Disabusing the Common Law of 'Abuse of Rights': The Only Legitimate Rule Redux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the doctrine of abuse of rights, people may not exercise their rights for improper purposes such as defeating the objectives of others. The concept of abuse of rights is based upon moral imperatives and social values whose innate validity cannot be established. Between competent adults, there is only one legitimate substantive rule of obligations: force is prohibited. The doctrine of abuse of rights is incompatible with this rule. Rights provide autonomy within which rights holders may resist force from others for any reason and in pursuit of their own objectives. If judges and state officials are empowered to decide when a subjective purpose is legitimate, then that autonomy is a fiction. When the enforcement of rights is dependent upon the proper motivation of the rights holder, rights are transformed from markers of mutual freedom to instruments of social control. The common law does not contain a general obligation of civility nor does the exercise of private rights require achievement of public good. The doctrine of abuse of rights reflects a paternalistic compulsion to supervise.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".