So women always had the right to vote, they just didn't know it? Homosexuals could always get married, they just never bothered trying? I have the right to buy crystal meth, I just need to man up and do it?
So women always had the right to vote, they just didn't know it? Homosexuals could always get married, they just never bothered trying? I have the right to buy crystal meth, I just need to man up and do it?
So women always had the right to vote, they just didn't know it? Homosexuals could always get married, they just never bothered trying? I have the right to buy crystal meth, I just need to man up and do it?
So you are amending your earlier blanket statement of "rights cannot be given, they are inherent" to "[I]natural[/I] rights cannot be given, they are inherent"?
Well since that's basically saying "inherent things are inherent" then that's fine, if rather glib.
I think there are probably disagreements to be had on which rights in particular are "natural" and which are not (and if there is truly any such thing as a natural right), but that would be going down a tangential track that is likely to be tedious for both of is.
No. Arguing by example is not the same as a straw man argument, and is a perfectly fine form of debate. Labelling someone's argument as a strawman in order to evade engaging with it however...
So you are amending your earlier blanket statement of "rights cannot be given, they are inherent" to "natural rights cannot be given, they are inherent"?
Well since that's basically saying "inherent things are inherent" then that's fine, if rather glib.
I think there are probably disagreements to be had on which rights in particular are "natural" and which are not (and if there is truly any such thing as a natural right), but that would be going down a tangential track that is likely to be tedious for both of is.
No, no, no. You insisted rights were essentially "allowed" by government when you said this: "Rights can not be given, except they are, by your Constitution, which moreover can be amended to give more."
Pertinent, real world examples that wholly discredit the main thrust of the original contentious statement are straw men? Is this one of your "proofs" again?
No, no, no. You insisted rights were essentially "allowed" by government. You were way off.
Didn't say government, said law. Different things.
A "right" that is not recognised by law is a meaningless bit of rhetoric. Law gives the concept of a right substantive meaning. Therefore rights are given by law. Your rights under law. Not necessarily specifically, laws can be written to be targeted at exclusions, i.e. the rights you do not have; but nevertheless it is the formulation of the law that allows for the rights that you do have even if they are not specifically stated.
This is the way lawful societies work. Even with "natural" rights, for if they are so inherent ( suggesting obviousness), why would they even need to be documented?
For the record I don't believe in "natural rights" at all. Made up gibberish.
Pertinent, real world examples that wholly discredit the main thrust of the original contentious statement are straw men? Is this one of your "proofs" again?
Since you are nitpicking, the examples you provided fall under "non-natural rights of personhood, created by social contract".
Didn't say government, said law. Different things.
A "right" that is not recognised by law is a meaningless bit of rhetoric. Law gives the concept of a right substantive meaning. Therefore rights are given by law. Your rights under law. Not necessarily specifically, laws can be written to be targeted at exclusions, i.e. the rights you do not have; but nevertheless it is the formulation of the law that allows for the rights that you do have even if they are not specifically stated.
This is the way lawful societies work. Even with "natural" rights, for if they are so inherent ( suggesting obviousness), why would they even need to be documented?
For the record I don't believe in "natural rights" at all. Made up gibberish.
I'm not going to get bogged down arguing against Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, English common law, the US Constitution, etc.
Laws are enforced by government in accordance with the framework provided by the Constitution. Our natural rights are also DEFENDED by this system. Natural rights are not assigned by government or a judge, like a Social Security number, at birth. Natural rights are inherent.
Alright? So you admit that non-natural (i.e. all ) rights are created by the social contract? The social contract that is formalised and practised through the society's laws?
I know this stuff a fair bit. I also know that while many admirable people believe that natural rights and law are a thing, others don't. I'm not closeted enough to think there is a correct opinion on such matters, only opinion. Mine sits mostly with Rousseau; social contract is the arbiter.
In any case, you made a sweepingly broad statement, I called you on it, you clarified. We're done here. The existence or not of natural rights is rather besides the point, and not very interesting.
I know this stuff a fair bit. I also know that while many admirable people believe that natural rights and law are a thing, others don't. I'm not closeted enough to think there is a correct opinion on such matters, only opinion. Mine sits mostly with Rousseau; social contract is the arbiter.
In any case, you made a sweepingly broad statement, I called you on it, you clarified. We're done here. The existence or not of natural rights is rather besides the point, and not very interesting.
Steve Jobs initiated an agreement between companies to not hire regular employees (engineers, programmers...) from each other. Having an agreement is against the law.
More than 60,000 tech workers can seek monetary damages from Apple (AAPL), Intel (INTC), Google (GOOG) andAdobe Systems (ADBE) because of a federal judge's ruling in a suit claiming that former Apple CEO Steve Jobs conspired with other local executives to limit the workers' pay by barring them from moving from one company to another.
In granting class-action status to the suit Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose cited what she termed "considerable, compelling common proof" that the Silicon Valley companies engaged in antitrust behavior by agreeing not to try to lure away each others' employees.
In her decision, Koh noted that the accusations largely center on former Apple CEO Jobs, because each of the alleged no-hire agreements involved a company under his control or that shared at least one director who was on Apple's board.
The lawsuit contains several examples of conversations Jobs had with other executives demanding that they not poach Apple's workers. In many cases, the suit claims, the executives complied. In one email Jobs told Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this," referring to a Google recruiter contacting an Apple engineer in 2007.
But not everyone complied with Jobs' demands, according to evidence Koh cited in her ruling. She noted as an example an incident in 2007 when Jobs allegedly threatened to sue Palm for patent infringement if it didn't heed the no-poaching arrangement. In response, Palm's former CEO, Edward Colligan, told Jobs the demand was "not only wrong, it is likely illegal."
In the settlement with Pixar, Lucasfilm and Intuit, the three companies -- which employed about 8 percent of the affected workers -- agreed to pay a total of $20 million, according to Kelly Dermody, the plaintiffs' lead lawyer.
Noting that none of the workers have received that money yet, she added that it remains unclear what additional financial damages might be sought at the trial. But aside from the money, she said, just having the case certified as a class-action suit sends an important message "that people need to pay more attention to employee rights and fairness in the workplace."
What did Tim Cook do while this was happening? Nothing.
What is Tim Cook doing about it today? Nothing. He is speaking out for equality for Gays but not his own employees that were harmed by the illegal agreement, the very people that helped make Apple successful.
It's true that anti-poaching agreements were determined to be illegal, but there are also State laws, unfair competition laws or specific statutes where employee poaching may be illegal as it is considered tortious interference with business (contractual) relations. This occurs when a company intentionally causes an employee to breach his/her employment contract.
Furthermore, I believe there have been successful lawsuits over one company poaching a large number of employees from another under "unfair business practices" statutes.
So it's not completely clear cut. Furthermore, it's obvious that many employees have indeed moved from company to company. Note that even the anti-poaching agreements did not mean that you couldn't hire an employee from another company, it just meant that you couldn't cold call employees in that company and encourage them to leave.
In any case, while this may have been illegal and ruled as such, IMO, it doesn't rise to the level of racial, gender, age and other types of discrimination.
Where do you live? I’ll come kill you. After all, you’re not automatically granted the right to life, much less anything else.
Where are rights in nature? How’s this: where are humans in nature? We aren’t. We’re sapient. We’re better than this. We left nature. Right now, you reading this after I wrote it is about as far removed from nature as humans can be.
Comments
Patent poppycock.
You’re on a roll with the strawmen today.
For your reading pleasure (pay particular attention to the section titled "Natural Rights"):
http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm
Well since that's basically saying "inherent things are inherent" then that's fine, if rather glib.
I think there are probably disagreements to be had on which rights in particular are "natural" and which are not (and if there is truly any such thing as a natural right), but that would be going down a tangential track that is likely to be tedious for both of is.
It is if the examples are strawmen.
No, no, no. You insisted rights were essentially "allowed" by government when you said this: "Rights can not be given, except they are, by your Constitution, which moreover can be amended to give more."
You were way off.
A "right" that is not recognised by law is a meaningless bit of rhetoric. Law gives the concept of a right substantive meaning. Therefore rights are given by law. Your rights under law. Not necessarily specifically, laws can be written to be targeted at exclusions, i.e. the rights you do not have; but nevertheless it is the formulation of the law that allows for the rights that you do have even if they are not specifically stated.
This is the way lawful societies work. Even with "natural" rights, for if they are so inherent ( suggesting obviousness), why would they even need to be documented?
For the record I don't believe in "natural rights" at all. Made up gibberish.
Since you are nitpicking, the examples you provided fall under "non-natural rights of personhood, created by social contract".
I'm not going to get bogged down arguing against Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, English common law, the US Constitution, etc.
Laws are enforced by government in accordance with the framework provided by the Constitution. Our natural rights are also DEFENDED by this system. Natural rights are not assigned by government or a judge, like a Social Security number, at birth. Natural rights are inherent.
EDIT: @ two posts above.
Good nit-picking.
You could have just replied to this post, then:
With a “Yes”, and then we would have known to ignore everything else you say on the subject.
You're an intelligent person. Do some research on the subject.
I know this stuff a fair bit. I also know that while many admirable people believe that natural rights and law are a thing, others don't. I'm not closeted enough to think there is a correct opinion on such matters, only opinion. Mine sits mostly with Rousseau; social contract is the arbiter.
In any case, you made a sweepingly broad statement, I called you on it, you clarified. We're done here. The existence or not of natural rights is rather besides the point, and not very interesting.
Fair enough. I consider the matter closed.
Have a good holiday.
Steve Jobs initiated an agreement between companies to not hire regular employees (engineers, programmers...) from each other. Having an agreement is against the law.
More than 60,000 tech workers can seek monetary damages from Apple (AAPL), Intel (INTC), Google (GOOG) andAdobe Systems (ADBE) because of a federal judge's ruling in a suit claiming that former Apple CEO Steve Jobs conspired with other local executives to limit the workers' pay by barring them from moving from one company to another.
In granting class-action status to the suit Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose cited what she termed "considerable, compelling common proof" that the Silicon Valley companies engaged in antitrust behavior by agreeing not to try to lure away each others' employees.
In her decision, Koh noted that the accusations largely center on former Apple CEO Jobs, because each of the alleged no-hire agreements involved a company under his control or that shared at least one director who was on Apple's board.
The lawsuit contains several examples of conversations Jobs had with other executives demanding that they not poach Apple's workers. In many cases, the suit claims, the executives complied. In one email Jobs told Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this," referring to a Google recruiter contacting an Apple engineer in 2007.
But not everyone complied with Jobs' demands, according to evidence Koh cited in her ruling. She noted as an example an incident in 2007 when Jobs allegedly threatened to sue Palm for patent infringement if it didn't heed the no-poaching arrangement. In response, Palm's former CEO, Edward Colligan, told Jobs the demand was "not only wrong, it is likely illegal."
In the settlement with Pixar, Lucasfilm and Intuit, the three companies -- which employed about 8 percent of the affected workers -- agreed to pay a total of $20 million, according to Kelly Dermody, the plaintiffs' lead lawyer.
Noting that none of the workers have received that money yet, she added that it remains unclear what additional financial damages might be sought at the trial. But aside from the money, she said, just having the case certified as a class-action suit sends an important message "that people need to pay more attention to employee rights and fairness in the workplace."
Oct 25, 2013 http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24390480/judge-oks-class-action-suit-against-apple-intel-google-adobe
Tim Cook talks out of both sides of his mouth.
What did Tim Cook do while this was happening? Nothing.
What is Tim Cook doing about it today? Nothing. He is speaking out for equality for Gays but not his own employees that were harmed by the illegal agreement, the very people that helped make Apple successful.
It's true that anti-poaching agreements were determined to be illegal, but there are also State laws, unfair competition laws or specific statutes where employee poaching may be illegal as it is considered tortious interference with business (contractual) relations. This occurs when a company intentionally causes an employee to breach his/her employment contract.
Furthermore, I believe there have been successful lawsuits over one company poaching a large number of employees from another under "unfair business practices" statutes.
So it's not completely clear cut. Furthermore, it's obvious that many employees have indeed moved from company to company. Note that even the anti-poaching agreements did not mean that you couldn't hire an employee from another company, it just meant that you couldn't cold call employees in that company and encourage them to leave.
In any case, while this may have been illegal and ruled as such, IMO, it doesn't rise to the level of racial, gender, age and other types of discrimination.
Where do you live? I’ll come kill you. After all, you’re not automatically granted the right to life, much less anything else.
Where are rights in nature? How’s this: where are humans in nature? We aren’t. We’re sapient. We’re better than this. We left nature. Right now, you reading this after I wrote it is about as far removed from nature as humans can be.