A poll conducted for the BBC World Service earlier this year found that almost four in five people around the world believed that access to the internet is a fundamental right.
internet is a technology. How could anyone ever feel entitled, simply because they live, or because they live in the US (or any other country), to a technology? That would be like thinking you entitled to HealthCare, or retirement Pension (SocialSecurity) or unemployment checks simply because you're an American. I mean, yes, we're all paying for these things via taxes and we all 'benefit' if we ever need it. But it just doesn't make sense. These things cost money and it should be up to the individual to decide how they spend their earned money (or don't spend their money) so long as it doesn't directly cost others money. So by entitling this technology, you are again deciding how Americans spend their money "for the good of the people". These are NOT fundamental rights. What is a fundamental right? That I get to decide how I spend the money that I earn.
In the past, using your body was sufficient to interact with society and government or if it wasn't it was the best we could do as technology allowed. In the case of the future, this is becoming less and less true and since the body is becoming less sufficient, I think it is appropriate to extend those functions to whatever functional object is sufficient to achieve that purpose. A person should always have the right to interact with their government and if they are unable to because of ill health, the lack of transportation to the local office, no telephone, no internet, whatever, than they are losing something very important and essential to freedom, and in my opinion, it is far more important than some money that would otherwise be taxed.
You raise interesting points. I don't believe that the person should be 'provided' with the ability to communicate via the government. That's not the gov'ts job. The job of the government is simply to make sure that their opportunity to communicate is not taken away. To protect them and their fundamental rights. If they are unable to create a means of communication with the government, that is their own problem, not the government's. The government should never deny any form of communication that someone tries to use. Whether they are in person holding up signs, emailing or mailing. If they put up road blocks, that's a corrupt government.
But if they don't reach out and send you the stamps, paper and pen (and perhaps, writing classes for the illiterate) so you can mail your letter, they're not doing anything wrong. Likewise with new technologies. They don't provide the means, just the opportunity.
So, is access to the internet a fundamental right?
Please explain your response.
While there is a distinction between positive rights and negative ones, I think this is a case where the government does need to do something to insure a basic equality in this manner or else people become disenfranchised, which is a huge problem. I see it as a case of a right to a jury by one's peers. Sure, people don't like jury duty and it inhibits their rights in the sense that they probably would rather being doing something else with their time, but the gain is more important than the loss.
I think all postal mail to the government that is used in doing business with the government, such as filing taxes or signing up for selective service should be free. But then the USPS is an arm of the government.
Obviously there is a practical limit, but in the case of selective service, I think you can pretty much get anything you need in a post office. This is a good model.
Pursuant to this story:
BBC News - Finland makes broadband a 'legal right'
From the story:
So, is access to the internet a fundamental right?
Please explain your response.
To apply 'disenfranchised' to not having access to the internet is a massively huge stretch, especially given that while you have a right to vote, you are not disenfranchised by not having a ride to the voting booth.While there is a distinction between positive rights and negative ones, I think this is a case where the government does need to do something to insure a basic equality in this manner or else people become disenfranchised, which is a huge problem.
How can something that must be provided to you by others be a 'fundamental right'?Eventually it will be, yes.
How can something that must be provided to you by others be a 'fundamental right'?
Goobieman said:How can something that you have only because the goverment created a law that gives it to you be a 'fundamental right'?
Eventually it will be, yes. But in the United States, I don't think we're quite there yet, technologically or financially. Finland can pull it off because they're a much smaller country with great infrastructure. The US has 60 times as many people and ****ty infrastructure.
A few months ago, Obama launched an initiative (I forget the name) to give all Americans access to broadband by 2020. While that seems like a ridiculously long time to me, I'm glad we are at least recognizing universal broadband as a worthy goal.
When you classify something as a fundamental right, that's -exactly- what you are doing.Most Finns (as well as many Americans) have a very different concept of rights than you do. No one is talking about it being synonymous with, say, freedom of speech.
This is completely incorrect.I'm not sure what you're asking. ALL of our rights exist only because the government created a law (or a constitutional amendment) giving them to us.
Why do people continue to think that when they have a right to (x) they are entitled to the means to exercise their right to (x)?
I see.Because I believe that a theory without real world functionality is useless.
I see.
You then agree that since I am poor and cannot afford to buy one on my own, the government should force other people to provide to me the means to exercise my right to arms.
Great! There's this nifty DPMS .260 I've had my eyes on...
And, since you didnt respond...
To apply 'disenfranchised' to not having access to the internet is a massively huge stretch, especially given that while you have a right to vote, you are not disenfranchised by not having a ride to the voting booth.
Gee... how did I know that your response would be "oh, no, that's different".No, because bearing arms could mean picking up a stick off the side of the street and there are very few people who could not find a weapon of some type, such as a crowbar or kitchen knife. The constitution does not specifically talk about guns.
That just means you are wrong.I don't agree.
Gee... how did I know that your response would be "oh, no, that's different".
:roll:
That just means you are wrong.
Yes.You have your opinion and I have mine.
I'm not sure what you're asking. ALL of our rights exist only because the government created a law (or a constitutional amendment) giving them to us. Maybe I could give a better answer if you explained which of our fundamental rights you don't think fall into that category.
I would say any 'fundamental' right exists because we live. That's how I define a fundamental right. A right that you have merely because you live. You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government doesn't give these rights. It protects them. The government can protect your right to have internet, but it cannot 'give' it to you. So I counter-challenge you to explain how any fundamental right is given to us by the government. I cannot think of one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?