[disgruntledphd2]

> You appealed to some people with guns

Actually, the whole set of up all laws derives from people with guns. Like, if there was no government, then we probably wouldn't have the internet, so domain names couldn't be taken away.

Like, are you saying that rights of property are more fundemental than government?

That seems like an odd argument, given that rights to property would seem to derive from government, at least in the modern world.

[shadowgovt]

This is a deep well of theory of society, and reasonable people disagree based on how they answer that question.

Some do believe property rights exist independent of government (and existed before the concept of governments, as webs of individual agreements between people with no over-arching enforcement authority, i.e. "This belongs to me because if you try to take it from me I will kill you. That belongs to you because you would do the same to me. We have an understanding between us, but is an understanding between two people a 'government'?").

[mdpopescu]

> ... rights to property would seem to derive from government...

Yeah, this is the fundamental disconnect I have with (apparently) most people. Rights come from God. The idea that they come from governments is, in the words of a famous person, "not even wrong".

Anyway, this was an informative exchange. I learned that I'm in a minority, at least in this corner of the world :)

[wonderwonder]

Problem with this argument is: What god and under what rule book?

If my rule book says women are second class citizens, then is that just it? They have no rights? Or if my rule book says homosexuality is bad, but another interpretation of the rule book says its fine, then who's rule book is correct? Who settles that argument? Government.

Only other answer is a holy war and the survivors rule book is supreme. Until the next holy war.

[moate]

My God says you have no rights except those derived from governments. Now what do we do?

"Rights" are more properly understood as "a social agreement among people of a culture". If a culture doesn't value something, no rights for it exist. When cultures intersect, "rights" get real muddy real fast.

[AlexandrB]

This is silly. God gave no right to domain names. If the internet was a libertarian utopia, I would just run my own DNS server and could "own" google.com, apple.com, etc. Except no one would use my DNS server.

Instead governments and NGOs manage limited "intellectual property" rights on DNS servers everyone agrees to connect to so the internet can actually be useful and not a free-for-all. The same applies to copyrights and patents. There is no natural right to exclusive ownership of an idea or written text. These things are "naturally" meant to be copied. Intellectual property "rights" are entirely constructed by government decree.

[mdpopescu]

I don't believe in Imaginary Property (aka Intellectual Property). It's not what I was talking about.

Someone bought the right to use a specific domain from a specific domain name provider. It was a private transaction between two parties, freely agreed to between them.

[hansjorg]

In the specific case you're railing against, arbitration by the complaints board is just a contractual provision in that private transaction.

There is no "theft". Your whole understanding of this issue is absurd.

[krapp]

>Yeah, this is the fundamental disconnect I have with (apparently) most people. Rights come from God.

Please objectively prove the existence of the specific God from which you assert that all rights derive.

[mdpopescu]

This [1] is by far the best answer I have ever seen to that question / request. Since it is quite long, I will attempt to summarize: that is what I start from. I am more certain of the existence of God than I am of my own existence - the first one is an axiom, the second one is a theorem ("I think, therefore I am").

"The answer is that a reasonable person is a person who believes what Augustine believes and who, like Augustine, can only hear assertions contrary to that belief as absurd."

I genuinely see opinions different from mine as absurd. As in, "you cannot possibly believe this, which means you are lying" absurd. It's why I generally dismiss the common saying "do not attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence". NOBODY is that incompetent, and therefore whatever I disagree with is in fact malice.

I realize it's a minority opinion. I am fine with that situation, though I continue to be surprised when people disagree :)

[1] https://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/02/001-why-we-cant-...