> don't expect change to come from Amazon or some boycott thereof. The change should come from us by way of better governance.
Devil's advocate: Rights are inherent, and an external authority (government, etc.) cannot by definition grant them; it can only restrict them (though whether it should is separate).
It's a subtle point, but I bring this up because it's more in line with the way Stallman thinks, so to miss that point (for any other readers) is to misunderstand Stallman.
That's an ivory tower political philosophy concept, merely a new mask put on the religious concept that certain inalienable rights are given to us by God.
Of the rights we have in the United States, most we have because of long western European (and particularly British) tradition (which incorporates religious doctrine, particularly Christianity), and some we have because we fought a war of independence against England to win those extra rights.
The constitutions of the U.S. and its component States try to minimize infringements into individual liberty, by defaulting to individual liberty, but society has become so complex that that fail-liberal ideal has been lost in practice. Individual liberty ends up affecting other people too much to be ignored. Few people want to take the heat for defending the negative aspects of individual liberty, so the erosion continues.
"Positive rights" vs "negative rights", "rights" vs "privileges": I don't think any of that philosophical wrangling does anything to change the reality of the situation.
Individual freedom is not inherent inside a political body. If we want rights, we have to defend them, and if we want rights we don't have, we have to fight (politically speaking) to obtain them.
Rights are something we made up. In fact, I dare you to find a difference between a right to [free speech|health care] and an entitlement to [free speech|health care].
Don't get me wrong, I'm staunchly in favor of human rights. But claiming they're inherent won't do you any good when you're looking at the barrel of a gun, regardless of who holds it. Rights are created and defended in the culture first, and may or may not percolate through to government and law.
> Rights are created and defended in the culture first, and may or may not percolate through to government and law.
In case you missed it, that was the point of my original comment. An 'inherent' right can (and should) be defended by the culture, regardless of whether or not any government exists to respect it.
To be honest, I'm having a hard time way to express this concisely enough for an HN comment, but the gist is that, while the government can protect rights, rights must exist even if no single authority is responsible for protecting them. Otherwise, they are privileges.
This isn't quite the same thing, but look up the arguments for why Internet access is not a human right[1]. I can't find the article I'm thinking of that explains it well, but the idea is that, if someone lacks Internet access on a desert island, it's not necessarily because someone is actively infringing on their right. If someone is a slave to another, someone is actively infringing on their human rights under Article 4 of the UDHR.
[1] Contrast 'human right' with 'civil right' and you'll see why the concept of 'rights' is so complex.
Devil's advocate: Rights are inherent, and an external authority (government, etc.) cannot by definition grant them; it can only restrict them (though whether it should is separate).
It's a subtle point, but I bring this up because it's more in line with the way Stallman thinks, so to miss that point (for any other readers) is to misunderstand Stallman.