Register to reply

Is Internet Access a Human Right? Reflections in the Wake of the Egyptian Protests

by Greg Bernhardt
Tags: access, egyptian, human, internet, protests, reflections, wake
Share this thread:
JaredJames
#55
Feb7-11, 10:49 AM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by brainstorm View Post
That really depends on how you interpret the nature of reality, doesn't it? If you interpret it a certain way, you need to explain that in a grounded way. There's nothing rigorous about simply insisting that reality backs up your claims. Anyone can do that regarding anything they say and the only support is subjective consensus on the part of "like minded" others. Truth is not majoritarian.
This isn't turning into some philosophical debate. You can look at the way the world really works or you can invent some idealised view.
You're right, though, that exercising rights requires power, as does oppression.
Correct. Hence the need for government or some other form of power.
How, by threatening me that if I exercise free speech you will punish me or revoke my privilege of being on your property? So who is actually required to respect the right of free speech in which situations exactly then? Anyone anytime?
Your right to freedom of speech means the government can't 'gag' you. Freedom of speech only applies to public areas, not private. In private, the owner decides what is and isn't acceptable. They do not, in anyway, have to respect your freedom of speech unless they choose to do so.

Put simply, in public we are all required to respect your freedom of speech. In private we are not.

If you don't understand this basic concept, I don't see how you can argue regarding it and other rights.
Ok, thanks for the info. Are you making a point with it? Are you reasoning that this is an adequate right or just saying that that's what you get and accept it b/c "the government says so?" If you're going to argue that power has the right to determine and restrict rights arbitrarily without providing defensible reason and being open to critical accountability, what's the point of discussing the topic in the first place?
The point is that the public of the UK are granted the right of a phone line - but, they have to cover all related costs, excluding emergency services. I was trying to demonstrate that just because you have the right to something, doesn't mean the government (or anyone else) has to provide it for you or help you with it. In other words, you have the right to freedom of speech but the government doesn't have to buy you a megaphone.
Interesting. Is it reasoned that people should have to submit to authority to be able to call their friends/family?
That is irrelevant here. You are using someone elses property and technology to communicate - for that there's a price. Your argument is akin to saying "if I want to visit my family across the Atlantic, why should I have to pay an airline to take me?". It's complete non-sense.
If you can't grasp this, think of it slightly differently: Your neighbour comes over and asks to phone their family in Australia. It's going to cost you $5 per minute and they don't want to pay you. Do you agree or do you tell them to sling their hook?
When you say communication should be free, that is exactly what you're saying. But in your case, 'you' are the phone company and 'neighbour' is you.
It's about how far the government is willing to allow private enterprises and/or individuals to go in suppressing and exploiting your interest in contacting your family?
That is
the government "helping."
If you came to me saying that you just received an email that your parent is dying, could I charge you $1000 to use my skype connection for 10 minutes? When does exploitation become a regulatory issue
Yes you could. Again, as per above example. The government can regulate things certainly, but they don't have to provide them for you. They can help make them attainable by most, but they don't have to pay for those who can't afford it.
The gun argument is only really relevant if you are subsistence farming and you have no other means to protect your crops. If your farm is overrun with crop-predators, shouldn't the government offer you some assistance to help you be able to feed yourself and your family? It's not like you're not doing the work of planting, weeding, etc. It's just all the crop-predators have been scared away from everyone else's farm who had the means to run them off and so they are picking on you because you're the only one without a gun.
No, the government don't have to help you and the gun argument is perfectly relevant. Again, the government are told what they can't prevent - your rights - not what they must do.
If the government feel your farm is worth saving - because they are getting something out of it - then they may help you. But, if it's just your farm then you are no different to anyone else who can't feed themselves and will be given the equivalent support.

You still haven't provided a valid argument why other people should spend their money to provide you with the internet.
brainstorm
#56
Feb7-11, 10:59 AM
P: 1,117
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
My first thought is what did they do 2,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 500 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 20 years ago, and 10 years ago?
In principle, I agree with you. Technically everyone is a total individual and there is no reason that a hunter-gatherer can't live in a city in the developed world without changing his culture. He should be able to just gather edible vegetation and/or public fauna for his meals, etc. However, it just happens to be the case that modern governments all exercise various forms of economic intervention to maintain the consumption-patterns that the middle-class has become accustomed to. So the question is, if the government is going to support the consumption-rights of the middle-class, where should they stop? Is it ok to bail out a bank so that employees can pay their mortgages and cell-phone plans for themselves and three kids but then deny someone else's rights to all but the opportunity to hunt and gather on non-private land?

If you have the means to receice an email - why wouldn't you be able to respond?
You probably could, but if your parent was lying on their deathbed and you couldn't get to them, you might want to have audiovideo access if that was available. Then, the issue becomes whether someone with such a connection should ask you to empty your bank-account so you can see/hear your parent one last time before it is no longer possible.

Also, what's to prevent someone with a cell phone that is charged to require a charge of the same $1,000 to a person with a dead battery? Both people would have equal access to the cell phone network, both have equal equipment, one has electric and one doesn't. Does the person with the dead battery have the right to use someone elses's phone?
I would say not for casual usage. The problem is that there are other issues, like whether someone will lie and give some urgent reason to use your phone just so that they can call their friend to tell them where they are. Also, do you really want to be sharing phones with anyone and everyone, with them breathing on the mouthpiece, etc.? Still, these are not the issues in question. The issue is whether government should allow businesses to use communications services exploitatively or cut communication lines during civil unrest as mass-punishment for the unrest occurring in the first place.
JaredJames
#57
Feb7-11, 11:01 AM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
The internet also requires a computer or other suitable device, electric power, and a connection. By comparison, you can stand outside with a large leaf and catch rain - big difference.
The point is, be expecting something for free - in this case the internet - you expect a computer, a modem, a router, a phone line and *all tech in between* for the fun price of nothing.

It's exactly the same for water: [insert list of what it takes to get water to your home].

You want someone else to provide you with something you would normally have to do yourself, you pay for it.
JaredJames
#58
Feb7-11, 11:03 AM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by brainstorm View Post
You probably could, but if your parent was lying on their deathbed and you couldn't get to them, you might want to have audiovideo access if that was available. Then, the issue becomes whether someone with such a connection should ask you to empty your bank-account so you can see/hear your parent one last time before it is no longer possible.
So someone else should have to empty theirs instead? Wow, solid logic there.
WhoWee
#59
Feb7-11, 11:04 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by brainstorm View Post
I would say not for casual usage. The problem is that there are other issues, like whether someone will lie and give some urgent reason to use your phone just so that they can call their friend to tell them where they are. Also, do you really want to be sharing phones with anyone and everyone, with them breathing on the mouthpiece, etc.? Still, these are not the issues in question. The issue is whether government should allow businesses to use communications services exploitatively or cut communication lines during civil unrest as mass-punishment for the unrest occurring in the first place.
We both agree it's not the person with a dead battery's RIGHT to use your cell phone with the charged battery - correct?
brainstorm
#60
Feb7-11, 11:25 AM
P: 1,117
Quote Quote by jarednjames View Post
This isn't turning into some philosophical debate. You can look at the way the world really works or you can invent some idealised view.
This view makes it really difficult to have political discussions. If you just write-off opinions that are different from yours by labeling them "idealized," "insane," or otherwise "unrealistic," what accountability are you taking for your interpretation/opinion being just as subjective as theirs?

Correct. Hence the need for government or some other form of power.
Power is not a "need." It is a fact. There is no monopoly on it, regardless of how much some authorities try to bring others to submission. If you have so much faith in the goodness of submission to authority, then you are free to exercise your power to submit - but should you be speaking for others and/or cooperating in their subjugation to also bring them to submit to your sacred sovereign?

Your right to freedom of speech means the government can't 'gag' you. Freedom of speech only applies to public areas, not private. In private, the owner decides what is and isn't acceptable. They do not, in anyway, have to respect your freedom of speech unless they choose to do so.
According to whom? You?

Put simply, in public we are all required to respect your freedom of speech. In private we are not.
Does the constitution specify that freedom of speech only applies in public or private? If not, maybe it only applies on the moon. I'd like to see that one go to court.

If you don't understand this basic concept, I don't see how you can argue regarding it and other rights.
You shouldn't imply that an argument is right by calling it "basic." You should explicate your grounds for claims.

The point is that the public of the UK are granted the right of a phone line - but, they have to cover all related costs, excluding emergency services.
The government doesn't have the right to mandate providers provide such services without compensation?

I was trying to demonstrate that just because you have the right to something, doesn't mean the government (or anyone else) has to provide it for you or help you with it. In other words, you have the right to freedom of speech but the government doesn't have to buy you a megaphone.
But this is about communication connections. And it's not about government buying anything. It's about regulating how far businesses or other private individuals are allowed to go in using their property to exploit others, e.g. by offering access and then placing exploitative conditions on that access.

That is irrelevant here. You are using someone elses property and technology to communicate - for that there's a price. Your argument is akin to saying "if I want to visit my family across the Atlantic, why should I have to pay an airline to take me?". It's complete non-sense.
Only because you are assuming that business have the right to offer services and then use those services to exploit users as much as the users are willing to take. Should the government, for example, allow airlines to charge arbitrary fees to allow people to reclaim their baggage upon landing? What about changing destination in mid-flight unless the passengers cough up enough money? Surely you recognize SOME need for responsible business. The question is who is going to ensure accountability except for government? Granted, I am a proponent of the ability of a free market to stop patronizing businesses that are exploitative - but what can you do when there are enough customers supporting such businesses to allow them to form an oligopoly with exploitative business practices? When the free market fails, what do you do?

If you can't grasp this, think of it slightly differently: Your neighbour comes over and asks to phone their family in Australia. It's going to cost you $5 per minute and they don't want to pay you. Do you agree or do you tell them to sling their hook?
When you say communication should be free, that is exactly what you're saying. But in your case, 'you' are the phone company and 'neighbour' is you.
Personally, I would say "no way." But I would also not support the phone company's right to charge rates far higher than the cost of maintaining the connection equipment.

Yes you could. Again, as per above example. The government can regulate things certainly, but they don't have to provide them for you. They can help make them attainable by most, but they don't have to pay for those who can't afford it.
Yes, you have said that calling emergency services is the full extent of what providers have to allow you to do for free. Should the government also prevent price-gauging or not?

No, the government don't have to help you and the gun argument is perfectly relevant. Again, the government are told what they can't prevent - your rights - not what they must do.
If the government feel your farm is worth saving - because they are getting something out of it - then they may help you. But, if it's just your farm then you are no different to anyone else who can't feed themselves and will be given the equivalent support.
The US is supposed to be a republic where every individual has the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. This means that people aren't supposed to use the government as an instrument to extract value where they see fit. Your farm is worth saving because it is your means to provide for yourself and your family. If you don't have any means to feed yourself, how are you supposed to do it without even land and the means to farm it? What then stops anyone from exploiting your hunger to extract anything they want from you voluntarily? What are people not willing to do for food when they're starving?

You still haven't provided a valid argument why other people should spend their money to provide you with the internet.
You still haven't provided a valid reason why providers should be allowed to price-gouge and otherwise restrict service availability exploitatively.
JaredJames
#61
Feb7-11, 11:45 AM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by brainstorm View Post
According to whom? You?

Does the constitution specify that freedom of speech only applies in public or private? If not, maybe it only applies on the moon. I'd like to see that one go to court.
Uh, do you live on the moon? You can't sue someone for preventing you speaking freely on their property. If I say "you can't talk about religion in my house or you'll be thrown out" and you do, and hence I throw you out, you can't sue me. Period.
You shouldn't imply that an argument is right by calling it "basic." You should explicate your grounds for claims.
This is the whole concept behind rights - things the government can't take away. That's why it's basic.
The government doesn't have the right to mandate providers provide such services without compensation?
No. As before, the only thing they can't charge for is emergency calls.

Installation of the phone line is paid by the consumer, cost of non-emergency calls is covered by the consumer. The only thing the government can demand is that the installation is done - not that it's free. In other words the phone company can't refuse to install a line if I live on top of a mountain.
But this is about communication connections. And it's not about government buying anything. It's about regulating how far businesses or other private individuals are allowed to go in using their property to exploit others, e.g. by offering access and then placing exploitative conditions on that access.
If I want to charge you 100 a month to use my drive, I can. It's extortionate, but that's tough. The government can step in and regulate it if they want and feel the need. But the best way to have this happen is to have a free market - someone will always charge less.
Only because you are assuming that business have the right to offer services and then use those services to exploit users as much as the users are willing to take. Should the government, for example, allow airlines to charge arbitrary fees to allow people to reclaim their baggage upon landing? What about changing destination in mid-flight unless the passengers cough up enough money? Surely you recognize SOME need for responsible business. The question is who is going to ensure accountability except for government? Granted, I am a proponent of the ability of a free market to stop patronizing businesses that are exploitative - but what can you do when there are enough customers supporting such businesses to allow them to form an oligopoly with exploitative business practices? When the free market fails, what do you do?
You are confusing issues here. All the examples you gave above are covered under contract law, not rights. When I book an airline ticket I have a contract with the airline to take me where I paid to go. If they do not (through their own choice) then they must compensate me. If there is no contract (verbal or otherwise) then yes, they can do what you specified.
Personally, I would say "no way."
I believe the phrase is "hypocrite, thy name is you".
But I would also not support the phone company's right to charge rates far higher than the cost of maintaining the connection equipment.
It's called making a profit. It's how business works. Deal with it.
Yes, you have said that calling emergency services is the full extent of what providers have to allow you to do for free. Should the government also prevent price-gauging or not?

The government only step in when it become unfair. If they don't see it as unfair, they don't. They already step in when required, why do you not understand this? This really has nothing to do with the internet proposition of "they should have it free" that you initially put out there.
You still haven't provided a valid reason why providers should be allowed to price-gouge and otherwise restrict service availability exploitatively.
I never said they should be allowed to. You said people should have free internet access and that they should be provided with it if they can't afford it. That is what I'm asking you to justify.

You don't seem to be able to differentiate between overcharging and charging. You are implying that all phone/internet companies overcharge. They don't.

Now how about you get back to the OP and give a valid reason internet should be provided free and not try to swing things into completely irrelevant areas. Overcharging has nothing to do with the government providing the internet for free.
brainstorm
#62
Feb7-11, 12:28 PM
P: 1,117
Quote Quote by jarednjames View Post
Uh, do you live on the moon? You can't sue someone for preventing you speaking freely on their property. If I say "you can't talk about religion in my house or you'll be thrown out" and you do, and hence I throw you out, you can't sue me. Period.
Do you have any case law example? I have actually never heard this aspect of free speech rights discussed in terms of precedents. Obviously you're wrong that you can't be sued, but it is another question of whether the court would find against you. It may be that you can evict someone from your property if you don't like something they say, but if this results in some damage to them, you may be liable. There would also be a difference between whether the venue was open to the public or not, I think. This issue always comes up with discrimination. If "everything goes" on private property, then why shouldn't business owners be allowed to ignore anyone's right for any reason and evict them for, say, being female or ugly or whatever?

This is the whole concept behind rights - things the government can't take away. That's why it's basic.
I agree. That's why they're called "inalienable" or "natural." But there's also the issue of whether people/businesses have the right to abridge rights. Plus, in a republic where the majority of governing is supposed to be the responsibility "of the people by the people for the people," are people really supposed to be allowing each other to abridge each other's rights or are they supposed to intervene?

Installation of the phone line is paid by the consumer, cost of non-emergency calls is covered by the consumer. The only thing the government can demand is that the installation is done - not that it's free. In other words the phone company can't refuse to install a line if I live on top of a mountain.
So a provider can say, "sure I'll install a line up your mountain, just pay me 1 million dollars first?"

If I want to charge you 100 a month to use my drive, I can. It's extortionate, but that's tough. The government can step in and regulate it if they want and feel the need. But the best way to have this happen is to have a free market - someone will always charge less.
Typically people only charge as much less than a market price as they need to. They have an interest in maximizing profit. The problem is not when some commodity is totally optional, like renting a driveway, but when people have some legitimate need that prevents them from walking away because the price is ridiculous. The other problem is whether you should be able to charge your friends one price and everyone else a much higher price to reserve whatever it is you're selling for your friends only.

You are confusing issues here. All the examples you gave above are covered under contract law, not rights. When I book an airline ticket I have a contract with the airline to take me where I paid to go. If they do not (through their own choice) then they must compensate me. If there is no contract (verbal or otherwise) then yes, they can do what you specified.
But who decides that both parties of a contract have the right to have the contract upheld in their interest? Why doesn't one or both parties have the right to deviate from the contract if they can effectively do so given their power in a situation?

I believe the phrase is "hypocrite, thy name is you".
Why is it hypocritical to say that I think people should have a certain right without wanting to disproportionately shoulder the burden of providing or protecting that right? You can reason about ethics without immediately wanting to sacrifice for your ethics, can't you?

It's called making a profit. It's how business works. Deal with it.
Aren't there forum rules against using this kind of rude, imperative language?

The government only step in when it become unfair. If they don't see it as unfair, they don't. They already step in when required, why do you not understand this? This really has nothing to do with the internet proposition of "they should have it free" that you initially put out there.
So people don't have the right to petition government, iyo? They should just accept that everything that's fair is already being given to them and never question authority? Ok, I'm starting to get the basis for your views. You accept the bullying of the powerful and use your power to bully others into accepting as well without question or expectation of reason/validity.

I never said they should be allowed to. You said people should have free internet access and that they should be provided with it if they can't afford it. That is what I'm asking you to justify.
No, I didn't say that. I said that there is public property being used to connect people via internet and I would like to know why private businesses/individuals have the right to restrict access to people who want to use it as a public good. I think it is reasonable to say that people cannot expect to have access to costly lines for free, but I also don't think you can say then that they don't have the right to build alternative lines on the public property used by internet providers. Once you allow private parties to monopolize public access, you have to regulate them to provide fair access to all.

You don't seem to be able to differentiate between overcharging and charging. You are implying that all phone/internet companies overcharge. They don't.
You can't say that conclusively without grounded reason. Otherwise anyone could say that some price is fair "just because it is." Where do you get this aggressive style of arguing "I'm right because I am?" Why haven't you been warned by forum administrators when you do it so much?

Now how about you get back to the OP and give a valid reason internet should be provided free and not try to swing things into completely irrelevant areas. Overcharging has nothing to do with the government providing the internet for free.
My position is that the government should either regulate free market competition in a way that keeps providers and their supply-chains competing to provide services most efficiently for the lowest cost to end-users OR it should regulate unavoidable monopoly/oligopoly market behavior in a way that maximizes benefit and fairness of cost to those users. I don't think government should allow service providers to exploit their position unreasonably or for discriminatory reasons.
JaredJames
#63
Feb7-11, 12:50 PM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by brainstorm View Post
Obviously you're wrong that you can't be sued, but it is another question of whether the court would find against you. It may be that you can evict someone from your property if you don't like something they say, but if this results in some damage to them, you may be liable.
I am allowed to eject any person from my own property at any time for any reason (extreme circumstances aside).

I would point out that the law says that "the government shall not pass laws", not that a private party shall not. In other words, the government (public body) cannot stop you speaking freely. This has absolutely no implication on private matters.
So a provider can say, "sure I'll install a line up your mountain, just pay me 1 million dollars first?"
Yep. They just have to justify the cost - if they can't I'm free to go elsewhere. But this is where the government can step in to help - if they want to.
But who decides that both parties of a contract have the right to have the contract upheld in their interest? Why doesn't one or both parties have the right to deviate from the contract if they can effectively do so given their power in a situation?
Contract law.

The airline could certainly use their power to force you into something once in the air, but once on the ground you could sue them.
Aren't there forum rules against using this kind of rude, imperative language?
Just stating reality.
So people don't have the right to petition government, iyo?
I never said that. The people can petition the government, but it's only if the government wants to step in that they do.
I said that there is public property being used to connect people via internet
This is where your argument falls down. Please tell me what public property is involved here. As I pointed out, in the UK the phone lines are all privately owned by BT and all the tech inbetween is also privately owned.
You can't say that conclusively without grounded reason. Otherwise anyone could say that some price is fair "just because it is." Where do you get this aggressive style of arguing "I'm right because I am?" Why haven't you been warned by forum administrators when you do it so much?
Here's an example, TalkTalk charge me ~11.00 a month line rental (straight to BT for the lines) and then ~11.00 on top for unlimited calls (local, national and international) plus they throw broadband in on top of it. That is a fantastic deal. By using that as a comparison price you can look at other providers and decide whether they are acceptably priced. Some are, some aren't. That is how I can say the price is fair.
al loomis
#64
Feb7-11, 11:14 PM
P: 1
humans don't have rights, unless they are part of the ruling class. most have to get along with privileges. who extends the privilege of free web access? i ask out of personal interest...
baywax
#65
Feb8-11, 01:06 AM
PF Gold
baywax's Avatar
P: 2,215
Quote Quote by jarednjames View Post
You want clean water, it's free at a source. Go to a stream, do the leg work yourself.

But the moment you want it stored, filtered and pumped to your house, there's a charge. As there should be.

The internet is the same. If youou want to use the networks and systems that create it and have it piped to your house, then you have to pay for it.
I have a friend from Toridor, Mexico who says his water is piped to his house and tastes like the diesel engine that powers the pump that distributes the well water to his town. I'm not sure but I think they pay for this service.

When we pay to breath air, then I suppose it will seem normal to pay for water. As it is, I was born in Vancouver Canada and we see nothing but rain for about 10 months of the year. This is why I have such long showers and drink as much water as I want... my civic taxes pay for the distribution to everyone including those who do not pay civic taxes. Needless to say, the moss lawns are rarely parched!

In the (extra long) declaration of human rights from the UN I posted, there was a section about freedom of speech and expression through "any sort of media available". This still doesn't make access to the internet a right... it only suggests that it is your right to say what you want on the internet, radio, tv, etc.... (but please do mind the children.)
JaredJames
#66
Feb8-11, 01:16 AM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by baywax View Post
I have a friend from Toridor, Mexico who says his water is piped to his house and tastes like the diesel engine that powers the pump that distributes the well water to his town. I'm not sure but I think they pay for this service.
Good or bad, it's still pumped so you can expect a charge.
When we pay to breath air, then I suppose it will seem normal to pay for water. As it is, I was born in Vancouver Canada and we see nothing but rain for about 10 months of the year. This is why I have such long showers and drink as much water as I want... my civic taxes pay for the distribution to everyone including those who do not pay civic taxes. Needless to say, the moss lawns are rarely parched!
I live in Wales, plenty of rain there. I too utilise this as much as possible - we pay a fixed rate to the water company for as much as we want.

Whether our case (private distribution) or yours (public distribution) you are still paying for it. Your government has ensured everyone gets it to some degree (I'm sure you couldn't get it free if your working), but I believe ours has determined that water companies aren't allowed to disconnect your supply but instead can financially cripple you chasing the debt.

If your government decides to do what yours has, that's up to them. But it doesn't make it your right to get it filtered and pumped for free (as I'm sure you're aware).

In fact, it's a common misconception that restaurants have to provide water for free. It's true that they can't charge for the water, but they can charge for the glass and service. If they choose to do so.
In the (extra long) declaration of human rights from the UN I posted, there was a section about freedom of speech and expression through "any sort of media available". This still doesn't make access to the internet a right... it only suggests that it is your right to say what you want on the internet, radio, tv, etc.... (but please do mind the children.)
Precisely.
WhoWee
#67
Feb8-11, 04:47 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by al loomis View Post
humans don't have rights, unless they are part of the ruling class. most have to get along with privileges. who extends the privilege of free web access? i ask out of personal interest...
Welcome to PF al loomis. I invite you to read all of the posts on this thread. There have been several posts that would dispute your statement regarding humans not having rights unless a member of the "ruling class".
baywax
#68
Feb9-11, 01:31 AM
PF Gold
baywax's Avatar
P: 2,215
Quote Quote by jarednjames View Post
Good or bad, it's still pumped so you can expect a charge.


I live in Wales, plenty of rain there. I too utilise this as much as possible - we pay a fixed rate to the water company for as much as we want.

Whether our case (private distribution) or yours (public distribution) you are still paying for it. Your government has ensured everyone gets it to some degree (I'm sure you couldn't get it free if your working), but I believe ours has determined that water companies aren't allowed to disconnect your supply but instead can financially cripple you chasing the debt.

If your government decides to do what yours has, that's up to them. But it doesn't make it your right to get it filtered and pumped for free (as I'm sure you're aware).

In fact, it's a common misconception that restaurants have to provide water for free. It's true that they can't charge for the water, but they can charge for the glass and service. If they choose to do so.


Precisely.
What's totally interesting is that the municipality has just upgraded our filter system and we now need only 50 percent of the chlorine in our gullets to ensure less parasites in the water. They're using UV light and charcoal filters that are 10 feet deep. Enormous cost for the "best drinking water" in NA... and the taxes remain the same.

As for my friend from Mexico... would you pay for cable if it only gave you a snow storm on your telly? He says the water has that nice rainbow effect on the top of your glass... maybe that's worth the pesos.
WhoWee
#69
Feb9-11, 07:07 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by baywax View Post
As for my friend from Mexico... would you pay for cable if it only gave you a snow storm on your telly? He says the water has that nice rainbow effect on the top of your glass... maybe that's worth the pesos.
I recommend the confiscation of drug money - reinvested into the water system.
baywax
#70
Feb10-11, 01:48 AM
PF Gold
baywax's Avatar
P: 2,215
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
I recommend the confiscation of drug money - reinvested into the water system.
That'll happen.
WhoWee
#71
Feb10-11, 04:49 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by baywax View Post
That'll happen.
I see it as a matter of priorities. If they won't police the border - then put a HUGE tax on the illegal profits and fix the water and sanitation problems.
JaredJames
#72
Feb10-11, 04:52 AM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
then put a HUGE tax on the illegal profits and fix the water and sanitation problems.
Because drug dealers are known to use the local institutions to store their money...

It's hard to tax 'cash in hand' and undeclared money.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Egypt Shuts Off Internet and Phone Networks as Protests Continue Social Sciences 16
How to Restrict Internet Access Computers 5
Internet access via transmission lines? General Physics 3
Help! Can't access Internet Options Computers 12
Should Inmates Be Given Internet Access? General Discussion 15