[nylug-talk] Unalienable Rights [was: silly DMCA tricks]

[Peter C. Norton]

On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 03:37:42PM -0400, Michael E. Smith wrote:
> > That said, "natural [rights]" are also conferred on to us by law. More
> > "natural" rights, like free speech, life, liberty and pursuit of
> > happiness, etc. are legal constructs that are only available to us as
> > long as they are enforced by law, and are malleable and constantly
> > being refined, eroded and built back up (keeping my fingers crossed
> > that Ashcroft goes to hell sooner rather then later). 
> 
> The concept of "natural" rights or innate rights is that they differ
> from ordinary rights specifically by NOT being conferred by law.  The law
> has its legal constructs in the legal space, but these rights, outside of
> the legal space, are not legal constructs.  These rights are invariant.
> 
> The U.S. Declaration of Independence employs the *unalienable* rights of
> "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  This is precisely what
> `unalienable' means:  these rights cannot be taken away.  In my view,
> `Fair use' is part of the "pursuit of happiness."  It declares that
> Government is established to secure these Rights.  We have government in
> order to secure these rights.

I agree in the philisophical sense that there are inalianable
"natural" rights.  In the practical sense people/government/the law
(the man!) take those rights away when they consider it necessary, and
it can be condified into law that those rights can be taken away
(USA-PATRIOT is a case in point).  Then it can be given back, or not.

-Peter

-- 
The 5 year plan:
In five years we'll make up another plan.
Or just re-use this one.