• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Access to the internet - a fundamental right?

is access to the internet a fundamental right?


  • Total voters
    33
A person can derive their idea of rights from any source they please.
Not if they want their argument to that effect to carry any weight.
 
A person can derive their idea of rights from any source they please. In your case, I am guessing you are looking at it from the lense of 1700s enlightenment. However, ultimately, what a person can or cannot do is determined by law, not philosophy. You can say that government protects rights (which morally, could be a correct argument) and another person says that government gives rights (which legally, could be a correct argument) and ultimately, those two arguments have nothing to do with each other as I think you are talking about morality and Kandahar is talking about legality.

legality should always be based in morality and in philosophy. If it is philosophically or morally unsound, it doesn't belong in the law. And I agree they can derive their idea of rights from any source they please. I derive my idea of rights from the constitution. I am an American afterall. And I don't think any law should be created outside the morals and philosophy of the constitution as it was intended (and often times, that intent was intently left open for debate). And if one is needed, then the constitution itself should be changed to allow for it.
 
Rights can't be taken away. Privileges can. This is just a dumbed-down version. In addition, a right is only a right when it doesn't negate another's right.

Having the internet is simply nothing more than a privilege. There is no way you can justify the assumption that anyone is entitled to have the internet, no matter what. You create a very slippery slope if you even attempt to justify it.
 
Rights can't be taken away. Privileges can.
Similarly, rights are not given, provileges are.
If you have something -- like internet access -- only because the goveremt gave it to you, you are enjoying a priviliege, not a right.
Nothing entitles you to the means to exercise your rights.
 
Rights can't be taken away. Privileges can. This is just a dumbed-down version. In addition, a right is only a right when it doesn't negate another's right.

Having the internet is simply nothing more than a privilege. There is no way you can justify the assumption that anyone is entitled to have the internet, no matter what. You create a very slippery slope if you even attempt to justify it.

I agree w/ your first statement. And to clarify, adding internet as an entitlement isn't creating a slippery slope. It's extending an already existing slippery slope on which we are sliding.... and unfortunately gaining speed.
 
legality should always be based in morality and in philosophy.

I agree, however everyone has their own take on what is the correct morality and philosophy.

If it is philosophically or morally unsound, it doesn't belong in the law.

I agree, but there is no objective standard since each culture is unique.

And I agree they can derive their idea of rights from any source they please. I derive my idea of rights from the constitution. I am an American afterall. And I don't think any law should be created outside the morals and philosophy of the constitution as it was intended (and often times, that intent was intently left open for debate)

I derive my rights from the constitution as well as it is the law that sits above other laws, but I don't care so much about original intent since those people are dead and its our country today.
 
No, it's not a fundamental right. I have no issue with countries making it a legal right, though. In today's increasingly technology-dependent world, it makes complete sense. I'm not surprised Finland is leading the way.
 
Yes it is in Finland. And some other places too pretty much.
 
No, access to the internet is not a fundamental right.
 
I agree, however everyone has their own take on what is the correct morality and philosophy.



I agree, but there is no objective standard since each culture is unique.



I derive my rights from the constitution as well as it is the law that sits above other laws, but I don't care so much about original intent since those people are dead and its our country today.

But the specific intents of the constitution are philosophical and full of moral truths. That cannot be wrong no matter what the times are during which we live. And to clarify, my point in saying that laws are derived in morals and philosophy (with which you agree) is a response to your quote: "ultimately, what a person can or cannot do is determined by law, not philosophy". This was your argument against me using the philosophy behind a proposed law to show that it is unsound. And now you are agreeing that laws ought to be based in morality and philosophy. And if morals and philosophy remain true across generations, I'm not sure I understand your conclusion.

You agree with my premise - laws are formed from philosophy and morals. But disagree with me because I use a philosophical argument against a law. I'm not trying to be picky - just trying to understand. I know you are intelligent from past conversations, so I must assume that I am misunderstanding your reasoning.
 
Last edited:
You agree with my premise - laws are formed from philosophy and morals. But disagree with me because I use a philosophical argument against a law. I'm not trying to be picky - just trying to understand. I know you are intelligent from past conversations, so I must assume that I am misunderstanding your reasoning.
You are.
His reasonng isnt really reasoning, rather a set of things he says are true because he says so - there's no supportable sound reasoning behind those things, just his say-so.
 
But the specific intents of the constitution are philosophical and full of moral truths. That cannot be wrong no matter what the times are during which we live.

To me that statement appears as if you were confusing opinion with fact. There is no such thing as a moral truth as all morality is relative and depends on opinion.

And to clarify, my point in saying that laws are derived in morals and philosophy (with which you agree) is a response to your quote: "ultimately, what a person can or cannot do is determined by law, not philosophy". This was your argument against me using the philosophy behind a proposed law to show that it is unsound. And now you are agreeing that laws ought to be based in morality and philosophy. And if morals and philosophy remain true across generations, I'm not sure I understand your conclusion.

Sorry, I was not clear. What you can or cannot do is determined by the limitations to your freedom. In this case, I meant that if there were laws against something and you are caught doing it, you will be punished. Morality and philosophy are just rules a person places on themselves. Both are sets of limitations (not that either is automatically bad, but they do limit freedoms).

You agree with my premise - laws are formed from philosophy and morals. But disagree with me because I use a philosophical argument against a law. I'm not trying to be picky - just trying to understand. I know you are intelligent from past conversations, so I must assume that I am misunderstanding your reasoning.

Laws are formed by legislative bodies. Philosophy and morals may be the motivation for it, but so might other things, such as a feeling of emergency (such as the case of TARP) or payback for campaign contributions. Ideally we try to make laws from our beliefs, but not always.
 
To me that statement appears as if you were confusing opinion with fact. There is no such thing as a moral truth as all morality is relative and depends on opinion.



Sorry, I was not clear. What you can or cannot do is determined by the limitations to your freedom. In this case, I meant that if there were laws against something and you are caught doing it, you will be punished. Morality and philosophy are just rules a person places on themselves. Both are sets of limitations (not that either is automatically bad, but they do limit freedoms).

Look here! I learned to sub-quote! Anyway - I do not believe laws should limit freedoms. Morally. If they do, they should be abolished. The government is suppose to protect our freedom, not take it away, even if it is 'for the good of the people'. The government as it is set up is suppose to do what is 'good for the person' and their freedom. This, I believe, is at the heart of our disagreement, this difference in opinion as to what government should do in an ideal world.



Laws are formed by legislative bodies. Philosophy and morals may be the motivation for it, but so might other things, such as a feeling of emergency (such as the case of TARP) or payback for campaign contributions. Ideally we try to make laws from our beliefs, but not always.

And again, I believe philosophy and morals ought to be the only motivation. If you do something based on a feeling of emergency that is morally or philosophically unsound, you should not do it. I don't see areas of grey in this matter. Again, this is the heart of our disagreement.
 
No, access to the internet is not a fundamental right.

It is in Finland now.. so somewhere in the world it is a fundamental right to them.
 
I said yes, but mostly because of my personal understanding of a right, as in nobody can emove your right to access the internet. As time progresses with technology and social contracts become greater I could only expect peoples 'rights' which were once privileges to be expanded.
 
You are.
His reasonng isnt really reasoning, rather a set of things he says are true because he says so - there's no supportable sound reasoning behind those things, just his say-so.

He says his are so just as I say mine are so. Based on our own beliefs. I will not be so arrogant as to assume my beliefs are, without doubt, the 'correct' beliefs. Which is why it's always good to give the benefit of the doubt and actually try to understand. Arguing to prove you're right just by putting the other person down is ineffective and not at the heart of my intent of debate. I feel sorry for you if this is your intent.
 
He says his are so just as I say mine are so.
You can say so all you want - if you cannot provide a sound argument to support them, then all you're doing is spouting babble. If all -you- want to do is see what other people think, that's fine, but its rather assuming of you to take issue with people who are here foe other reasons and challenge others to show sound support for their beliefs.

I will not be so arrogant as to assume my beliefs are, without doubt, the 'correct' beliefs.
There is a difference between "correct" and "sound".
 
Fundamental rights are a fluid thing and they evolve and expand. Now I know this does not sit well with certain conservative minded folks, but that is never the less a fact. For example.

The right to free speech and vote in the US. Today American's take it for granted but it is not long ago that free speech and voting rights were denied to people of colour and before that, 50% of the population (women) and before that was only given too a select few (men of a certain age and stature).

Hence what has happened in Finland, a very very wired nation, is nothing more than an evolution of fundamental rights.
 
And again, I believe philosophy and morals ought to be the only motivation. If you do something based on a feeling of emergency that is morally or philosophically unsound, you should not do it. I don't see areas of grey in this matter. Again, this is the heart of our disagreement.

Actually, I agree with that. I wish for more pure legislation as well. Ultimately, the function of a law is to limit freedom as they regulate society. Antijaywalking laws limit my freedom of where I cross the street. There is a law saying I cannot commit murder, etc. However, the exercise of those freedoms can be dangerous and harmful, so I don't mind giving them up.

I think the heart of our disagreement is what we think of as freedoms.
 
When you classify something as a fundamental right, that's -exactly- what you are doing.


This is completely incorrect.
Rghts are not granted by government, privileges are. Nowhere in the constitution or in federal law are you granted the right to free speech, the right to arms, etc.

You're just arguing semantics, not policy...and you're doing it in the context of a foreign nation which doesn't even operate under the same legal principles as the United States does.
 
You're just arguing semantics, not policy...and you're doing it in the context of a foreign nation which doesn't even operate under the same legal principles as the United States does.
This means what I said is wrong, because...?
 
I think, it is a right. As in, it should not be heavily censored in any country, and should not be banned either. People have a right to information, in my opinion.
 
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.

On what basis? Fish live too. Do they have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

fredmertz said:
You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government doesn't give these rights.

Then where did they come from?

fredmertz said:
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.

Again, this is just a debate over semantics rather than a useful policy discussion. It doesn't really matter if you call it a "fundamental right" as Finland does, or you call it a "privilege" or "entitlement" or whatever else you like.
 
Last edited:
This means what I said is wrong, because...?

Who said it was "wrong"? Finland's concept of fundamental rights is simply DIFFERENT than yours. You are judging them through an ethnocentric, American lens...and in fact, through a very specific type of American lens (i.e. constitutional fundamentalism). It's a cultural difference, not a question of right or wrong. Your view is no more correct than anyone else's, and arguing that you have made a sound argument for the correctness of your view is, frankly, stupid. All you've done is made some assertions based on your view of how the United States Constitution should be interpreted.

If you want to make a policy argument over why Finland shouldn't guarantee its citizens internet access, be my guest. But don't tell me how you're right and they're wrong about the definition of "fundamental rights," as it is ENTIRELY a matter of perception.
 
Last edited:
Rights vs. Privileges
Internet access is not a right!
Internet access is provided by the labor of others, thus you cannot have a right to it just like you do not have a right to your neighbor’s food just because you are hungry.
 
Back
Top Bottom