Questions
Let us consider two societies. Both share a common “bill” of rights, but differ only in one thing. Society A gives you the right to give up your rights, while Soceity B doesn’t. Which one is better?
To give an analogy, consider two people “A” and “B”. B gives A the right to kill him. If A kills B, would A be doing right?
(possibly) Related question. Person A cons person B. Is only person B at fault here?
About robotgeek
Rocker, philosopher, Mac lover, geek, robotics freak and an optimist. These describe me adequately, i guess!
When I find time away from my lab, I love to code my robots using java to be compatible with robocode . I also make it a point to visit Slashdot or read on Wikipedia . Of course, all this has to be done while listening to Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Metallica or Pearl Jam, mostly on Shoutcast online radio .
I also like to read. Though I don't find much time now, I generally stick to what I like, which is Ayn Rand. Let's just hope the world heads in the right direction
2004 has been the year of the blog, and I could not be left out!
This entry was posted in
Pseudo-Random. Bookmark the
permalink.
Creative Commons
I think the point is not to give up your rights, but to uphold your duties.
That being said, keeping and using your rights is better than giving them up. Why would a society be better if someone could give up their rights and NOT be a citizen
The analogy doesn’t make too much sense … the killing factor weighs over the factor of the right.
Bigmouth
That being said, keeping and using your rights is better than giving them up. Why would a society be better if someone could give up their rights and NOT be a citizen
So you are saying society B is better. However, it still doesn’t answer my question. Isn’t society B forcing freedom unto you, while society A allows you to make a choice about it?
My whole ambiguity comes from the fact that I also believe society B is better. However, logically society A gives you more freedom than society B. And I hate stuff in which mind says one thing, and the heart says another.
The analogy doesn’t make too much sense … the killing factor weighs over the factor of the right.
on second thoughts, the killing factor takes more away from the discussion than adding to it. However, I will let it remain there for the benefit of my 3 other blog readers!
robotgeek
I find the very statement wrong – right to giveup your right!!!!
i have right to speak doesnt mean i have to speak. i may choose not to speak.
I have this choice by default.
And about your killing thing.
It reminds me of the mythical story where lord shiva gives “varam”
to bhasmasura to kill anybody and faces the music himself.
“with power comes great responsibility”
one who cannot be responsible should not have power.
prud
I find the very statement wrong – right to giveup your right!!!!
I thought so too, but I am unconvinced. Since this kind of a scenario does exist, there must be a possibility. A kind of a technical example, but BSD License allows you to “give up” your source code while the GPL license doesn’t. Which was how i got the initial idea.
I was totally unconcerned with the duties/responsibilities aspect, I fail to see how that affects the issue.
robotgeek
The whole point of giving up your rights seems a bit redundant, because a right is given for you to use it. You can choose not to use the right, that doesn’t mean you give up your rights.
@the bsd license
By “give up” you mean contribute without any mention of your name ?
Bigmouth
@BSD: The code is out there for the taking, you can take any code under the BSD license, modify it and not submit your changes to the original authors. The choice to release the code under BSD license means that you have “legally” given someone the option to take away the right to you and everyone else seeing the source code. So it’s saying, “It’s okay to take away my right (to source code), I don’t care.”
robotgeek
How is the second question related to the first one?
Yes, I believe that everyone has the right to not exercise their rights.
If the period of not exercising their rights extends for a prolonged period of time,
then I guess it becomes ‘giving up your right’. I think this is perfectly ok.
Plenty of people choose to not vote in a democracy. Plenty of people choose to not
exercise their rights to equal opportunity, education, liberty,equality….I
could go on and on. Do I think they’re beimg smart? No.Of course not.Do I think
they have a right to be how they want to be (even if I believe it is to their
detriment?)Yes. Because I would never let somebody tell me how to live my life,
I cannot tell someone else how to live theirs.
deepti
[Comment ID #524 Will Be Quoted Here]
+1
robotgeek
I think the premise is somewhat flawed. I immediately saw the origianl question as an analagy for the BSDL/GPL issue, but they are not the same. Although, in thinking through the original question, you showed me a path which led to an end I found a bit disturbing, at first.
However, I’ll tackle the easier part first. The BSD license is at not time giving up your right to the code. It is still under copyright by you, you are allowing others to use it as long as they agree to your requirements. You do have the option of putting your code into the Public Domain, which is effectively giving up all rights to the code.
Now I don’t have any Indian background to draw from in this discussion, but from my understanding, in Medieval Eurpope there was no concept of “copyright”. Artistic works were considered homage to the glory of God, any other purpose might violate a mortal sin (perhaps vanity or pride), so who could claim copyright? Note that I haven’t independantly researched this, so feel free to shoot me down If I am wrong.
Now for your analogy, even placing your works under the public domain is not the same as giving up your right to live. It is merely giving up your right to impose your will on others in exchange for you gift. You give me a glass of wine, I don’t have to even say thank you. If I spit on you, you don’t have the right to take the wine back from me. But since this is digitally reproducible software you are talking about, spite is the only reason you would take the wine back, because your carafe contains more wine than you could ever drink.
Now, the part I found uncomforatable (at first, but now I’m getting used to the idea) – No society has the right to grant you the right to revoke your right to life. If the enlightenment era ideals advocated in the U.S. Constitution recognize the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of (property or happiness), then those rights are non-revokable by any authority (other than the original “Creator”).
Perhaps this makes me to some degree a fascist – the original conclusion which disturbed me, mind you. But “freedom” for the sake of freedom, is against any natural law I can currently observe or conceive. Freedom must be abrogated by the rights and responsibilities granted on us by our society. This does mean that society (read as The State, our governing bodies) must never kill a citizen, or it is guilty of murder. Society’s only option is to expel this citizen, and no longer recognize them. Even then, they still have their rights as granted by their Creator (at at least My “Ideal” Society – the Constitutionally bound United States would recognize these rights. Apparently this society hasn’t existed in my lifetime).
But I have found a way out of the fascism trap. I dont exist for this (or any) society. This society is supposed to exist for me, and all willing citizens who are willing to fight for it. The society doesn’t have the right to kill anybody. But if I decide that I want you to kill me, I have not given up my right to life – I don’t have that option. I have merely chosen not to exercise my right to life in order to fulfill my rigts to liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
Then you have a problem with society at this point, for choosing to take my life. But there are exceptions for “self defence”, so the rule of “thou shalt not kill” is not strictly enforced. Perhaps a notarized contract between us, with a recognized State Official as witness, would allow you to kill me. Even if this contract was considered null or void, you should have the same expectation that the State would not be allwed to take your life, merely expulse you from their domain.
Now, don’t take any of this to mean that I prefer the BSDL or Public Domain to the GPL. I was merely completeting the analagy as stated, even if the premise was sligtly confused. This is understandable, because media spin is designed to confuse these issues, mostly because proprietary vendors tend to pay more.
A much poorer analagy that has popular acceptance is that of “software piracy”, which has no basis in reality. Pirates rape, pillage, kill, and hijack or sink vessels, using muskets against the British Empire, or RPGs against a modern navy. “Software pirates” are stealing mouthfuls of wine from your bottomless carafe. Related analagies are the very concepts of “Intellectual Property” or “Software Patents”. Because of these delusions, I think the GPLv3 is the only socially responsible license for a new software project to use.
http://castlan.mine.nu isn’t active at this time, but maybe I’ll get aroung to putting a blog on it someday. This was an unexpectedly profound topic, some of the questions it opened up might be interesting to pursue further. At least it made me examine some of my beliefs, so thanks for that.
castlan
As If I haven’t taken up enough of your space, let me give a clear and direct answer.
Society A is delusional, Society B is rational. While some might do better in A, at this time I would personally consider B to be better. Note that a right is not a responsibility. I have the Right to remain silent, but that doesn’t mean the police informing me of that right want me to silent. If I give up my right to remain silent, then am I allowed to shut up again?
Person A is not Right unless there is a good reason to take B’s life. But A isn’t automatically wrong. The circumstances would eed to be examined.
As for the con, I believe that would be a violation of Informaed consent. Then not only wouldn’t person A be right, they would be ouright wrong. B might also be responsible for allowing the death of B through negligence, but that is debatable, and might also depend on the circumstances.
castlan