"Rights" is a very slippery concept. There's certainly a sense in which we all have the "right" to do anything we can. I used to joust regularly with a guy on Plastic.com who had as a signature "the only thing a free man can be forced to do is die." In his mind, you always had a "right" to do anything at all, as long as it didn't impinge on the right of another person to control their personal property (e.g., their body); anything you did that was within you sphere of "rights" was a matter of choice. (He was a libertarian, of course.) But that's a pretty expansive use of the term "rights".
I don't think "rights" make sense outside of a social context -- we're social animals, after all, even the act of using language requires the conceptualization of an "other" to take in what we say, and even if that 'other' is ourself -- and if that's true, we have rights to the extent that we are "granted" them -- though what it means to be "granted" rights, and who/what has authority to grant them, is still an open question. If we live according to laws, I'd argue we accept the ability of a law-enforcing entity to "grant" at least some rights; others we may hold as being above the law, but that's only because we have a moral/ethical rationale for them, and where does that rationale come from? It doesn't come from me as an atomic, disconnected individual -- no human who's capable of talking and acting in the world really is such a thing, even though they might think they are. That said, as an individual (though not disconnected), we do make decisions about who or what we hold to have the authority to grant or enforce rights. The kind of discussion the paper's trying to provoke happens in the context of the pre-supposition that rights do come from somewhere outside of the pure individual decision that you have right x or y. The idea is to stake ideological territory. So even if it seems redundant or absurd, there's still merit in doing it (the very fact that some can see it as redundant and some can see it as absurd to my mind means it's a discussion we ought to have). As far as property rights go, those are all interesting questions, and the 'using right now' rubric is particularly interesting. Reminds me of the line from *The Sound and the Fury*: "As soon as he [Chief Ikemotubbe] conceived of the idea that the land could be sold, it ceased to be his." On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Jason Olshefsky <[email protected]>wrote: > On Oct 22, 2010, at 4:59 AM, Alicia Henn wrote: > > This is an interesting article on rights for avatars. It seems reasonable > and yet ludicrous at the same time. My officemate and I have had a great > time expanding on it. - Alicia > > First, <sarcasm>kudos</sarcasm> for calling it "Get Your Paws off of My > Pixels: Personal Identity and Avatars as Self". > > My initial reaction is, "videoconferencing and message boards" The end. > In other words, if our virtual representation in a videoconferencing > setting or on a message board can be considered a representation of self > (that is, an insult or attack on our representation is considered similar to > the same done to our individual self) then what difference is it if our > representation is an avatar in a virtual world? > > Upon reading further, I found it rather evocative: I could barely read a > few lines without my thoughts drifting. I kept analyzing what we consider > "rights" and "property". > > Americans have come to believe rights are given -- that government grants > rights. Yet isn't that foolish? Of course I can say what's on my mind; > stopping me from doing so is egregious. When rights are internalized, all > this legalese on when they are applicable goes away. > > Consider also an actor or performer. In that case, they often do the > reverse: permit their self to represent the non-self. If someone insulted > Steven Colbert in the context of his fictional self, would that have the > same impact as insulting Steven Colbert the real person? Should we really > think Steven Colbert the character is the same thing as Steven Colbert the > person? > > Then the whole talk about how virtual property is considered like real > property. All my thoughts drifted to how "real property" is just virtual > property unless you are in close physical proximity to it. Let's say you > bought a piece of land and never set foot on it or even visited anyone near > it. Then the courthouse burned down and all property records were lost. > What did you really own? As an aside, if Second Life went out of business > and shut off its servers, would people have the right to claim losses of > virtual property? > > Speaking of virtual property, isn't it funny that I could lose $50,000 in a > retirement account and that would be upsetting but perfectly acceptable, yet > if my bank statement comes up $1 short I'll call them to complain? I'm > heading down a path where I recognize property only as things I'm using > right now. I consider an alternate world where things like the contents of > my house are "things I left lying around the earth" so others are welcome to > them. Alas, we expend an lot of psychological effort worrying about stuff > we left lying around. > > ---Jason Olshefsky > http://JayceLand.com/ > http://JayceLand.com/blog/ > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<r-spec%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en. > > -- -- eric scoles | [email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en.
