could then launch a program to guide society to a future where everyone  
met or exceeded the recommended specifications.  The project would include  
frequent quality assurance testing to guarantee rapid convergence to the  
desired goals.  Individuals who did not meet the specifications would be  
removed from the program.


Citizen-Unit Miller

> 
> 
> > The concept of "rights" is really only meaningful in the
> > context of a group  of people, a society which has agreed to
> > band together for some  purpose.  But since it can't be
> > guaranteed that anyone would be educated on the matter of
> > observing the delineated rights, or that having been
> > educated they would respect them and observe limits upon 
>
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.

> Rather than spending effort developing technology for self-protection,  
> wouldn't it be better to spend effort developing a society in which  
> self-protection is unnecessary?  Think of all the energy and resources  
>
Self protection is a requirement in general against another individual and
not a society.

> behavior.  Better people make a better world.  A committee should be  
>
Truly a eugenic concept, by change do you listen to Wagner?

> Citizen-Unit Miller
>
Ravage (a blank)

On Thu, 9 Jun 1994, Jim choate wrote:

> > 
> > 
> > > The concept of "rights" is really only meaningful in the
> > > context of a group  of people, a society which has agreed to
> > > band together for some  purpose.  But since it can't be
> > > guaranteed that anyone would be educated on the matter of
> > > observing the delineated rights, or that having been
> > > educated they would respect them and observe limits upon 
> >
> 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 [draft a charter]

Well, that's one view of rights.  However, most attempts to base so 
called natural rights (i.e. rights that are somehow intrinsic to human 
existence) have been largely unsuccesful.  It's a tough argument to make.

Rights are entities that are granted to individuals by 
governments/agencies in a position to do so.  They exist only after a 
charter is drafted, because it is their existence in the charter that 
gives them their power.  The most obvious response when a right is 
asserted is to ask where it comes from, e.g. to ask "why do you have a 
right to privacy?"  An answer that makes sense is to say that it is 
implied in this country's constitution, and therefore is applicable in 
this country.  

To suggest that such a right exists independent of a legal context gets 
you into some pretty tricky territory.  You now have to make some claim 
about rights that are instrinsic to human existence, which implies that 
these rights must be common to all forms of social organization, a claim 
that is real tough to make about such "rights" as privacy and property.

A value can exist prior to a charter... I might say, "gee, I value 
privacy, and I think this value ought to be legitamized by my new 
charter," but until that charter has been accepted, the right doesn't exist.

> > >
> > 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 [draft a charter]
> 
> Well, that's one view of rights.  However, most attempts to base so 
> called natural rights (i.e. rights that are somehow intrinsic to human 
> existence) have been largely unsuccesful.  It's a tough argument to make.
>
Seems to me the 'inalienable rights' that are mentioned in our founding 
charter carry this argument quite well. I suspect they also 'prove' them
as well. I am really not saying anything about 'natural' rights though.
The point I am making is that a government is defined by what it can and
can't do. This distinction is made at its creation through its charter.

> Rights are entities that are granted to individuals by 
> governments/agencies in a position to do so.  They exist only after a 
> charter is drafted, because it is their existence in the charter that 
> gives them their power.  The most obvious response when a right is 
> asserted is to ask where it comes from, e.g. to ask "why do you have a 
> right to privacy?"  An answer that makes sense is to say that it is 
> implied in this country's constitution, and therefore is applicable in 
> this country.  
> 
> To suggest that such a right exists independent of a legal context gets 
> you into some pretty tricky territory.  You now have to make some claim 
> about rights that are instrinsic to human existence, which implies that 
> these rights must be common to all forms of social organization, a claim 
> that is real tough to make about such "rights" as privacy and property.
>
Since when isn't the Constitution a legal context?

> A value can exist prior to a charter... I might say, "gee, I value 
> privacy, and I think this value ought to be legitamized by my new 
> charter," but until that charter has been accepted, the right doesn't exist.
>

On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, Jim choate wrote:
> > 
> >
> Seems to me the 'inalienable rights' that are mentioned in our founding 
> charter carry this argument quite well. I suspect they also 'prove' them
> as well. 

Claiming that certain rights are inalieable is hardly the same as 
"carrying the arguement" of their inalienablility.  I hold that man has 
an inalienable right to free and 
unlimited supplies of cheesecake... does the fact that I say so "prove" that this is an inalienable right?

>I am really not saying anything about 
>'natural' rights though.

Well, by claiming that rights exist prior to the formation of the state 
or charter, you are claiming that they come from the state of nature, or 
are inherent to the human condition.  This is what is meant by the phrase 
"natural rights."

> The point I am making is that a government is defined by what it can and
> can't do. This distinction is made at its creation through its charter.> 

Exactly.  Which is why rights come into existence only *after* the 
charter which declares them is accepted, not before.  

> Since when isn't the Constitution a legal context?

The Constitution is a "legal context," that's why we can use it to 
justify the existence of a right... we can say, for example, freedom of 
the press is a right because the Constitution says so.  However, freedom 
of the press became a right only when the Constitution declared it, and 
not before.  This is why, for example, housing is not at present a right, 
no matter how much some people think it should be. Housing will become a 
right only if and when the state decides to declare it a right.

Edward Hirsch writes
> Well, that's one view of rights.  However, most attempts to base so 
> called natural rights (i.e. rights that are somehow intrinsic to human 
> existence) have been largely unsuccesful.  It's a tough argument to make.

Not so: In some matters it is a very easy to make.

While I am very interested in this topic, we have drifted away from
direct relevance to the cypherpunks mailing list.

My WWW page is primarily about this and related matters.  I urge those
interested in this topic to access

ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jamesd/index.html

For example if you have a text interface to the internet o
you could type

lynx ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jamesd/index.html

If you have a graphical interface to the internet you could type

mosaic ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jamesd/index.html


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our    |
property, because of the kind of animals that we |         James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from |
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.     |         jamesd@netcom.com

> 
> Edward Hirsch writes
> > Well, that's one view of rights.  However, most attempts to base so 
> > called natural rights (i.e. rights that are somehow intrinsic to human 
> > existence) have been largely unsuccesful.  It's a tough argument to make.
> 
> Not so: In some matters it is a very easy to make.
> 
> While I am very interested in this topic, we have drifted away from
> direct relevance to the cypherpunks mailing list.
>
I disagree strongly with this view. A implicit assumption with the
entire c-punks/crypto discussion is that we have a right under our
charter to use this technology through our rights to privacy, etc.
While it may not address the technical aspects of crypto it does address
the environment it exists in.  

No man is an island, and neither is crypto...

> My WWW page is primarily about this and related matters.  I urge those
> interested in this topic to access
>
Nice advertising...

> ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jamesd/index.html
> 
> For example if you have a text interface to the internet o
> you could type
> 
> lynx ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jamesd/index.html
> 
> If you have a graphical interface to the internet you could type
> 
> mosaic ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jamesd/index.html
> 
> 
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our    |
> property, because of the kind of animals that we |         James A. Donald
> are.  True law derives from this right, not from |
> the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.     |         jamesd@netcom.com
> 
>

> Rather than spending effort developing technology for self-protection,  
> wouldn't it be better to spend effort developing a society in which  
> self-protection is unnecessary?

[...]

> Individuals who did not meet the specifications would be  
> removed from the program.

Ahhhh, good news.  This program is well underway!  Many intermediate
successes to report and major milestones achieved.

It's never too late (or too early) to be "removed" from the program!