[Lancaster] Twitter

Sat Feb 21 13:07:47 UTC 2009

Ken Hough wrote:
> MP, at al,
>
> As a fairly mature (at least in terms of years) cynic/realist, I am 
> disappointed in the way that otherwise intelligent people continue to bang on 
> about 'rights' and 'freedom'.
>
> It seems to me that in the real world there are no 'rights' to anything. By 
> general consent and the odd war or two, we eventually manage to agree to 
> grant our selves certain PRIVILEGES which may be and often are withdrawn.
>
> Fact: There are no rights in this world.
>
>   
I agree that rights don't exist in the abstract - there's no absolute
reference to which you can look to find out what our rights are or
should be. They exist because at certain times people as a whole have
decided amongst themselves that the governing powers of the time (be it
feudal landlords or the modern state) were abusing their position at the
cost of the majority in society. I think you have to understand rights
in this context, so in a way I agree with your statement that 'there are
no rights in this world'

But I really don't like the way you're substituting privileges for
rights. E.g. what sense does it make to say that people in this country
have the privilege of a fair trial? Does that mean that we should be
grateful to the powers that be for granting us this privilege?
'Privilege' carries with it a whole load of connotations which I think
are not helpful in this context of defending ordinary people against the
abuse of state (or for that matter commercial) power.

If the reason that you are putting things this way is because you think
we don't appreciate the rights we have enough, then maybe I agree, but I
think the way to express this appreciation is by defending the idea that
we do and should have rights, not by simply counting our blessings that
they have been granted to us in the first place.

> In the eyes of some, 'freedom' means being 'free' to do whatever one wants. 
> Unless one were to be the only individual on earth (or at least in the 
> locality) this clearly isn't workable. Our actions impinge on others so as to 
> curtail their views of 'freedom'.
>
>   
There are 2 senses of freedom - 'freedom to' and 'freedom from'. Rights
make more sense in the context of 'freedom from'.
> Unfortunately (or not?), the human species doesn't function like colonies of 
> ants where individuals always act for the benefit of a colony. With notable 
> exceptions such as Ghandi, we are driven by self interest.
>
>   
I think we all have strands of both selfishness and altruism in us -
it's not just a few heroic individuals who behave altruistically. The
thing is to try to look at what kind of situations, and what kind of
cultural context, encourage one over the other.
> We are not an altruistic species! Major advances in human endeavours are 
> driven by the possibility of personal gains. Unless we were to be genetically 
> re-engineered, this is unlikely to change for a very long time.
>
> Yes, I know advances are sometimes initiated by farsighted persons, but 
> development is invariably driven by the possibility for commercial, 
> political, or military gains. Such enterprises might well benefit a 
> community, or perhaps even a majority.
>
>   
If it were just an enlightened few who change things, things would
probably never have changed. Every movement has its chiefs and its
indians. E.g. Stallman was the first to express the idea of free
software in its current form, but he wouldn't have been able to develop
GNU unless he had found other people of like mind to work with him.
> For example, it would be difficult to argue that Bill Gates and the eventual 
> commercial clout of Microsoft didn't bring about the widespread and 
> economical availability of our PCs and some of the 'freedoms' that we enjoy 
> today. Of course, not everyone is happy with this. 
>
> That's not to say that I condone all of the present or past ruthless business 
> practices of that company, but it is as a result of their success that we now 
> have easy access to personal computers, the Internet, etc, and hence the 
> opportunity to even consider making related choices wrt 'freedom'. THIS WOULD 
> NOT HAVE HAPPENED without the degree of success that Microsoft have had.
>
> So let's get real!
>
> I believe that we should consider ideals/goals for ourselves and for society, 
> We must also recognise that others are likely to hold to other ideals and 
> ideas as to how to work towards these
>   
I agree with this - trying to accept that people have different
experiences and points of view, rather than simply expecting people to
agree with the beliefs I have.

andy
> If your own view of 'rights' and 'freedom' is to succeed, then you must 
> convince others that they too will benefit.
>
> Ken Hough
>
>
> On Friday 20 February 2009 18:18:38 mp wrote:
>   
>> Mike Dent wrote:
>>     
>>> Sorry I had to come back in on this.
>>>
>>> The Internet was developed by universities and military to provide a
>>> means of communication between their sites, I am sure you all know that.
>>>       
>> This is a very simplistic perspective on a series of complicated
>> convergences of factors (from Greek poetry, Roman rhetoric and medieval
>> mystics, through Babbage, to phone systems, information theory and so
>> on), the most important one of which, perhaps, is the development of the
>> Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (http - or the World Wide Web), which was
>> very explicitly crafted for freedom of use (this is not equal to
>> gratis!): http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
>> http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/06/7127.ars
>>
>> Read Berners-Lee's Weaving the Web for his own story of the last leg.
>>
>> See also this comprehensive article about network neutrality:
>> http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?70+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+51+(spring+2
>> 007)
>>
>>     
>>> Since when did that infrastructure become something that should be free
>>> and we should have a right to use? Or, have I got the whole thing wrong
>>> and you guys do not expect it to be your right to use those networks for
>>> free?
>>>       
>> There is no such thing as a free lunch anyway - however, this is a
>> matter of freedom. So far we all pay for a hole into the internet by
>> giving money to Richard Branson or someone like that.
>>
>> You have an odd approach to the issue of "rights". I have already
>> spelled it out, but here goes again: rights don't drop from the sky,
>> they are not something you "have" unless you fight for them. If not
>> hundreds of thousands of people had died for the rights you enjoy now,
>> you wouldnt have them. This also includes the right to private property
>> of which I imagine you are an supporter. The middle classes, no matter
>> what one might think about the bourgeoise/capitalist revolution, secured
>> the rights you enjoy to live, if you do, in your own house and
>> accumulate wealth under your roof and in the bank.
>>
>> Also, once gained, rights still have to be maintained. They can be
>> eroded very quickly; for instance most privacy rights gained in
>> processes that began a bit more than a hundred years ago are
>> disappearing through such draconian laws as the UK Terrorism Act 2000.
>> More background on privacy here:
>> https://knowledgelab.org.uk/Privacy&Surveillance
>>
>> Rights and civil liberties struggles in general are inter-generational
>> processes. You fight today for your children's rights tomorrow, but with
>> your attitude there won't be any, since you neither seem to want any,
>> nor to realise that they are not given or naturally correct/incorrect.
>> They are social constructions - we choose to make them or we don't. If
>> you prefer to have a closed down Internet I can't for the life of me
>> understand where you are coming from, unless you just want to provoke
>> mindlessly.
>>
>>     
>>> When did it get the fluffy name Cyberspace or cloud or such things, does
>>> that make it easier to claim our rights on it?
>>>       
>> Cyberspace as a term predates the web. However, reification and myth
>> making are crucial tools in the historical struggles for civil liberties
>> and freedoms. For sure.
>>
>>     
>>> It is a network of wires and routers/switches that people own. Do we not
>>> have to pay for the use of that equipment or pay for the power to run it
>>> all, the manpower to install it?
>>>       
>> You miss the entire point here. It is not a question of payment - so
>> Richard is right, it seems: you have the wrong end of the beer/speech
>> stick. I refer to previous post for clarification about what is at
>> stake. That said, I do think it should be free to use, like the library.
>> In fact it is a library.
>>
>>     
>>> Perhaps in future we will have a internet tax licence to pay, every time
>>> your packets need access to another country you will have to pay tax on
>>> for that country before they proceed, kind of funny but I guess it could
>>> happen :)
>>>       
>> That is pretty much what is on the cards - but I fail to see the funny
>> part?!
>>
>> -m
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lancaster mailing list
>> Lancaster at mailman.lug.org.uk
>> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/lancaster
>>     
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lancaster mailing list
> Lancaster at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/lancaster
>
>   