[pp.int.general] "Natural" law

[Reinier Bakels]

> Again agree with Per: traditional politicians will continue their lies, no 
> matter whether we counter and deny those lies or not; even, if we don't 
> counter and deny them, they will feel more comfortable -too much- lying 
> and distorting facts. Thus, I agree on avoiding the /language arena/ 
> and/or the /ideological arena/ is not advisable.

As a matter of principle, our political opponents deserve to be respected as 
well, as long as they are not plainly corrupt. I object against a "lier" 
qualification. Both in the field of immaterial goods and the field of 
privacy the issue is not black and white, and there is room for 
interpretation. If you don't trust politicians, read the professional 
literature. And if you believe that most scholars are liers too - it becomes 
pathetic.

The fact of the matter is that we make different trade-offs. That is the 
normal level to make politics. The arguments can not be found in fundamental 
rights or other legal constructs. The answer is political. And it should be 
based on concrete facts. What is the substance of the safety/privacy 
dilemma? Don't all recent proposals in the field copyright originate from 
the record companies, who a reluctant to accept that their fate is similar 
to the fate of money exchange banks in the Eurozone?

reinier