Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 20, 2013
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture
Posted Jan 30, 2013 21:22 UTC (Wed) by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
Posted Jan 30, 2013 21:39 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
This is also why copyright and the like have nothing to do with any natural law: the punishment sought for copyright infringement is not proportional to the supposed offense. Copyright is fundamentally different from natural-law property rights founded on the requirements of scarcity. Fines and imprisonment are grossly disproportionate responses. The most one could claim under natural law is that there is no obligation to recognize the copyright claims of a copyright infringer, which few copyright infringers would object to.
Posted Jan 30, 2013 23:18 UTC (Wed) by tjc (subscriber, #137)
You're assuming that humans have a shared sense of right and wrong.
Posted Jan 31, 2013 0:31 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
Actually, no, subjective ideas about "right" and "wrong" don't factor into it. Again, that's part of why it's a natural law. Basically, the one /being/ punished gets to choose the rules, but must apply them universally: they can't judge their own aggression by one set of rules, and the response by another.
Posted Jan 31, 2013 3:59 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137)
Posted Jan 31, 2013 5:09 UTC (Thu) by jthill (guest, #56558)
Posted Jan 30, 2013 23:15 UTC (Wed) by tjc (subscriber, #137)
You do realise that not everyone subscribes to the idea of natural law, and that Locke's is not the only one interpretation, right?
There isn't anything that everyone subscribes to, except maybe trivial observations such as "the sky is blue." (And it's not, of course, but that discussion would probably be a pointless digression.)
Any philosophical argument is based on assumption. This is one of the reasons I miss Hitch — he did a superb job (well, some of the time, anyway) of arguing positions that I thought were based on assumptions that were utter rubbish.
So the question that anyone with more objectivity than hubris should ask themselves is, "what if my assumptions are wrong?"
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds