Re: Pirated XP, means-test everyone and every product with "income

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

From: Leythos (viod_at_nowhere.lan)
Date: 01/27/05 

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:57:04 GMT

Donald McDaniel wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:55:37 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <bangv01jo4aj09lvs5m98gg3gtpeaa7dea@4ax.com>, donmcdaniel2005
>>@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:08:21 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>>
>>>>With this being said - you can keep using it, it's your right to CHOOSE
>>>>to violate the EULA if you want, but you can't claim it's ethical or
>>>>even your RIGHT to install as many copies as you want.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>
>>>I firmly disagree that a man has the right to choose to break the law.
>>>Our rights are grounded in the Constitution of the United States, and
>>>in Natural Law. I am positive that the Constitution gives us no right
>>>to choose to break the law. If the Constitution gave us the RIGHT to
>>>choose to break the Law, that Law granting us the RIGHT to choose to
>>>break the Law would also be the RIGHT to actually break the Law, which
>>>would make the Constitution null and void.
>>
>>Well, I see it as every being has a RIGHT (never said under the law or
>>your god) to do anything they want - I never said that they would not
>>pay the consequences for it based on the societies laws/rules.
>>
>>Every man has certain RIGHTS, not legal ones, not ethical ones, not
>>societal ones, human ones, right now matter where he is - he has a right
>>to think and make decisions. This was the extent of what I was
>>suggesting.
>>
>>In case you missed it, I don't support theft of any type. I support the
>>RIGHTS of people to make stupid decisions and then to have to pay for
>>those decisions.
>>
>>Look at it this way - if the action of theft was some how made
>>impossible, that would have to limit the RIGHT of choice/decision by a
>>human - I would never want to impose some means to limit choice/decision
>>making, but I would want to impose a penalty for making a bad choice.
>>
>>--
>
> My friend, you are still confusing "RIGHT" with "ABILITY".
> As I said in my former post, "RIGHTS" are "FREEDOMS" granted by God or
> Governments, not Natural Law.

No I'm not, you are confusing "Rights" with a limited scope based on the
  "Legal Rights" of citizens - which is a very narrow scope to think in.

> No one has the RIGHT to break the Law.
> The so-called "RIGHT" to CHOOSE to break the Law implies that that
> so-called "RIGHT" also gives a man the "RIGHT" to actually BREAK the
> Law.

Everyone has the Right of Choice, even a wrong or illegal choice. If you
take away the right of choice, at any level, you take away freedom and
many other things. Everyone has the Right to choice, but that does not
make illegal actions right.

[snip]

> 2) The RIGHT to be at LIBERTY (under Law). This LAW does NOT give men
> the right to choose to enter a restricted Government facility without
> the Government's permission, or his neighbor's house without that
> neighbor's permission.

You are confusing "Rights" with law - while Law's provide citizens with
"Legal Rights" there is more to this world than just Laws - there are
certain fundamental RIGHTS - the RIGHT OF CHOICE is one that is not
restricted by law or your gods.

>
> Our Government's Laws grant this RIGHT of LIBERTY with a PROVISO: a
> man must NOT choose to break those Laws. If he makes this choice, he
> will suffer the consequence of having his RIGHT of Liberty abridged or
> totally removed.
>
> 3) The RIGHT to pursue one's happiness (again, under LAW). If a man
> CHOOSES to OBEY the Law, he will inherit HAPPINESS as a consequence.
> If he instead chooses to DISOBEY the Law, he will suffer UNHAPPINESS
> as a consequence.

This is not true, not everyone is happy under the LAW - check why we're
in Iraq - the LAW there did not make people Happy or even provide a
chance at being Happy for many.

> If a man experiences what he thinks is HAPPINESS as a result of
> choosing to disobey the LAW, that so-called "HAPPINESS" is NOT the
> HAPPINESS which is guaranteed to us by the Constitution. I fail to
> see how a man can experience true HAPPINESS as a result of choosing to
> disobey the Law. I can only conclude that such a man is sick and
> warped in mind and personality.

And I suspect that you've never been in countries outside the USA, that
you forgot about the revolution that freed America, that freed many
peoples all over the world... Those were all illegal, but carried out by
people that exercised their Right of Choice.

We're going to disagree. I consider it my "Right" to choose no matter
what anyone or anything else says/does. I have a right to follow or not
follow rules/laws, and as a result of this belief I will have to deal
with the consequences of my actions. 

-- 
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... Bouvier's Law Dictionary ... its collective and political capacity. ... NOBODY has shown that my evidence that STATES have rights, ... persons were going to serve on juries or in the militia, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... Bouvier's Law Dictionary ... its collective and political capacity. ... There's a DA to REPRESENT THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE precisely because EACH and EVERY individual CAN'T make himself the self-appointed judge or jury whenever he feels like it! ... NOBODY has shown that my evidence that STATES have rights, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... Bouvier's Law Dictionary ... its collective and political capacity. ... YOU don't get to be judge and jury and decide when an argument fails simply because YOU refuse to deal with it and use any silly excuse you make up! ... NOBODY has shown that my evidence that STATES have rights, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Rick Stanley RATIONAL REGULATION OF RIGHTS
    ... OPINION RELEASE: RATIONAL REGULATION OF RIGHTS ... > gun law is constitutional. ... > analysis to the 2nd Amendment while applying strict scrutiny analysis to ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Pirated XP, means-test everyone and every product with "income
    ... Rights, Donald, are granted by no man, and if you continue to insist on ... it's actually much more accurate to note that the Constitution is ... > HAPPINESS which is guaranteed to us by the Constitution. ... > disobey the Law. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)