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

From: Linda B (someone_at_microsoft.com)
Date: 01/27/05 

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:55:13 -0800

You know, I was completely prepared to let this thread die. I just checked
on it this morning, and lo and behold, there were like four hundred new
responses. Blech.

Rights, Donald, are granted by no man, and if you continue to insist on
using the words "God" and "government" in the same sentence, I'm going to
hunt you down and shave you bald. To maintain that rights can be granted by
any manmade establishment paints you as an unthinking, government-built
automaton (which, from your posts, may not be that far from the truth). I
can already hear your argument in my head, that the Constitution speaks of
the "unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (As
an aside, it's actually much more accurate to note that the Constitution is
not the document that guarantees rights in the US -- it's actually the
aptly-named "Bill of Rights.") You would be wise to note at this point that
the "Constitution" does not presume to *grant* these rights; rather, it
hopes to *enforce* them, i.e. they existed well before ol' John Han*** and
Co. came along and wrote them on a *** of parchment.

Two things that I feel the need to address.

> 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.

If your version of happiness is persistently complying with the laws of your
country, then I truly feel for you. While I do agree that adherence to the
laws of God -- or whatever you want to call Him -- can (and does) result in
true "happiness," adherence to the laws of man (e.g. always driving the
speed limit) can only result in a feeling that, well, you've never broken
the law. If that's your version of happiness, you are one sad little man.
There's a lot more to life than never driving 60 in a 55.

One more thing. If you were to do your history homework you might learn
that the term "happiness," as used in the Constitution, actually refers to
ownership of property. Real estate. In eighteenth-century, colonial
America, the founding fathers thought that one of the utmost goals of a
colonist was that he or she could each own their little plot of happiness.
*This* is what the term "happiness" refers to in the context of the
Constitution, and not the whole karmically-balanced, sunshine and rainbows
notion that you're expounding. So you're right about one thing:

> 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.

No indeed.

The other quote, by Leythos, which I'll paraphrase here: "Everyone has a
right to make a stupid decision." The fact that there are consequences for
those stupid decisions -- consequenses dictated by the prevailing government
in whatever country you happen to be in -- is something everyone should
consider before exercising that right.

This thread has officially strayed far outside the confines of its original
topic.

--LB

ps. you voted for Bush, didn't you?

"Donald McDaniel" <donmcdaniel2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:l21iv0li2ukm1ada4koh3jf9522h5fp8l7@4ax.com...
> 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 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.
>
> The Preamble to the Constitution gives men UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, GRANTED
> BY their Creator and the Constitution, which are:
>
> 1) The RIGHT to Life. This RIGHT to LIFE does not imply that a man
> has the RIGHT to choose to break the Law. God guaranteed LIFE to our
> first parents with one proviso: They must continue to CHOOSE to OBEY
> His Laws. If they chose (as they did) to DISOBEY His Laws, that RIGHT
> of LIFE would be taken away from them (They would DIE). This has been
> proven by the fact that all men choose to disobey God, and therefore,
> all men suffer the consequences of their choice: We ALL lose our
> lives at some point.
>
> Our Government's Laws guarantee LIFE to a man with a PROVISO: He must
> NOT choose to disobey the LAW, and murder or maim, or in any way cause
> harm to another citizen. If he makes a decision to murder or maim
> another human being, he must pay the penalty of having that "right to
> LIFE" taken away from him.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the original thread
> and keep the conversation in order.
> =======================================================