Riverwind Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 Under what argument(s) could her property and religious rights be denied?Your right to practice your religion ends as soon as you violate the rights of others (in this case the rights of the signal broadcasters would be violated). Religion cannot be used to justify crimes of any sort. If we allowed that then everyone accused of a crime would invent a convenient religion. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Hicksey Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 Consider an example. Property Owner A has a large farm, where she works and lives. One day she is visited by two nice, clean cut religious men who convince her of the immorality of artificial modulation of the electromagnetic spectrum. Such presumption, they argue, is not humankind's to make. She's already a vegan, so she is not hard to convince.Based on her newfound religious convictions, she is determined never to be exposed to artificially modulated electromagnetism and demands that signal providers respect her property rights. Under what argument(s) could her property and religious rights be denied? We do not have 'property rights', only enjoyment thereof. And those few property rights are not absolute. A satellite provider does not have to ask your permission to broadcast to your location. They ask the CRTC, and the CRTC either allows or denies them based on their application. Satellite signals are the property of the broadcaster. We are allowed to use them on conditions set by both the CRTC and the Satellite provider. The CRTC designates the requirements and restrictions of the equipment you may use and the satellite provider allows access for a fee. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Charles Anthony Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 If laws do not have anything to do with what is right and wrong and should have no bearing on one's behavior, then why have them?The laws are there to make order and to balance competing interests. The fact that some laws are based on right and wrong is incidental. If enough people want a law, we will write something down in our "law books" regardless of whether it is right or wrong. How else would you have it? Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Hicksey Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 If laws do not have anything to do with what is right and wrong and should have no bearing on one's behavior, then why have them?The laws are there to make order and to balance competing interests. The fact that some laws are based on right and wrong is incidental. If enough people want a law, we will write something down in our "law books" regardless of whether it is right or wrong. How else would you have it? What you are saying is that we should be able to selectively obey/disobey laws according to whether or not we can justify disobeying them to ourselves? And how does that create order again? Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Riverwind Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 What you are saying is that we should be able to selectively obey/disobey laws according to whether or not we can justify disobeying them to ourselves?Many people will obey the law but, at the same time, claim there is nothing wrong with the behavoir prohibited by the law. The question in this thread asked whether it is 'wrong' not whether people would actually use an illegal decoder box.My argument is that it is not just illegal but wrong and a violation of the rights of the signal broadcaster. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Hicksey Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 What you are saying is that we should be able to selectively obey/disobey laws according to whether or not we can justify disobeying them to ourselves?Many people will obey the law but, at the same time, claim there is nothing wrong with the behavoir prohibited by the law. The question in this thread asked whether it is 'wrong' not whether people would actually use an illegal decoder box.My argument is that it is not just illegal but wrong and a violation of the rights of the signal broadcaster. I realize that. It was a follow up question to the assertion that illegality has no bearing on whether or not something is right or wrong. So if illegality isn't a factor, I asked what was. As to the issue at hand, I disagree. That signal is the property of the broadcaster and absent permission to use it, you are stealing from the broadcaster. I also believe that the CRTC should not bar us from paying for and using that service regardless of where it originates. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
M.Dancer Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 Like I said in another thread...it may be wrong but I don't care one way or another...I see the issue of stealing programming (forget this signal static) top be no different that bootlegging or copyright infringement. And in the end I really couldn't care less if Rogers or EMI, Sony et al lose 10 gazillion dollars because someone doesn't want to pay to listen to Jessica Simpson or watch the Iron Chef..... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Hicksey Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 Like I said in another thread...it may be wrong but I don't care one way or another...I see the issue of stealing programming (forget this signal static) top be no different that bootlegging or copyright infringement.And in the end I really couldn't care less if Rogers or EMI, Sony et al lose 10 gazillion dollars because someone doesn't want to pay to listen to Jessica Simpson or watch the Iron Chef..... At last, an honest person. I use pirated music and movies. Unlike others, instead of searching for a way to justify it, I just acknowledge I am doing something wrong. I understand there is a calculated risk to doing so. When I calculate that the risk involved is higher than I am willing to endure I will stop. If I get caught and punished it will be because I have done something wrong, not because the law has victimized me. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
M.Dancer Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 Like I said in another thread...it may be wrong but I don't care one way or another...I see the issue of stealing programming (forget this signal static) top be no different that bootlegging or copyright infringement. And in the end I really couldn't care less if Rogers or EMI, Sony et al lose 10 gazillion dollars because someone doesn't want to pay to listen to Jessica Simpson or watch the Iron Chef..... At least, an honest person. I use pirated music and movies. Unlike others, instead of searching for a way to justify it, I just acknowledge I am doing something wrong. I understand there is a calculated risk to doing so. When I calculate that the risk involved is higher than I am willing to endure I will stop. If I get caught and punished it will be because I have done something wrong, not because the law has victimized me. I don't....but I have. My wife brought home two dvd's a couple of months ago. One was the Da vINCIO CODE AND the other was forgettable......about 4 minutes into it I'm tryingh to get the subtitles off the screen when a silouette rises and walks in front of the subtitles....that's when I realised they were video taped befor a live audience somewhere in france...... The best I've seen was gladiator....it was still in the threatres when I saw it at home....every now and then a notice would appear at the bottom reminding me that the copy was not for distribution and was to be shown only to academy judges..... I voted Gladiator for best use of fog during war and dreams..... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Charles Anthony Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 If I get caught and punished it will be because I have done something wrong, not because the law has victimized me.I am curious to learn more about your perspective of the law vis-a-vis right and wrong. Please answer my follow-up question: If you do not get caught nor punished, why would that be? I think it would be because it is not worth the effort nor the money to catch or punish you -- regardless of any concept of right or wrong. Unless, maybe, if we accept the pursuit of wealth or power to be a baseline for right and wrong. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Hicksey Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 If I get caught and punished it will be because I have done something wrong, not because the law has victimized me.I am curious to learn more about your perspective of the law vis-a-vis right and wrong. Please answer my follow-up question: If you do not get caught nor punished, why would that be? If I don't get caught it is because the authorities are either unaware of my transgression or not targetting me for investigation. I am not arguing against you doing it. I just think it is disingenous to run around doing something wrong and because you don't want to deal with the consequences tell everyone who will listen that it is the law that is wrong. I see the risk of being caught or prosecuted as negligible at best for either of us so long as we are end users and not distributors. So if you want to do it who am I to stop you? Just don't whine when you have to deal with the consequences. Sure I won't like it if I have to, but real men admit when they have done something wrong and bear the punishment with dignity. I'd rather get caught and pay for my mistake than to get caught making the argument this thread is. That's the great thing about a free country. You can do just about anything if you are willing to bear the consequences of doing it. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Charles Anthony Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 That's the great thing about a free country. You can do just about anything if you are willing to bear the consequences of doing it.What do you think is an appropriate punishment for your transgressions? if you get caught after the authorities deem it is worth their while to target their investigation upon you. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
M.Dancer Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 I agree...it's like hunting the laird's deer and fowl. Yes we knew it was his.....but we certainly didn't care...... everyone should have a healthy disdain for a portion of the law....it's what makes us civilized and seperates men from bees....... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Hicksey Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 If I get caught and punished it will be because I have done something wrong, not because the law has victimized me.I am curious to learn more about your perspective of the law vis-a-vis right and wrong. Please answer my follow-up question: If you do not get caught nor punished, why would that be? I think it would be because it is not worth the effort nor the money to catch or punish you -- regardless of any concept of right or wrong. Unless, maybe, if we accept the pursuit of wealth or power to be a baseline for right and wrong. I guess upon reflection I only addressed half of your post. I don't run our police agencies. However I would hope all of our criminal codes are enforced with as much vigor as resources permit. A lack of resources to enforce a crime does not make it right. The pursuit of wealth and power is the basis for existence in a capitalist society. Allowing you to steal a signal is akin to allowing you to steal the equivalent of the value of subscribing to that signal from their bank account. Even if not by specific design you are pursuing wealth because in stealing that signal you are saving the money you would spend on such entertainment to be spent elsewhere. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Hicksey Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 That's the great thing about a free country. You can do just about anything if you are willing to bear the consequences of doing it.What do you think is an appropriate punishment for your transgressions? if you get caught after the authorities deem it is worth their while to target their investigation upon you. Of course I would try to get the best deal I could, but anything less than the minimum sentencing guidelines would be a miscarriage of justice. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
M.Dancer Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 I would demand the same punishment that Socrates asked for. But with less hetari....... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Hicksey Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 I agree...it's like hunting the laird's deer and fowl. Yes we knew it was his.....but we certainly didn't care......everyone should have a healthy disdain for a portion of the law....it's what makes us civilized and seperates men from bees....... That's right. But regardless, it is wrong to break it. If we want to break it anyway, we shouldn't be whining about a fate that we ultimately chose for ourselves. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
M.Dancer Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 I have been known to break the law concerning the burning of certain controlled substances.... I also sometimes put my garbage out too early and I have crossed the street on a red....but never with my kids....I am their role model..... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Hicksey Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 I have been known to break the law concerning the burning of certain controlled substances....I also sometimes put my garbage out too early and I have crossed the street on a red....but never with my kids....I am their role model..... Nobody is 100% moral. We ask all these questions about right and wrong and it really serves nothing. We can argue it all day long to no consequence. Morality is relative. Some of the more recent debates around here concerning abortion, the death penalty, satellite piracy, marijauna use, copyright violations, etc ... all come back to one thing: our beliefs or more accurately what we believe to be moral. But because the morals of different people vary so greatly according to their religion and personal biases, we have laws -- a core set of morals under which all of society should operate. It is under this unmbrella that we judge what is right and wrong. As Mr. Anthony so eloquently put it "The laws are there to make order and to balance competing interests" which dictates that we must must consider what is right and wrong as it pertains to keeping societal order. In keeping order we must view right and wrong on a scale that everyone is equal under -- even if that means some people will not be happy. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Figleaf Posted October 3, 2006 Author Report Posted October 3, 2006 (edited) [quote al. Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf Quote
Figleaf Posted October 3, 2006 Author Report Posted October 3, 2006 (edited) [ Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf Quote
M.Dancer Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 Under what argument(s) could her property and religious rights be denied?Your right to practice your religion ends as soon as you violate the rights of others (in this case the rights of the signal broadcasters would be violated). Religion cannot be used to justify crimes of any sort. If we allowed that then everyone accused of a crime would invent a convenient religion. But the signal senders are violating her right to be free from their signal. The judge ruled and found the signal providers in the wrong. He ruled that they were to provide the woman with a lifetime supply of tinfoil hats........ Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Hicksey Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 If laws do not have anything to do with what is right and wrong and should have no bearing on one's behavior, then why have them?The laws are there to make order and to balance competing interests. The fact that some laws are based on right and wrong is incidental. If enough people want a law, we will write something down in our "law books" regardless of whether it is right or wrong. How else would you have it? What you are saying is that we should be able to selectively obey/disobey laws according to whether or not we can justify disobeying them to ourselves? And how does that create order again? Actually, it would create order by ensuring that laws are made in consideration of what people actually want. Those who pay extra on their bills because people like you create a need for costly higher security measures would certainly not want that. Nor would the provider, or anyone that works for them. The question here is: whose wants should be respected first? Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Figleaf Posted October 3, 2006 Author Report Posted October 3, 2006 (edited) [ Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf Quote
Riverwind Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 Now, several years later, merely because someone has found a way to make profit from beaming stuff, our property rights have been completely overturned.Your argument is bogus because the signals question are invisible and inaudible and do not interfere with any other signals that you might want to use. Your claim of being inconvenienced because you cannot use electronic equipment which has no purpose other than decoding these signals is also ridiculous. If you are really concerned about the invasion of private property by these signals then you should be demanding the ban of all electromagnetic tranmissions. Demanding the right to receive free satellite programming because your rights have been 'violated' is so obviously self serving that no reasonable judge would even hear your case. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.