Re: Asimov Site

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

**** **** wrote:

> Frank Townsend wrote in message ...
> >Of course the house is different, but that is irrelevant to the point that
> >Jeff is making.
> >
> >Your arguments tend to be unpersuasive and/or irrelevant because they are
> >not couched at the same level of abstraction as Jeff's.
> >
> >If you don't know what I mean, do a web search on Hayakawa's Abstraction
> >Ladder.
> >
> >Property can be viewed as a "bundle of rights" which makes Jeff's analysis
> >not only non-silly but perfectly sensible..
>
> How can that which is fundamentally wrong, be a "right" ?

You have an unproven assumption here. That it is wrong. It is right.

> In your defense, I
> don't believe either you or Jeff do this out of malice. But you are using
> circular logic. I say even if it's the law, it's "wrong". You say it's
> "right". I ask why you think it's right, and you say because it's the law.
> Explain to me why it should be a "right".

It is a right, because right to property is a fundamental human right. Which is
why that right is protected in the constitution in several aspects, including
the right to own your own intellectual property.

You (or someone else) above contended that writing software was just stringing
together various codes. So is all writing. I have twenty six symbols (how many
op codes are there in the 6502?) that I string together in a unique way to
create: a book, a poem, a love letter, or even a post on an electronic bulletin
board. I have the right to control my words, my thoughts, as to whether or how
they may be copied. It is my intellectual work (even if it isn't worth copying),
and it is a fundamental human right that I may control that which is mine. Or
you that which is yours.

Roy

>
>
> John