[Lancaster] Twitter

[Richard Robinson]

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:53:30AM +0000, 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'.

These are easy fun strawmen to kick, but do they get anyone anywhere ? What
do they have to do with the price of cod(e) ?

I mean, grand statements, very nice, but is anybody actually identifying
specific disagreements with other specific statements made by real other
people ? Seems to me there's very little disgreement about anything, just a
sequence of posts that look like an argument while all saying the same
thing; which is - rights are relative, there is no absolute authority
handing them out unchallengeably, they are a social construct.

iow, this is a political discussion, not a religious one. Some posts have
stated that, in whatever terms they preferred, as though it were the end of
the discussion. I think that's as likely as the possibility that there is
only one correct political opinion.


And, my opinion is that the reason there is no such thing as a free lunch is
because there is no way to copy a lunch without incurring cost. iow, the
difference between the analogue and digital domains makes a difference to
the sort of freedoms that are possible. 

Which is to say that it would be helpful if we could each of us be clear
what we are talking about. If somebody talks about the 'freedom' or
otherwise of software, which is capable of being freely copied, it is not
meaningful to respond with suggestions concerning their attitudes concerning
the price of energy, which isn't. (And conversely, an observation that
accessing software involves access to hardware and to energy, while true,
doesn't necessarily determine the politics of the software you choose to
access, however you address the politics of ownership involved in being
able to make a choice).

(This last statement needs massive qualification, given software's greed for
more resources. and I agree with the comment that the popularity of
resource-hungry OSs has helped to drive hardware costs down, which is nice
for those of us who use different stuff. But no-one's paid for that argument).



So far as "rights" go, I'd say it's a word with two distinct, and clear,
meanings.

* While people are fighting for one, it doesn't exist. Clearly. It's a
statement of aims, "this is what we want, what we are fighting to make
exist".


* If the fight is successful, then it comes into existence, *pop*. Meaning
that it can be enforced. It's become a thing that people have the ability to
make happen.


In sense b), it's pointless to assert that there ain't no such thing as a
right, because the coppers & the courts will do appropriate (insert whole
other argment here) things to you if you don't observe them. In sense a,
it's just an argument about who wants what.

*shrug*


-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem