[linux-elitists] RMS is at it again
Seth David Schoen
Mon Dec 4 16:45:15 PST 2000
Joakim Ziegler writes:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 11:01:28AM -0800, Heather Stern wrote:
> I generally agree with you, although I thought I'd comment on the paragraph
> > The real problem with RMS' philosophy is that he claims a fairly noble ideal
> > (which he also seems to deeply believe in) but, he has chosen a means to
> > implement it which depends on lawyers and restricting rights. Restriction of
> > rights as a means to a goal of increased rights.... I dunno 'bout *you* but
> > I see a bug in this design.
> Most people who aren't anarchists or anarcho-capitalists or somesuch believe
> a certain amount of restrictions on rights are required to maintain rights.
> For instance, it's illegal to shout fire in a crowded theatre, even though
> this is technically infringement of freedom of speech. Even more basically,
> your personal freedom and right to murder people is restricted, for the good
> of the community.
anarchists don't all think that these limitations are problematic --
or argee that they are limitations on rights.
Restrictions on behavior are only restrictions of rights if you
actually have a right to engage in the behavior in the first place.
It seems very mistaken to me to suggest that all anarchists believe
that there is a right to engage in _every_ possible behavior (such as
Peculiar to anarchism are particular concerns about the nature of
restrictions and how they may be realized.
I also have a big problem with the claim that those examples are
restrictions made "for the good of the community". Obviously there
are some nice social benefits from the prohibition of murder, but...
Seth David Schoen <email@example.com> | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
More information about the linux-elitists