It's not a smart-alecky comment at all. tranglos was addressing the underlying logic and philosophical argument being made. You're discussing realpolitik - which we all can appreciate is often different from what the law may actually say - even when it isn't flying directly in the face of it.
Naive and high-flown arguments? I should say so...
But they aren't the ones being made by tranglos.
Oh, sorry, I was not intending to suggest that it was a "smart-alecky" comment. I never for a moment thought it was. It made a very good set of points. I absolutely agree with the sentiments
expressed by @tranglos
in that statement, and someone probably had to speak those sentiments at some stage, as a moral/ethical principle or standpoint at least.
What I was referring to was the truth of the statement in the full
quote. It has three parts:
- 1. There is no one right that trumps all other rights, not the free speech, not the freedom of assembly, not even the right to life. (A general but absolute statement, probably true - certainly as a principle to be upheld in a free democracy - with inherent and commonly understood assumptions in terms of the existing laws of the land.)
- 2. So why would property and copyright be the only rights to which there are no exceptions? (A question as to why the converse/contradiction of the 1st statement could be true in the single case of property and copyright.)
- 3. When put like this, the position is untenable. (Therefore, the converse/contradiction of the 1st statement could not be tenable or true by implication.)
There is the important third part of the statement, which refers to and follows on from the first and second:
When put like this, the position is untenable.
You see, clearly it is
tenable - or at least it seems to be in practice - because this "untenable" situation has become and/or is still becoming enshrined in law. I think I gave a reasonable and brief explanation to the question:
So why would property and copyright be the only rights to which there are no exceptions?
Why? Because the people pushing for this apparent contradiction want it and can achieve it if they push hard enough and "donate"
enough to lawmakers/senators (QED) to do it.
Every day probably sees yet "another brick in the wall".
If it wasn't tenable, then it wouldn't/couldn't be happening, so the 3rd statement by @tranglos is invalid.
So, it is
tenable in fact - and thus it would be a kind of "magical thinking" to believe that it is not.
It is probably a safe assumption that the majority of people reading the three parts of that statement quoted would nod their heads sagely up and down in agreement (I did anyway), certain of its truth.
But if you pause to look at it skeptically and ask "Is that really true? How is it substantiated?", then you can fairly quickly establish that it probably isn't true - though we would perhaps all like it to be.How did it get to be so?
By lawmakers and elected representatives being lobbied/"persuaded" by a powerful minority group
to structure/restructure laws that enable the thing to be tenable (legal), even though the lawmakers/reps. would have probably understood full well that it went against the wishes and/or the best interests of the majority
of the people (Joe Public) in the "free and democratic" system.
In such a system as this, of course, the wishes and/or the best interests of the majority
of the people in this matter would seem to matter not one jot, and to have been pushed up where the sun don't shine.