Hey thanks for the feedback. Very useful and constructive criticism, thanks for taking the time to type it out.
Regarding , “right to free speech does not depend upon the duty to let others speak” it’s not that a right which is bundled with a duty is dependent upon that duty, in the sense that if you fail the duty you lose that right. It’s that the right is bundled with the duty in the sense that if you fail the duty, you suffer consequences. It’s not possible to claim the right without also being bound by the duties.
That said, I think you bring up a good point that this bundle is not focused around free speech, specifically, but more around general constitutional rights. I have edited the example to reflect this. There is a later section “understanding rights and duties” which elaborates a bit more on the nature of consequences for failing to hold to duties, but given I’m posting this piecemeal I’m also adding in some clarification to this chapter.
Your point about private spaces is correct, however you’re not infringing on another person’s right to free speech when you regulate someone else’s speech as a prerequisite to enter/occupy private space. There’s an old adage “my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins”. I have a right to free speech, but it does not supercede your right to control who enters/occupies your private property. I will add a line explaining this exception as a footnote.
On contracts I have changed the phrasing in order to be more specific and accurate based on your feedback. It now reads “This gives them the right to compel that person to abide by the terms of the contract. It also obligates them to a duty to pay, as specified in the contract, once the services have been rendered as promised. Until the contract was voluntarily signed, neither party had any sort of automatic claim to the other’s services and/or money, or the right to compel them to abide by the terms of the contract, or the duty to abide by those terms themselves. Thus, this is a bundle that was opted into.”
I think your point about bundling not being a general feature of personhood is also relevant, it’s clear my writing is not leaving readers with the impression I was hoping for. Bundling isn’t a “feature” of personhood, rather bundle theory is just a commonly used lens through which courts and legal scholars view rights and duties when assessing legal personality. I will add a line explaining this as well.
Hey thanks for the feedback. Very useful and constructive criticism, thanks for taking the time to type it out.
Regarding , “right to free speech does not depend upon the duty to let others speak” it’s not that a right which is bundled with a duty is dependent upon that duty, in the sense that if you fail the duty you lose that right. It’s that the right is bundled with the duty in the sense that if you fail the duty, you suffer consequences. It’s not possible to claim the right without also being bound by the duties.
That said, I think you bring up a good point that this bundle is not focused around free speech, specifically, but more around general constitutional rights. I have edited the example to reflect this. There is a later section “understanding rights and duties” which elaborates a bit more on the nature of consequences for failing to hold to duties, but given I’m posting this piecemeal I’m also adding in some clarification to this chapter.
Your point about private spaces is correct, however you’re not infringing on another person’s right to free speech when you regulate someone else’s speech as a prerequisite to enter/occupy private space. There’s an old adage “my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins”. I have a right to free speech, but it does not supercede your right to control who enters/occupies your private property. I will add a line explaining this exception as a footnote.
On contracts I have changed the phrasing in order to be more specific and accurate based on your feedback. It now reads “This gives them the right to compel that person to abide by the terms of the contract. It also obligates them to a duty to pay, as specified in the contract, once the services have been rendered as promised. Until the contract was voluntarily signed, neither party had any sort of automatic claim to the other’s services and/or money, or the right to compel them to abide by the terms of the contract, or the duty to abide by those terms themselves. Thus, this is a bundle that was opted into.”
I think your point about bundling not being a general feature of personhood is also relevant, it’s clear my writing is not leaving readers with the impression I was hoping for. Bundling isn’t a “feature” of personhood, rather bundle theory is just a commonly used lens through which courts and legal scholars view rights and duties when assessing legal personality. I will add a line explaining this as well.