The letter from Steele suggests that someone else using an unsecured wireless network isn't a viable legal defense for the account holder, noting that downloaders of child pornography have employed this excuse to no avail....
If the police accuse you of downloading child porn, but when they seize and search your computers they can't find any, then yes, that is a a legally viable defense.
Only if everyone to be held to the rules agrees to them and signs a contract (think HOA). Then you can be sure that everyone is on the same page. Rules imposed on homeowners by bureaucrats and busybodies who have no claim to that property are immoral.
I really do not want my neighbors front lawn to look like a car junkyard. It would reduce the investment I have in my house.
In that case, I want someone to reimburse me for all the "value" that my stocks lost during the recession. Of course, that's ridiculous, because no one has the right to the value of an object, only to the object itself.
Why do you assume that the mere value of your property trumps the actual property rights of others?
So if a cop tasers me it should be ok to taser one back according to your theory.
Yes, if a police officer tazes you without provocation, I would find it reasonable to taze him back in self defense. The same goes for police officers shooting at you, by the by.
Zoning laws are ostensibly about preventing the use of your property from actually impacting the use of mine. If you turn your house into a pig slaughterhouse, it isn't simply about some (completely imagined) right of your neighbors to have their property values always increase. A slaughterhouse will be noisy and smelly, supply trucks will impede the use of the roadway, etc.
If you try to use zoning laws to beat people over the head because of aesthetics ("Your house color is too bright", "Your grass is the wrong species", "you have woodchips for a lawn instead of grass") then you're not protecting property rights, you're violating them by being an authoritarian prick.
Due process only applies to the government. Absent an agreement saying that they will not arbitrarily terminate their business relationship from you, you have no right to force Comcast to continue to do so.
You still have a right to reproduce (that's really a property right over your own body). Just because there's no one to reproduce with doesn't mean your rights are being violated.
To work for anyone
There was never any such right.
To own property
As you note, this right still exists.
social security
Not a right.
safety from violence / protection by law
Laws apply to people. You still have to right to be safe from violence by others. Without people, it will be quite easy to assert that right. :)
to vote
Vote all you like. I don't see this as a right, though; it's merely one particular method of helping to ensure that your government does not violate your rights. A dictator can uphold rights, just as a voting public can easily violate them.
To seek asylum if a country treats you badly, health care, education
The line between personal freedoms and choice butts up against the choices of others in the community, and some "rights" may be limited in order to respect the rights of others.
Others don't have a right to my property, so there's no "rights of others" being violated.
Yes, yes. She should have licked the boots of authority like you and all the rest. How dare she not bow down to her betters! What kind of country does she think this is, anyway??
Yeah, I can't imagine why the threat of having men with guns kidnap you from your home and lock you away in an 8x10 cage for three months because you created a vegetable garden on your own property would worry anyone in a supposedly free country.
(Especially when the law in question is vague enough as to be decided at the whim of an unelected bureaucrat with obvious power issues. Is bermuda grass "suitable", or only St. Augustine? Roll the dice to find out if you end up with either a nice lawn or a cell mate who wants to dance with you!)
Obviously taking something way off to the extreme end of the scale
Logic doesn't cease to be logic just because some stakes are higher than others. Two plus two equals four, regardless of whether I'm calculating the trajectory of a space shuttle or just making change for a soda.
"It's right because it's the law" is not a rationally defensible position, unless you can explain why all the examples I posted aren't examples of the law being morally wrong. I won't hold my breath.
On the post: Copyright Troll John Steele Insists That 70-Year Old Is Responsible For Porn Downloads... Even If Someone Else Used WiFi
Errr
If the police accuse you of downloading child porn, but when they seize and search your computers they can't find any, then yes, that is a a legally viable defense.
On the post: Vague Law + Vindictive Law Enforcement? Hide Your Veggies!
Re: Externalities
On the post: Vague Law + Vindictive Law Enforcement? Hide Your Veggies!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only if everyone to be held to the rules agrees to them and signs a contract (think HOA). Then you can be sure that everyone is on the same page. Rules imposed on homeowners by bureaucrats and busybodies who have no claim to that property are immoral.
I really do not want my neighbors front lawn to look like a car junkyard. It would reduce the investment I have in my house.
In that case, I want someone to reimburse me for all the "value" that my stocks lost during the recession. Of course, that's ridiculous, because no one has the right to the value of an object, only to the object itself.
Why do you assume that the mere value of your property trumps the actual property rights of others?
On the post: Woman Faces Felony Charges For Groping A TSA Agent
Re: Bad analogy
Yes, if a police officer tazes you without provocation, I would find it reasonable to taze him back in self defense. The same goes for police officers shooting at you, by the by.
On the post: Woman Faces Felony Charges For Groping A TSA Agent
Re: Re: Re: @Dark Helmet: always focus on trivial, especially sexual.
On the post: Vague Law + Vindictive Law Enforcement? Hide Your Veggies!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Zoning laws are ostensibly about preventing the use of your property from actually impacting the use of mine. If you turn your house into a pig slaughterhouse, it isn't simply about some (completely imagined) right of your neighbors to have their property values always increase. A slaughterhouse will be noisy and smelly, supply trucks will impede the use of the roadway, etc.
If you try to use zoning laws to beat people over the head because of aesthetics ("Your house color is too bright", "Your grass is the wrong species", "you have woodchips for a lawn instead of grass") then you're not protecting property rights, you're violating them by being an authoritarian prick.
On the post: Vague Law + Vindictive Law Enforcement? Hide Your Veggies!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Vague Law + Vindictive Law Enforcement? Hide Your Veggies!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Who Do You Trust On Whether Or Not PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet? The Guys Who Built It... Or The MPAA?
Re:
Just report and move on. No need to feed this one.
On the post: Vague Law + Vindictive Law Enforcement? Hide Your Veggies!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Kicked Off Comcast For Using Too Many Cloud Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't agree on this one
On the post: Guy Kicked Off Comcast For Using Too Many Cloud Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't agree on this one
On the post: Guy Kicked Off Comcast For Using Too Many Cloud Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't agree on this one
You still have a right to reproduce (that's really a property right over your own body). Just because there's no one to reproduce with doesn't mean your rights are being violated.
To work for anyone
There was never any such right.
To own property
As you note, this right still exists.
social security
Not a right.
safety from violence / protection by law
Laws apply to people. You still have to right to be safe from violence by others. Without people, it will be quite easy to assert that right. :)
to vote
Vote all you like. I don't see this as a right, though; it's merely one particular method of helping to ensure that your government does not violate your rights. A dictator can uphold rights, just as a voting public can easily violate them.
To seek asylum if a country treats you badly, health care, education
Not rights.
On the post: Who Do You Trust On Whether Or Not PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet? The Guys Who Built It... Or The MPAA?
Re:
On the post: Vague Law + Vindictive Law Enforcement? Hide Your Veggies!
Re: Re:
Others don't have a right to my property, so there's no "rights of others" being violated.
On the post: Vague Law + Vindictive Law Enforcement? Hide Your Veggies!
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Vague Law + Vindictive Law Enforcement? Hide Your Veggies!
Re:
Yeah, I can't imagine why the threat of having men with guns kidnap you from your home and lock you away in an 8x10 cage for three months because you created a vegetable garden on your own property would worry anyone in a supposedly free country.
(Especially when the law in question is vague enough as to be decided at the whim of an unelected bureaucrat with obvious power issues. Is bermuda grass "suitable", or only St. Augustine? Roll the dice to find out if you end up with either a nice lawn or a cell mate who wants to dance with you!)
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Into this echo chamber of the Mutual Admiration Society,
Hmm, not seeing it. Sorry.
On the post: Indie Records Sue Limewire; Feeling Left Out From RIAA Settlement
Re: You're cloaking a defeat for your notions with focus on money.
What notions?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Logic doesn't cease to be logic just because some stakes are higher than others. Two plus two equals four, regardless of whether I'm calculating the trajectory of a space shuttle or just making change for a soda.
"It's right because it's the law" is not a rationally defensible position, unless you can explain why all the examples I posted aren't examples of the law being morally wrong. I won't hold my breath.
Next >>