> 
> My take is the opposite -- that cases where law contradicts rights are
> violations, and the law should be changed.  I don't take legal violation
> of rights to be a hint that rights aren't all that important.
> 

Can you explain what you believe 'rights' are in the absence of 'law'? 
I am aware that people have different opinions on this depending on 
their background, eg religious affiliation, philosophy or legal 
training. My take is that 'rights' do not really exist in that there is 
no 'natural law' to reference to. To believe otherwise gives a false 
sense of human importance in the universe. On the other hand 'wants' and 
desires do exist and are very tangible. I want a car, I want a 
girlfriend, I want a new CD, I want to download that software, I want to 
sell some software, I want a gun, I want to walk down the street in 
safety, I want to be healthy, I want to smoke unfiltered cigarettes etc.

Want's only get codified to 'rights' in reference to the Law so it is 
difficult to suggest that the Law somehow contradicts rights which it 
self creates. It can only contradict 'wants' which is a natural thing 
because not all 'wants' are compatible or sometimes they are but not all 
of the time. The reason the Law is complex is because human wants are 
complex and contradictory.

The main thing is to try not to confuse your wants with your rights.


B