Obviously. However it's the "us" I have a problem with. I understand that you think that society's needs trumps individual freedoms (correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be what you've been saying). The heck of it is, I disagree.
"Society's needs" is just as made up as "individual freedoms", first off,
Happiness is not made up. Preference satisfaction is not made up. They are real, empirically observable phenomena.
As opposed to rights, which are just rhetorical constructs used to sell people the idea that they are entitled to something. They have a great deal of appeal to people who think they should be entitled to things, but they have no coherent philosophical basis.
and second it simply doesn't work as well. It's also much harder to properly define. I mean, let's return to the composer who can't make a buck for his life work because some shmuck decided to steal his notes and make money off of them. I gather you think that that composer has no right to his compositions ? But doesn't that mean, by the same token, that NONE of us have a right to anything we do or make ? And how does THAT help society ?
I never ceases to amaze me that you continue to participate in threads like this when it's absolutely clear you have understood none of the preceding conversation.
If it helps society overall to create and enforce copyright privileges, we should do it. Not because anyone has a made-up "right" that nobody else copy their work, but because it works out best for everyone if we make up a law that stops people copying their work.
On the other hand if it does not benefit society overall, then if a composer thinks they have a "right" that society spend a fortune on lawmakers, police and lawyers to go around stopping people copying their tunes then said composer can go jump in the lake.
Okay, I have explained the basis of rights.
You have handwaved, waffled, tried on a few different dumb justifications on for size and now given up.
I have explained why they arise naturally out of the necessity of having humans in close proximity.
If they really were
necessary, then they would necessarily be socially beneficial.
The whole argument centres on claimed "rights" which are
not necessary and are arguably
not socially beneficial, like the right to sue people who share music non-commercially.
Your new argument is a feeble attempt to dress up a
post hoc Just So Story with the mantle of "necessity", to enable you to pretend that alternative ways of running a society cannot work.
I have explained why your system, as a piece of government is a total failure.
You sit there with your arms crossed saying 'well you tell me' and 'godly butt fairies.'
I don't see how you bring anything to this.
The Socratic method is used to make people with idiotic, incoherent ideas realise that their ideas are incoherent and idiotic.
It works best upon subjects that have the wit and the integrity to admit it when they have talked themselves into a corner, of course, but even lacking such a subject it can be educational for onlookers.
Once it's sunk into people's heads that talk of "rights" is nothing more than self-entitled windbaggery, we can move on to discuss the subject more intelligently.
