Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

...snip...
All rights come from law.

Where's the law that gives me the right to use a keyboard? To trade stuff? To eat? To poop? To make personal choices? To think? If rights come from law, I shouldn't have the right to do either of those. It sounds as if you are suggesting that the default human society has absolutely no right to do anything, and as time progresses, more and more rights are bestowed on the population by government?

Actually that sort reminds me of the bible, where humans (Adam and Eve) were created with some limited rights to begin with,screwed that up and ended up with even fewer rights, and for the next few thousand years had more and more rights and restrictions dictated at them by their creator. Like, in the same way we were born with original sin, we are born with only the rights our creator allows us. Maybe that religious mindset is the physchological block here?

I'm not religious so you'll have to ask someone else about Adam and Eve. 

The rest are easy questions - where do you live?  Here in the UK those rights are in the Human Rights Act but can be traced back to Magna Carta.  I'm sure your country has something similar.  I'm not sure where you get the idea that we get more rights as time goes on.  In the UK, we are losing freedom every year through anti-terrorism legislation and "health and safety" legislation.

[1714010296]

1714010296

[1714010296]

1714010296

[1714010296]

1714010296

[BitterTea]

The rest are easy questions - where do you live?  Here in the UK those rights are in the Human Rights Act but can be traced back to Magna Carta.  I'm sure your country has something similar.  I'm not sure where you get the idea that we get more rights as time goes on.  In the UK, we are losing freedom every year through anti-terrorism legislation and "health and safety" legislation.

So you're saying humans living in a geographic region without something like the Magna Carta have no rights? Humans living before the Magna Carta had no rights?

[Rassah]

The rest are easy questions - where do you live?  Here in the UK those rights are in the Human Rights Act but can be traced back to Magna Carta.  I'm sure your country has something similar.  I'm not sure where you get the idea that we get more rights as time goes on.  In the UK, we are losing freedom every year through anti-terrorism legislation and "health and safety" legislation.

I currently live in US. Did people have no rights before the Magna Carta, or were their rights just oppressed by kings?
We have a Bill of Rights here that lists stuff like right to free speech, right to trial, etc. It's not a document that gives us rights, it's a document that lists the rights that we already have that the government is not allowed to impose on. I suspect your Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights from which it follows, are similar, in that instead of giving you rights, they are laws that prevent your government from taking those rights away.
When you are losing freedom in your example, what freedom are you talking about? If the law gives you rights, and the law is now taking them back, then they weren't rights to begin with, right? At least they aren't now, so since law is right, perhaps those freedoms should never have existed? Or are you now saying that freedom and rights are something that exist outside of law, and your own rights are now being imposed by the government laws version of "rights?"

[Hawker]

The rest are easy questions - where do you live?  Here in the UK those rights are in the Human Rights Act but can be traced back to Magna Carta.  I'm sure your country has something similar.  I'm not sure where you get the idea that we get more rights as time goes on.  In the UK, we are losing freedom every year through anti-terrorism legislation and "health and safety" legislation.

So you're saying humans living in a geographic region without something like the Magna Carta have no rights? Humans living before the Magna Carta had no rights?

I'm saying that rights come from law.  Rights are human creations.  They are not written in the stars.  If there is a God, there is no evidence he created immutable rights.  

[Hawker]

The rest are easy questions - where do you live?  Here in the UK those rights are in the Human Rights Act but can be traced back to Magna Carta.  I'm sure your country has something similar.  I'm not sure where you get the idea that we get more rights as time goes on.  In the UK, we are losing freedom every year through anti-terrorism legislation and "health and safety" legislation.

I currently live in US. Did people have no rights before the Magna Carta, or were their rights just oppressed by kings?
We have a Bill of Rights here that lists stuff like right to free speech, right to trial, etc. It's not a document that gives us rights, it's a document that lists the rights that we already have that the government is not allowed to impose on. I suspect your Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights from which it follows, are similar, in that instead of giving you rights, they are laws that prevent your government from taking those rights away.
When you are losing freedom in your example, what freedom are you talking about? If the law gives you rights, and the law is now taking them back, then they weren't rights to begin with, right? At least they aren't now, so since law is right, perhaps those freedoms should never have existed? Or are you now saying that freedom and rights are something that exist outside of law, and your own rights are now being imposed by the government laws version of "rights?"

Where did the rights come from? 

[BitterTea]

The rest are easy questions - where do you live?  Here in the UK those rights are in the Human Rights Act but can be traced back to Magna Carta.  I'm sure your country has something similar.  I'm not sure where you get the idea that we get more rights as time goes on.  In the UK, we are losing freedom every year through anti-terrorism legislation and "health and safety" legislation.

So you're saying humans living in a geographic region without something like the Magna Carta have no rights? Humans living before the Magna Carta had no rights?

I'm saying that rights come from law.  Rights are human creations.  They are not written in the stars.  If there is a God, there is no evidence he created immutable rights.  

But you just said that your rights come from the Magna Carta. Which means that if there was no Magna Carta (as there is not in other parts of the world), you would have no rights. Is that not correct?

[Hawker]

The rest are easy questions - where do you live?  Here in the UK those rights are in the Human Rights Act but can be traced back to Magna Carta.  I'm sure your country has something similar.  I'm not sure where you get the idea that we get more rights as time goes on.  In the UK, we are losing freedom every year through anti-terrorism legislation and "health and safety" legislation.

So you're saying humans living in a geographic region without something like the Magna Carta have no rights? Humans living before the Magna Carta had no rights?

I'm saying that rights come from law.  Rights are human creations.  They are not written in the stars.  If there is a God, there is no evidence he created immutable rights.  

But you just said that your rights come from the Magna Carta. Which means that if there was no Magna Carta (as there is not in other parts of the world), you would have no rights. Is that not correct?

Magna Carta is the extent of my historical knowledge.  The English state was established in 1066 and there were essentially no rights before Magna Carta.  The 1100s were a time of particular cruelty as the Normans set about subjugation of the Saxons.

I'm saying that rights come from law.  Rights are human creations.  They are not written in the stars.  If there is a God, there is no evidence he created immutable rights.  

Do you agree with that?

[BitterTea]

Magna Carta is the extent of my historical knowledge.  The English state was established in 1066 and there were essentially no rights before Magna Carta.  The 1100s were a time of particular cruelty as the Normans set about subjugation of the Saxons.

You're talking about is. Rights are about ought. That is, the right to free speech means that I ought not be restricted from freely speaking, not that I can't be restricted from doing so. Do you disagree with this statement?

Do you agree with that?

rights come from law

Not really, not in the sense that I think you mean.

Rights are human creations

Yes. This is also the reason that I believe they do not apply to other animals.

They are not written in the stars

Yes.

If there is a God, there is no evidence he created immutable rights

Yes.

[Rassah]

Where did the rights come from? 

This is really something you should be figuring out on your own, but since you asked, rights come from our human ability to reason, to understand logic, and to be able to for see series of logical events. Or something like that. They come from the fact that we are able to declare our own entitlement to our own lives and property, based on our ability to reason and make logical conclusions about those things. Societal laws are just extrapolation or perversion of that reason and logic.
In short, we are born with them.

[Hawker]

If rights are what "ought" rather than what "is," where does your "ought" come from?

[Rassah]

If rights are what "ought" rather than what "is," where does your "ought" come from?

Why do you believe you "ought" to be able to eat the food you buy, listen to the music you hear, or think and dream about things you want? Who gave you that right?

[Hawker]

Where did the rights come from? 

This is really something you should be figuring out on your own, but since you asked, rights come from our human ability to reason, to understand logic, and to be able to for see series of logical events. Or something like that. They come from the fact that we are able to declare our own entitlement to our own lives and property, based on our ability to reason and make logical conclusions about those things. Societal laws are just extrapolation or perversion of that reason and logic.
In short, we are born with them.

"Rights come from our human ability to reason, to understand logic, and to be able to for see series of logical events."

Really?  So one person sees a right to sex at the age of 12; another sees it at 16; yet another sees it only within marriage.  How do you decide between them?

[BitterTea]

"Rights come from our human ability to reason, to understand logic, and to be able to for see series of logical events."

Really?  So one person sees a right to sex at the age of 12; another sees it at 16; yet another sees it only within marriage.  How do you decide between them?

*facepalm*

Your response has nothing to do with his statement.

If you want to refute the idea that rights come from our ability to reason, explain where they come from, don't ask a ridiculous question.

The answer of course is "it's none of your (or anyone else's) fucking business when someone decides they are ready to have sex".

[Hawker]

"Rights come from our human ability to reason, to understand logic, and to be able to for see series of logical events."

Really?  So one person sees a right to sex at the age of 12; another sees it at 16; yet another sees it only within marriage.  How do you decide between them?

*facepalm*

Your response has nothing to do with his statement.

If you want to refute the idea that rights come from our ability to reason, explain where they come from, don't ask a ridiculous question.

The answer of course is "it's none of your (or anyone else's) fucking business when someone decides they are ready to have sex".

My response is illustrating that rights are arbitrary creations. 

So you are OK with sex between a 12 year old and and a 50 year old. 

How low do you accept the age of consent going?

[BitterTea]

My response is illustrating that rights are arbitrary creations.

Are rights arbitrary, or are they granted by the Magna Carta? Do you even care about consistency?

So you are OK with sex between a 12 year old and and a 50 year old. 

How low do you accept the age of consent going?

How are the decisions of some arbitrary 12 and 50 year old any of my concern? The only people that should have a say in what the 12 year old does are his parents, until the point that he is able to make rational decisions of his own accord. If both he and they determine that he is ready for a sexual relationship with a 50 year old, how is it any of your business?

[Hawker]

My response is illustrating that rights are arbitrary creations.

Are rights arbitrary, or are they granted by the Magna Carta? Do you even care about consistency?

So you are OK with sex between a 12 year old and and a 50 year old.  

How low do you accept the age of consent going?

How are the decisions of some arbitrary 12 and 50 year old any of my concern? The only people that should have a say in what the 12 year old does are his parents, until the point that he is able to make rational decisions of his own accord. If both he and they determine that he is ready for a sexual relationship with a 50 year old, how is it any of your business?

Some parents sell their children for sex.  Others simply have sex with their kids for kicks.

How low an age do you think is acceptable before society intervenes to say "This is not OK" and takes the child into care.

[Rassah]

Where did the rights come from?  

This is really something you should be figuring out on your own, but since you asked, rights come from our human ability to reason, to understand logic, and to be able to for see series of logical events. Or something like that. They come from the fact that we are able to declare our own entitlement to our own lives and property, based on our ability to reason and make logical conclusions about those things. Societal laws are just extrapolation or perversion of that reason and logic.
In short, we are born with them.

"Rights come from our human ability to reason, to understand logic, and to be able to for see series of logical events."

Really?  So one person sees a right to sex at the age of 12; another sees it at 16; yet another sees it only within marriage.  How do you decide between them?

If the person wants to have sex at the age of 12, what's the problem? I would educate them on the risks and ways to mitigate those risks, but I can't stop them.

[Hawker]

Where did the rights come from? 

This is really something you should be figuring out on your own, but since you asked, rights come from our human ability to reason, to understand logic, and to be able to for see series of logical events. Or something like that. They come from the fact that we are able to declare our own entitlement to our own lives and property, based on our ability to reason and make logical conclusions about those things. Societal laws are just extrapolation or perversion of that reason and logic.
In short, we are born with them.

"Rights come from our human ability to reason, to understand logic, and to be able to for see series of logical events."

Really?  So one person sees a right to sex at the age of 12; another sees it at 16; yet another sees it only within marriage.  How do you decide between them?

If the person wants to have sex at the age of 12, what's the problem? I would educate them on the risks and ways to mitigate those risks, but I can't stop them.

You are answering the same question twice.  I followed your last answer with a simple "How low are you happy to go?" question.  If little Tommy is trained to give blow jobs for sweeties and Mommy is selling at $50 a trick, at what age do you think society should say "No - you don't have the right to sell that child for sex?"

[Rassah]

Some parents sell their children for sex.  Others simply have sex with their kids for kicks.

How low an age do you think is acceptable before society intervenes to say "This is not OK" and takes the child into care.

So, at what age do you believe it is appropriate to be sold into or forced into sex? I thinkbeing forced or sold into sex is not a decision the child him/herself makes, and is not right regardless if they are 10 or 90. This is a straw an that goes completely against everything libertarianis, and the whole idea of rights, stand for.
I don't think society should ever intervene if the decision was not coerced. And should always try to intervene if anything is coerced.
If little Tommy learns how to give blowjobs, and uses that to make some extra income for himself, I personally don't see that as being worse that little Tommy going around cutting peoples lawns with a lawnmower to make extra cash. Both jobs are dangerous, one just has a stupid sexual taboo associated with it.

Where do you think little Tommy should get his rights from, and why is him wanting to make money by giving blowjobs not a right he is allowed to have, if he does it willingly, consentually, and is aware enough of the risks to do it safely? (<- Since you've proven yourself an idiot at taking my words out of context before, I am forced to point out here that I don't necessarily hold the view that little kids should be giving blowjobs. Please note the "consentually" and "aware of the risks," which likely makes little Tommy above 14)

[FirstAscent]

Being forced or sold into sex is not a decision the child him/herself makes, and is not right regardless of vhe age. This is a straw an that goes completely against everything libertarianis, and the whole idea of rights, stand for.
I don't think society should ever intervene if the decision was not coerced. And should always try to intervene if anything is coerced.
If little Tommy learns how to give blowjobs, and uses that to make some extra income for himself, I personally don't see that as being worse that little Tommy going around cutting peoples lawns with a lawnmower to make extra cash. Both jobs are dangerous, one just has a stupid sexual taboo associated with it.

Where do you think little Tommy should get his rights from, and why is him wanting to make money by giving blowjobs not a right he is allowed to have, if he does it willingly, consentually, and safely?

The question was about little Tommy's parents selling his services.