21–30 of 60 posts
If the 2nd Amendment is for A) self-defense without the government, or B) eventual resistance against the government itself, then surely it should be interpreted to protect strong encryption.
The right to privacy of thought, and the right to think anything.
If they fail to intercept, they could always get warrants to secretly surveil the suspects, swap or backdoor their hardware, etc.
If the 2nd Amendment is for A) self-defense without the government, or B) eventual resistance against the government itself, then surely it should be interpreted to protect strong encryption.
Agreed. The wording of the 2nd amendment doesn't lend itself to encryption though which could be an issue.
Is there any existing jurisprudence defending citizen access to cryptography on 2nd Amendment grounds?
I can't answer this question, but just to put it in context, the United Nation'a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, put together after World War II, is a truly beautiful document. I had never read it or really knew anything about it, but if you read through it, it's an absolutely inspiring vision of humanity and of a world that one day might exist. It's wording is concise, clear, and beautiful. Here's the forewor…
When you know you don't have to enforce them you make make your declaration say anything you want. Real, worthwhile documents like the United States Constitution mean something because you can take it into a courtroom and enforce it. These things aren't real declarations because they don't provide any real rights that you can enforce, just fancy PR documents. Things like >Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, i…
There are always people who bring in extreme cultural relativism to argue for all kinds of ethical transgressions: "Hey, who says child labor is exploitation? Maybe some people are fine with working 24/7 without pay and selling their children. What do we know?"
Human rights can be used to find arguments against stuff like that.
I can't answer this question, but just to put it in context, the United Nation'a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, put together after World War II, is a truly beautiful document. I had never read it or really knew anything about it, but if you read through it, it's an absolutely inspiring vision of humanity and of a world that one day might exist. It's wording is concise, clear, and beautiful. Here's the forewor…
Next, we need to drive home the point that dialectics means Christian. Not dianetics. I'm not talking about Scientologists. I'm talking about Communists. Communists are closet Christians. Obviously Scientologists with Christian and Communist sympathies will be upset by this new Bill of Modern Rights. And a great many others no doubt, such as Islamic and Chinese students of religion.
Break a few eggs, make an omelet.
I expect this post the become massive, as questions like this are so large a kind of bike-shedding exercise goes on, but my own 2c: I think religious rights should have never evolved the way it did. Religion is clearly different from creed color, etc, it also includes belief, personality, motivation etc. Instead of becoming power real estate for established religions to fight over (do 'cults', or atheist institutions…
Bill of obligations:
Article 1: All parents are obligated to either support their children and provide their physical and educational needs, and give them the emotional support they need to grow up or leave them up for adoption at the earliest opportunity.
Article 2: Adult children must financially support their parents by a percentage of their income while their parents are over the age of 65.
Article 3: The nearest relatives with income to a person with disability are obligated to support that person financially.
Article 4: The government have obligation to help the needy, the disabled, the elderly, the abandoned, to search for their nearest relatives and garnish their wages and income to ensure the persons' needs are fulfilled.
Etc etc. Instead of centralising social welfare payments through the government, we can place this obligation back towards those nearest to those who need help. Instead of paying taxes to the government for who knows what causes, they go directly to those nearest to us, and if supporting them is too onerous, search for the next nearest relatives.
These articles obligations can be extended to include companies, governments, institutions. Any entity that doesn't fulfil their obligations can be sued by anyone, rather than only when they violate the plaintiff's "rights".
Is "right" the correct abstraction? An alternative might be "obligation". Bill of obligations: Article 1: All parents are obligated to either support their children and provide their physical and educational needs, and give them the emotional support they need to grow up or leave them up for adoption at the earliest opportunity. Article 2: Adult children must financially support their parents by a percentage of their…
What if you were abused by your parents and/or had some other issues with them, and you haven't had any contact with them for 30 years? Should you still pay them after they get over the age of 65?
In general, the whole idea is upsetting to me, over here in EU we pay massive taxes but they guarantee people in need are taken care off, "garnishing wages" of nearest relatives sounds just stupid.