There are rights besides "natural rights". In essence though it all comes down to whether you wish to face jail and civil penalties based solely on "what I can get away with". A certain lady faces a very heavy fine for doing that with downloaded music. "Rights" are what you're willing and able to fight for and hold, imho.
Which brings you to the age old argument, is a right really a right if you can lose it? The Constitution negates any such discussion in the US, rights are inalienable and recognized as above the laws of man. Disreputable individuals over the years have made significant progress towards infringing upon those inalienable right, but they still exist in writing, regardless of our judges intelligence levels.
Nope, psychoak... you're not bent, you were just testing my limits... also the site's. And yes, I can prevent you from commenting further on the thread and more but won't. Guess I'm just an old softy Grandpa.
I know you can, I just don't happen to care. I've been warned about my behavior once on this particular forum, my response was a relatively diplomatic refusal to cooperate, stating that I would understand why I got banned, but I was still going to call a certain retard for what I saw him as in the future. I'd ban me, I don't know why someone else hasn't.
I'm more an old fashioned guy who believes in certain proprieties as long as the TOS are held to, I won't. You'd just 'enjoy' that some other way.
I'd enjoy the time saved, I've burned a couple hours on this thread now, it's a terrible addiction.
You're more a shock-jock, but that's ok as long as you have consideration for the TOS. [yep, I know you'll deny having them, but that's (I suspect) just you being a cute "bad boy"] .
I suspect that moohoo bastard GW has a similar view of me. He's largely responsible for this disgustingly inflated karma count...
Nice to see you back. I was wondering where you were hiding.
I've failed to work up the motivation in the few, relatively uninteresting political discussions over the last few months. The commies getting their kiester handed to them has really tamped down the left wing. That and I've been busy breaking shit.
I would support this position 100% if not for the monopolistic tendencies of some ISPs in some areas. Should a monopoly be attained, then government regulation is critical. But only to maintain the market, not to cripple the company.
To this day, and I have done a lot of looking, I've yet to find even a state level monopoly of any duration that was not in collusion with the government or government subsidized entities, or created via regulatory barriers to new entrants. You have cable monopolies in places because your government created them, not because they form naturally in a free market.
They're often given exclusive access rights to the existing utility system in order to encourage them to expand into the market. Well meaning idiots and corrupt politicians pull these stunts regularly. Our local electric coop here just recently partnered with a nearby wireless company to get a broadband canopy system set up in the area. It works, it's often even a good idea in the beginning. Ten years from now, if they still only let this one company utilize their infrastructure, there will still be no competition to them because they have artificially created a barrier to entry.
The other big one, particularly in regards to telecommunication networks, was the requirement to transmit other companies data at the cost of transmission, negating the viability of anyone, themselves included ever putting in new systems. This is why the US was looking forwards to being dead last for broadband speeds among western civilization ten years ago.
I fear the consequences of power residing with politicians far more than a potential, very short lived monopoly. This is especially true since they so often give us the more dangerous kind, ones that stick around to the bitter end when a portion of our infrastructure is collapsing around us.
Rights are definitely not absolute. You only need a superficial understanding of history to realise that. Only 200 years ago you had the right to own slaves. 600 years ago many people had no right to move from where they lived without permission from their rulers. I could go on listing changes, but you should get the idea. Rights are only what the current population say they are. Nothing absolute about that at all.
This argument was done into the ground a few hundred years ago. It's the whole point of natural law. Your rights exist beyond the law of the day, they are something you're born with and are morally correct in defending. Slaves were wrongfully imprisoned. Despotic rulers denied their citizenry justice. Rights are absolute, Law is subject to the whims of those in power.