🚀 go-pugleaf

	  *** n.b.: yes, this is germane to software patents. ***

ryan@cs.umb.edu (Daniel Guilderson) writes:
   In article <692@huxley.UUCP> arg@huxley.UUCP (Adam R. Grossman) writes:

      Actually, the only legitimate reason for  a law [or  a government] is
      to benefit individuals.  I may be old-fashioned,  but I still believe
      people are born with certain rights and to secure these rights is why
      governments [and laws] are instituted among women and men.

   This is a new way of looking at government.  The founding fathers
   certainly didn't look at it this way.  There would be no reason to have
   a government if the goal was to benefit individuals... laws should only
   be made which benefit society.  As for individual rights, it benefits
   our society for government to protect these rights.

This  is not at  all a new  way of looking  at  government and the Founding
Fathers most   certainly _did_  look  at it   this way, which  is  why  our
Declaration of  Independence reads (approximately),  "[it  is] self-evident
that all men are... endowed with... rights  and that to secure these rights
governments are instituted  among  men...   whenever a  government  becomes
destructive to  these  ends, it is the   right of the  people  to alter  or
abolish it..."

This  clearly  establishes the order: individual rights  first, followed by
government and laws.  Also note that  individual  liberties are an inherent
part of being human and  governments are--by definition--subservient to the
personal  liberties.  It is no  coincidence  that  the Preamble to the U.S.
Constitution  begins with   "establish  justice"  and ends with  "secure...
liberty" with  only a vague reference  to  "promoting the general  welfare"
buried somewhere in the middle.

Some people--like Robert Bork--would argue that the majority ("society") is
entitled to rule simply because it is  a  majority.  However,  this gets it
backwards: people are  entitled to their liberties  simply because they are
people and majorities are  entitled to  pass some laws  only as a matter of
practical compromise--but never  when they become  "destructive to... [the]
ends" of securing liberties.

What does this have to do with software patents?

When the Constitution was written, it seemed like a practical compromise to
grant seventeen year patents  to inventors and  it  did not  seem to have a
substantial effect on individual liberties.  For software  patents now, the
reverse is true: it is an impractical compromise and it interferes with our
ability to write software in a substantial and unreasonable way.

It  will    continue to be  an  incomplete,   superficial, and unconvincing
argument to  base  one's opposition to  software  patents on the  incorrect
notion that "the only legitimate reason  for a law  is to benefit society."
We can make better arguements.
-- 
Adam R. Grossman
arg@bitstream.com