Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Sat, 13 May 2000, Robert Cumbow <rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 May 2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote in part:
> >
> > [...]
> > there is no *natural* right to ANYTHING. As an individual, I can
> > choose to do anything I want to -- the only caveat is whether or
> > not I'll violate any laws in my actions. Therefore, any *right*
> > we have is conferred by law -- the right to free speech; the right
> > to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; etc.
>
> I don't know what Mr. Hayes's legal or historical basis for this
> claim is. The fundamental difference between the United States
> Declaration of Independence and Constitution, on the one hand, and
> the notions of human and civil rights (if any) recognized in other
> countries, on the other, is that, in the US system, rights are
> emphatically NOT conferred by law. They are natural, they inhere
> in the people, and the people either retain them or relinquish them
> as they alone see fit. The Bill of Rights make sense only in the
> context of rights inherent in the people. You don't have to believe,
> if you don't want to, that "all men are CREATED equal, that they are
> ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain fundamental rights, that among
> these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ..." But an
> unwillingness to accept that does NOT necessitate the notion that
> rights are conferred by law. Laws that confer rights can also take
> away rights. The founding fathers expressly did not want to permit
> that -- hence the preclusions beginning "Congress shall make no
> law ...".

By your reasoning, then, you are suggesting that I have a natural right to shoot someone if I so choose, and that "Congress shall make no law..." means that they cannot abolish my right to shoot someone?

DISCLAIMER: For all the literalists, I am NOT suggesting that shooting someone is akin to making a copy.

Marty Hayes
<9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> Received on Mon May 15 2000 - 14:50:12 GMT