| ▲ | 0x3f 12 hours ago |
| What are 'basic freedoms'? |
|
| ▲ | pessimizer 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If you don't believe that people should be able to sell themselves into slavery, you should start by offering your list. If you do believe that people should be able to sell themselves into slavery, then unlimited freedom of contract is a basic freedom for you. What you shouldn't do is pretend not to understand. |
| |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not the one making a positive claim. I haven't even claimed such rights exist so why on earth would be the expectation be that I list them? You've assumed that I believe in this shared fiction. We sell ourselves into a form of slavery every day. Some would argue that is a big driver of our current society and way of life. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | nativeit 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Speech, for example. |
|
| ▲ | mcbutterbunz 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Those that are deemed inalienable. |
| |
| ▲ | SauntSolaire 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Freedom of speech is far from inalienable. Non-disclosure agreements are most relevant, but every country on earth also has at least some regulations regarding hate speech, threats, incitement, purjury, or defamation — not to mention security clearances or state secrets. | | |
| ▲ | mcbutterbunz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | And that's where the complexity arises in this argument that I don't know how to resolve. In the case of this woman vs Meta, to me it doesn't "feel" legal that one disparaging comment costs $50K. It feels that there's something wrong here that should not be allowed despite her entering the agreement. Maybe I don't believe she should have been allowed to enter the agreement. But I understand that my point of view doesn't match legal code. Just feels fucked. | | |
| ▲ | SauntSolaire 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | To be clear, I do agree with everything you've said here — I just disagree that freedom of speech is an inalienable right, and I don't think there's ever been a time or place where it has actually been considered one. If it were up to me, I would require non-disparagement agreements to be standalone contracts, and cap the damages a company can claim to the amount they paid you to sign it. Once that number is met, the contract is void. That way the company only gets as much leverage as they're willing to pay for. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | AndrewKemendo 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The majority of people will self-alienate themselves in exchange for power or even just survival Think of a person digging their own grave under threat of immediate murder (tons of well documented examples). This is the maximum self alienation: do work to make life easier for your oppressors. In my 41 years it seems like the majority of people are content digging their own graves | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Please enumerate these inaliable basic freedoms that I should not be able to deal in. | | |
| ▲ | mcbutterbunz 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you'd like to research basic freedoms, I would suggest starting here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's very boring for you not to actually commit to anything specific, so that you don't have to defend it. | | |
| ▲ | mcbutterbunz 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's a basic list on that page. There are many LLMs out there that you can discuss this with if you want to waste your own time. I'm not going to waste any more time with this thread. You have an attitude that says "Debate me but you'll never convince me". If you'd like to learn something, there are many resources on the internet available to you. | |
| ▲ | malfist 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm glad we're all here under the goal of making non-boring statements for 0x3f | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | We're all essentially here under the goal of making non-boring statements for each other, yes. That is the general purpose of an online forum. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US will not permit you to sign yourself into slavery, as an example. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Only for a very narrow definition of slavery. Arguably constructing society such that it costs so much to just exist (for example, by artificially restricting housing supply) and thus you have to work is not all that different to slavery. I would say the dollar is but company scrip with better PR. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Only for a very narrow definition of slavery. Good. We have "enumerate[d] [at least one] inaliable basic [freedom] that I should not be able to deal in". | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well now you're equivocating. We've established one that you can't deal in in a specific country. _Should_ is quite a different question. You can't establish should by establishing is. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Don't hurt your back moving those goalposts. Lift with hips. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | America = literally the whole world and everyone in it so QED inalienable rights exist Well I wouldn't call it a strong argument... Nonetheless the goalposts were never shifted. The question was always 'should'. So I'm very confused by your confusion. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | What proof, exactly, would you accept for "should"? Should is an opinion. You're welcome to feel "slavery should be legal". I'm welcome to (and should) think you're insane for holding that opinion. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Should is an opinion. Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. In fact if we're talking about the US slavery _is_ legal in certain contexts. So it's definitely not inalienable. Only in the context of voluntary agreements between private citizens. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. You should read up on what "inalienable rights" are about. Even the first couple of paragraphs on Wikipedia will suffice. They get violated all the time and need constant protecting. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're taking a strangely ethnocentric view here. I don't take the founding fathers' writings as a form of scripture. Those are but bare assertions. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're taking a strangely US-centric view here. This has nothing to do with the founding fathers. The Ancient Greeks talked about natural law. The UN passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 193 countries have ratified at least parts of it. Again, I beg you to at least read a paragraph or two off Wikipedia. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | The specific term 'inalienable' is heavily associated with the founding of the US. The others are different things but not very different in substance, i.e. ultimately some guy claimed these are universal rights. Wikipedia is not going to make appeal to authority work any better as an argument, I'm afraid. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Clear ignorance again. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... > Preamble > Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world... | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is the US not in the UN now or something? The whole UNUDHR was an Eleanor Roosevelt project. She literally drafted the documents! At least look it up before being rude. You need to get the knowledge before applying the sass. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | "An American helped convince 193 countries of something, therefore it's invalid" is a take, I suppose. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well this was really just a sub-argument about whether 'inalienable' is an Americanism, which it is. The real point about 'natural' rights, or whatever term you've switched to using, is that they're simply assertions. Not supported by anything else. Doesn't really matter who is asserting them. The argument takes the same form, and is equally bunk. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ceejayoz 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Free speech? |
| |
| ▲ | 0x3f 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | So I can't sign an exclusive book deal? Or write for a newspaper? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Exclusive book deals tend to have defined timespans. I'm not clear on the newspaper example; do you think reporters aren't allowed to write stuff outside their job? Plenty of reporters publish books. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No I just mean in the sense that I give over the rights to my own words. I can't repeat them outside of the context that I've agreed to. They were both examples of the same kind of agreement. They'll keep those rights well after I'm dead, by the way. | | |
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're not giving over the rights, you're selling the right to profit from them under contract. You can argue that contract law is essentially a battle of relative political and economic power, and IP and employment contracts will always be unfair unless limits are set by statute and enforced enthusiastically. And personally I would. But generally you're signing away the rights to specific text, not the insights or commentary in that text, and if you freelance there's nothing to stop you making your points through some other channel, and/or some other text. If you're a full-time employee then the usual agreement is that your words (code) are work product and owned by your employer, and you're in that situation because your political and economic power is relatively limited. |
| |
| ▲ | mikkupikku 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Exclusive book deals tend to have defined timespans Good. We have "enumerate[d] [at least one] inaliable basic [freedom] that peopke should be able to deal in". Of course, we can quibble over the permissible duration of such timespans, but I think the point has been made clear. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just to be clear: you're asserting that "there are some inalienable rights" can be debunked by the existance of one that is not inalienable? That's not how this works. | | |
| ▲ | SauntSolaire 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You asserted that free speech was an inalienable right, they provided an example showing it's not. They also could have mentioned: NDA's, hate speech, threats, incitement, purjury, defamation, security-clearances or state secrets. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You asserted that free speech was an inaliable right, they provided an example showing it's not. No. "Inalienable right", like the "right to bear arms", has never meant you get to do anything with it. Free speech doesn't extend to defamation; free expression doesn't extend to murder; freedom of the press doesn't extend to sneaking into the CIA's archives, freedom of movement doesn't apply to jails. I'm of the opinion that arbitration clauses and non-disparagement agreements of the scope involved in this particular case are unconsionable, because they unreasonably infringe upon such inalienable rights. | | |
| ▲ | SauntSolaire 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're proving my my point, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, not an inalienable right. Please look up the definition of inalienable. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Some assert it's inalienable. (I don't agree - re-read my wording carefully - but some certainly take that position. My point: those who do still tend to take the "but there are limits!" position on, say, home-brewed nukes.) In each case, though - constitutional right, human right, inalienable right, natural right - the fundamental concept of "sometimes two people have rights that conflict, and society has to resolve this" applies. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mikkupikku 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We're talking about whether people should be permitted to sign away their right to speech. I think you've conceded that such is permissible at least for a limited duration. Shall we quibble the permissible durations, or are you done? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure; we have to resolve conflicts between two sets of people with rights sometimes. The inalienable right to free speech doesn't extend to defamation and fraud; the inalienable right to freedom of movement doesn't apply to jailed murderers. Unconscionability is a bit like obscenity; hard to perfectly define, but sometimes quite clear. | | |
| ▲ | SauntSolaire 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The inalienable right to free speech doesn't extend to defamation and fraud You have a strange definition of "inalienable". | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not really; it's a conflict between two groups and sets of rights. I have the inalienable right to not be defamed and defrauded. Now we have to resolve the contradiction as a society. That it's sometimes messy doesn't mean we ditch the concept of rights. | | |
| ▲ | SauntSolaire 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Those are not inalienable rights either, they're legal rights. Here, courtesy of Cornell law: "An inalienable right is a fundamental entitlement inherent to every person that cannot be sold, transferred, or taken away by the government. These rights, often called natural rights are considered essential, cannot be surrendered by the individual, and are not dependent on laws." Just Google "is x an inalienable right" next time. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | An inalienable right can also be a legally protected one. "Inalienable" is an assertion; a should. The right not to be genocided is inalienable. It gets violated still. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
