Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[JaredJames]

If you are charged with a crime, SOMEONE has the responsibility to provide you with a jury trial. No one is allowed to try and convict a suspect without offering them a jury trial.

Only under current law.

It wasn't illegal in the sense of a universal right to self-governance.

Really? They committed treason.

Regardless, what is this "universal right" you speak of? Universal to who? What country A sees as a right isn't necessarily what country B sees as a right.

That's true, but the premise of war-rights is that no single waring party could be powerful enough to escape judgment following the war. Therefore, they would act according to reasonable standards of war. I suppose this would not be the case for a waring party that had to continue fighting to the death against oppressive force that suppresses reason. This gets into the philosophy of Christianity where oppressive powers can destroy holiness itself. I don't use the word, "holiness," btw to preach religion but just to refer to the idea of ultimate legitimacy.

Again, 'reasonable' as outlined by who? It's all about the most powerful imposing these on others.

It depends on whether you regard rules/rights as natural and universal or culturally relative to an arbitrary ruling authority. You shouldn't state this as an absolute when you are clearly promoting relative authority.

Universal rights are irrelevant if a person/power doesn't recognise them. You can claim everyone has the right to food, but if the dominant power disagrees then that's all that matters. Rights are based on morals and ethics at the time of writing.

But it could be enforced by anyone with the power to enforce it if they so chose, no?

Correct.

There is never anyone to stop an order being given (or followed) except for the individual giving or following the order. All ruling authorities can do is attempt to induce commanders and commandees to resist committing illegal and/or unethical actions. Ultimately the consequences of actions are born by their bearers, no?

There's no one to stop it being given, but there are consequences for issuing it - bad ones - go to prison for genocide bad. That's the whole idea.

I may feel issuing the order is acceptable, and my right to do so as the victor. You may feel it is unacceptable. If I am more powerful than you, there's nothing you can do. But, if you are more powerful than me you can do things to stop it.

 

[TylerH]

I don't know the sociology definition of a right, if there it one, but there's also schools of thought that consider rights to be absolute. Personally, I tend to be an absolutist. By the absolute view, the fact a right is unprotected, has no bearing on the fact it is a right.

This was the opinion of the "powers that sat down and agreed on what all humans should be granted."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't know the sociology definition of a right, if there it one, but there's also schools of thought that consider rights to be absolute. Personally, I tend to be an absolutist. By the absolute view, the fact a right is unprotected, has no bearing on the fact it is a right.

This was the opinion of the "powers that sat down and agreed on what all humans should be granted."

A perfect example you have given. If there is no one to uphold the constitution, it really doesn't make much difference.

What you see as a right now, wasn't necessarily 20, 50, 100, 500 years ago and may not be over the next decade or century. We create the rights, we enforce them. There's no such thing as a 'god given right' in this respect.

I'm not going further with this as it's off topic. I shan't be replying to this particular discussion any further.

So far as the internet goes, none of our current rights grant us access to it.

 

[brainstorm]

Only under current law.

You're mixing up debates. The point of the right to jury-trial was that the government has the responsibility to PROVIDE a jury-trial, not just protect you from having it taken away from you (since you wouldn't have it in the first place).

Really? They committed treason.

Treason is relative violation of authoritarian loyalty. It is not an absolute rights-violation. Sovereigns don't have an inalienable right to the submission of loyal subjects.

Regardless, what is this "universal right" you speak of? Universal to who? What country A sees as a right isn't necessarily what country B sees as a right.

You assume national-relativism. What basis do you have for assuming that rights are relative to national sovereignty? What about the sovereignty of universal reason? Can't sovereign authorities be wrong by higher reason?

Again, 'reasonable' as outlined by who? It's all about the most powerful imposing these on others.

Reason is demonstrated in good-faith dispute between parties seeking a universally valid resolution. If reason was culturally relative, how would it be possible for any two reasonable parties to come to a reasonable agreement without one being indoctrinated into the other's culture first?

Universal rights are irrelevant if a person/power doesn't recognise them. You can claim everyone has the right to food, but if the dominant power disagrees then that's all that matters. Rights are based on morals and ethics at the time of writing.

When power comes into conflict with reason, it becomes corrupt power instead of legitimate authority. Power has to legitimate itself to avoid overthrow. How long can an oppressive authority maintain functional power before it becomes undermined by, if no one else, its own agents? People universally resist illegitimacy in favor of legitimacy because they are aware of it on some level, even when they are trying to deny it.

There's no one to stop it being given, but there are consequences for issuing it - bad ones - go to prison for genocide bad. That's the whole idea.

Only because there is an ideology that commanders are accountable for the actions of others, regardless of those others' actual responsibility in the situation. This is due to a culture of authoritarianism that has been and ultimately will be recognized as illegitimate. It's just that currently, it has strong ideological foothold in everyday culture. If you think about it, though, it does not make sense to protect people who are responsible for ethical abuses just because their rank is lower than the person ranked as their commander. Isn't each individual ultimately responsible for her/his own actions insofar as s/he has the ability to choose how to act, whether on the basis of orders or otherwise?

I may feel issuing the order is acceptable, and my right to do so as the victor. You may feel it is unacceptable. If I am more powerful than you, there's nothing you can do. But, if you are more powerful than me you can do things to stop it.

That's a bully's logic. But besides, there is power in resisting power. People are too quick to assume that power flows unidirectionally and that the world is divided into the powerful and the powerless. Power doesn't work that way. Just because someone defines an order as acceptable doesn't mean it was - but the irony of debating it is the implication that the person acting on the order didn't have the power to choose not to. That is the power that authoritarians want to deny because they rely on people choosing to follow orders. Why? Because they are POWERLESS to command without people CHOOSING to follow their orders. This is why so much violence has to be used to intimidate soldiers into following orders. If they didn't have the choice to disobey, there would be no reason to intimidate them. The ultimate power lies in the hands of the soldiers.

 

[JaredJames]

You're mixing up debates. The point of the right to jury-trial was that the government has the responsibility to PROVIDE a jury-trial, not just protect you from having it taken away from you (since you wouldn't have it in the first place).

Bingo. No government to do so = no jury trial unless someone else steps into provide it.

That's a bully's logic.

Welcome to the world. Big, powerful countries impose rules on other countries.

Your freedom of speech right is just that. It does not grant you the right of access to ways to broadcast/promote your speech. It does however, ensure the government can't block your access to those services if you want it (certain legal areas aside).

 

[russ_watters]

But when the service is provided by monopoly, you have the right not to be exploited. Competitive markets supposedly protect consumers against abusive pricing and contracts, which is why monopolies are supposed to be publicly regulated; i.e. to prevent exploitation of the monopoly position.

I don't see what this has to do with the issue.

So how does that apply to the right to a speedy and public trial by jury? What about the right to be notified of charges against you or the right to a public defender?

These are still part of a negative right: the right to a fair trial is the right not to be artibtrarily and capriciously persecuted.

But are the providers entitled to exploit you in the provision of services?

I don't see what this has to do with the issue of the thread.

That would make the U.S. revolutionary war an illegal act and the U.S. should be returned to its colonial owners, no?

The revolutionary war was most certainly an illegal act: everyone involved committed treason against Britain. That doesn't mean I think the US should be returned to status as a British colony. A human right to revolt would supercede national law, so something can be illegal and yet be a human right...but that's kind of a messy line of thought - and you're mixing together the two issues and making a mess of it.

It was my impression that people have the right to overthrow a government by the least violent/destructive means possible. If the government refuses to be accountable to reasonable standards of legitimacy, what other option would you have but to overthrow it?

None.

Nonsense. You think that if a revolution is going on, people have no duty to respect each others' rights? If you classify the situation as a war, people still can argue wartime rights. Besides, who says that there aren't certain universal rights that are independent of revolution or any other social state of affairs?

Again, I'm not saying it is right or wrong, I'm just saying it happens. You're arguing against reality here, not against me.

 

[russ_watters]

Not some food in particular, but if a government has the means to provide people with food who would otherwise suffer from malnutrition, why wouldn't the government have the responsibility to provide that food?

Interesting that you used the word "responsibility" here, not "right".

The so-called "entitlements" (we do have Social Security and Medicare, plus welfare and unemployment compensation) can certainly be justified under that logic, but that does not make them rights. [edit: I see this has already been pointed out...]

It's been my perception that people slap the lable "rights" on things like healthcare to try to short-circuit logical debate about the issue. An awful lot of the healthcare debates both here and in the public forum went that way.

 

[russ_watters]

If those nations are no longer there with their armies to enforce those rules, there is no one to stop the order being given.

Rights, as with all laws/rules, only exist so long as we can enforce them.

Ie, our enemies in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan enjoy sawing the heads off civilian kidnapping victims and POWs. These acts were made illegal by the Geneva convention, but we're unable to enforce the rules.

It sounds like I need to put this disclaimer on every post now (not for you): Again, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's the reality of how it works.

 

[russ_watters]

In an effort to keep this thread focused...

It is easy to say that the government shouldn't be doing these things when it is a government we don't like, but what about when it is a government we do like? Lincoln was by definition a traitor because he suspended certain rights during the Civil war (and, in fact, we now have laws that make it legal to do similar things). Yet at the same time he is revered by many (including me) for successfully freeing the slaves and keeping the union together. The treason part is typically ignored because I think it is difficult if not impossible to reconcile the two either logically or emotionally. So for people such as myself who recognize the two issues, we just have to allow them to be, without reconciliation. I'm not saying it's right or wrong and neither is this Doublethink. I'm just saying it happened - and I'm glad it did!

 

[JaredJames]

Ie, our enemies in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan enjoy sawing the heads off civilian kidnapping victims and POWs. These acts were made illegal by the Geneva convention, but we're unable to enforce the rules.

It sounds like I need to put this disclaimer on every post now (not for you): Again, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's the reality of how it works.

In an effort to keep this thread focused...

It is easy to say that the government shouldn't be doing these things when it is a government we don't like, but what about when it is a government we do like? Lincoln was by definition a traitor because he suspended certain rights during the Civil war (and, in fact, we now have laws that make it legal to do similar things). Yet at the same time he is revered by many (including me) for successfully freeing the slaves and keeping the union together. The treason part is typically ignored because I think it is difficult if not impossible to reconcile the two either logically or emotionally. So for people such as myself who recognize the two issues, we just have to allow them to be, without reconciliation. I'm not saying it's right or wrong and neither is this Doublethink. I'm just saying it happened - and I'm glad it did!

I think these two sum it up nicely.

Now so far as the internet goes, let's break it down a bit. For those who believe it is / should be a right, do you believe it is so under a current granted right (ie it is implied by freedom of speech or the like) or do you believe it is a right in itself?

 

[WhoWee]

Interesting that you used the word "responsibility" here, not "right".

The so-called "entitlements" (we do have Social Security and Medicare, plus welfare and unemployment compensation) can certainly be justified under that logic, but that does not make them rights. [edit: I see this has already been pointed out...]

It's been my perception that people slap the lable "rights" on things like healthcare to try to short-circuit logical debate about the issue. An awful lot of the healthcare debates both here and in the public forum went that way.

I'd like to add that Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment (originally) require(d) a contribution in the form of a payroll deduction. The beneficiary paid into the system - had a vested interest. That is not a correct description of the systems at this time.

 

[WhoWee]

Is access to the Internet a universal human right that should be recognized by the United Nations? *This*question,*buzzing around the world this week, is certainly one that I hadn’t thought of at length until now, so I posed it to … http://virtualnavigator.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/is-internet-access-a-human-right-reflections-in-the-wake-of-the-egyptian-protests/" http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=virtualnavigator.wordpress.com&blog=11498882&post=503&subd=virtualnavigator&ref=&feed=1

More...

Under this definition, I would say no.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/
"Human rights are international norms that help to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses. Examples of human rights are the right to freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial when charged with a crime, the right not to be tortured, and the right to engage in political activity."
The people in Egypt were not prohibited from engaging in political activity - they just couldn't use their social media. If it happened in the US - perhaps a class action suit could be filed?

I also looked through the United Nation's website regarding human rights.
http://www.un.org/en/rights/index.shtml


I found this piece - the topics of the paper are specified. The concern of the UN seems to be "the diversity of languages" and "the diversity of people of different abilities".
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/pi1869.doc.htm
"The meeting will address five main themes: reaching the next billion; promoting cyber security and trust; managing critical Internet resources; taking stock and the way forward; and emerging issues -- the Internet of tomorrow. In addition to plenary sessions on these themes, there will be open meetings and thematic workshops to discuss specific issues and share best practices."

 

[D H]

No it is not a human right. No one has to pay $50/month for a human right. Especially something that is purely commercial.

To quote Russ, "Errrrr...REBOOT!"

The right to a free press does not mean the government has to supply me with a printing press. Freedom of religion does not mean the government has to build a church for me and my flock. Freedom of speech does not mean the government has to supply me with a bully pulpit. The right to petition your congresscritter does not mean the government has to buy me a plane ticket to Washington.

A right is a limitation on what the government can do. The concept of rights has been twisted as of late into meaning a requirement on what the government must do. The US Constitution, at least, is rather clear in this regard: The first amendment does not start with "Congress shall make laws ...". It instead starts with "Congress shall make no law ..."

In the sense that a right is a restriction upon what governments can do, I would say that free and unfettered access to the internet is a right, one that I may well have to pay a non-government supplier $50/month to obtain.

 

[AlephZero]

The entire concept of "rights" is a human invention. My position is that thy entire concept is a straw man. There is no such thing as "rights" to anything whatever. The only purpose of the concept of "rights" is to appeal on people's vague idea that "equality is a good thing", and it usually translates as "I think I should have more of something and other people should have less of it".

The US constitution is no more relevant to this debate than any other "holy book". It's truths are only self-evident if you happen to believe they are true.

 

[JaredJames]

In the sense that a right is a restriction upon what governments can do, I would say that free and unfettered access to the internet is a right, one that I may well have to pay a non-government supplier $50/month to obtain.

We have two separate issues as I see it.

1. The right to internet access - does an individual have a right to internet access (the government can't stop it without good cause - there are crimes that can get you blocked from using the internet in the UK)?

2. The rights relating to internet access - does an individual have a right to unrestricted internet access by the government (as you describe above, criminal issues aside)?

Now I agree with both, in that the government shouldn't impose restrictions without due cause (as China do). But this is completely separate to "it should be provided for free".

The entire concept of "rights" is a human invention. My position is that thy entire concept is a straw man. There is no such thing as "rights" to anything whatever. The only purpose of the concept of "rights" is to appeal on people's vague idea that "equality is a good thing", and it usually translates as "I think I should have more of something and other people should have less of it".

The US constitution is no more relevant to this debate than any other "holy book". It's truths are only self-evident if you happen to believe they are true.

That my friend is my exact thinking on the matter (as you can probably note from my posts). Which is why I dislike the whole rights (especially human rights) debate.

 

[brainstorm]

Bingo. No government to do so = no jury trial unless someone else steps into provide it.

There is a government of checks and balances among conflicting powers. If one power tries, convicts, and punishes people without a fair trial, other powers will become hostile toward the abusive one. People try to stay friends or at least keep the peace with malevolent others, but ultimately there will always be a potential conflict and it's just a matter of time before it emerges into an active process of resolution.

Welcome to the world. Big, powerful countries impose rules on other countries.

But you make it sound like that's where it ends. Powerful oppressive forces can maintain stability despite illegitimacy for a while but known illegitimacy brews increasing resistance. There is no such thing a permanently sustainable corruption.

Your freedom of speech right is just that. It does not grant you the right of access to ways to broadcast/promote your speech. It does however, ensure the government can't block your access to those services if you want it (certain legal areas aside).

Right, but that also means that the government mustn't allow private parties to block access to transmission media when no adequate substitute is available. Thus the government can recognize internet as a univeral medium of communication but it could say that cable providers don't have a responsibility to allow universal access because people can use phone lines, etc. In other words, the government can prevent people from blockading each others' rights by breaking up monopoly (or oligopoly) control where it is functioning to curtail rights.

I don't see what this has to do with the issue. These are still part of a negative right: the right to a fair trial is the right not to be artibtrarily and capriciously persecuted. I don't see what this has to do with the issue of the thread. The revolutionary war was most certainly an illegal act: everyone involved committed treason against Britain. That doesn't mean I think the US should be returned to status as a British colony. A human right to revolt would supercede national law, so something can be illegal and yet be a human right...but that's kind of a messy line of thought - and you're mixing together the two issues and making a mess of it. None. Again, I'm not saying it is right or wrong, I'm just saying it happens. You're arguing against reality here, not against me.

It's not a messy line of thought, or rather it is a very important mess that has been created by authoritarianism, first in the form of divine rights of kings and later as national sovereignty. The issue is whether human authority can ever be absolutely relative to its own arbitrary sovereign. Are sovereigns accountable to higher reason, or can they claim an absolute monopoly over reason and truth from their own perspective. Can a king claim that killing is ethical when he decrees it, or is their a higher moral/reason that makes killing unethical regardless of who legitimates it and how? Maybe a more clear cut example would be if 1+1 could = 3 because a king says so.

Interesting that you used the word "responsibility" here, not "right".

One person's right is another person's responsibility to respect that right, no?

The so-called "entitlements" (we do have Social Security and Medicare, plus welfare and unemployment compensation) can certainly be justified under that logic, but that does not make them rights. [edit: I see this has already been pointed out...]

The question would be whether these bureaucratic administrations have the right to systematically exclude people from benefits without undermining their fundamental rights. If people have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness - does that mean they also have the right to SOME form of economic access, however defined?

It's been my perception that people slap the lable "rights" on things like healthcare to try to short-circuit logical debate about the issue. An awful lot of the healthcare debates both here and in the public forum went that way.

That's possible. There should be open critical discussion without obfuscation and bullying on any issue.

Back to the OP: what about the simple fact that if internet connections between family members are broken, those people can go through a lot of emotional stress worrying about what could be happening to their loved ones? Does a government have the responsibility to stop people from blocking communication lines when doing so social isolates people from loved ones? To make it more concrete, if I knew that a person's spouse was trying to call or email them to find out if they're alright during a crisis, is it my right (as police) to block that call/email as a military tactic to bring the rebels to submission?

 

[JaredJames]

Brainstorm, your view is highly idealised and doesn't reflect reality.

The rights granted now only last so long as those who agree to them maintain them. If the UN, European Union etc disappeared along with the governments that support them those rights granted under them do so also (that include human rights). Period. It is only if another government steps in an upholds them that they are maintained.

As a private party, I can prevent you exercising your right to freedom of speech on my property - there is nothing the government can do. That's the end of it.

I pointed out previously, in the UK everyone has the right to a phone line - the cost of installation and any calls are the responsibility of the consumer, not the government. The right only says a company / government cannot block a person getting a phone line and cannot stop you making an emergency services call for free.

Your ability to communicate with family/friends is irrelevant. You are only granted communication for emergency purposes. Any other forms are chargeable to the consumer as they are services provided.

 

[JaredJames]

One person's right is another person's responsibility to respect that right, no?

Precisely. Respect it and only respect it.

The government recognise your right to freedom of speech. They cannot prevent you from exercising it. But, they don't have to help you exercise it either.

You have the right to own a gun (in America). The government can't stop this, but that doesn't mean they have to give out free guns. It simply means they can't stop you buying one. By your logic, the right to protect yourself with a gun implies the government should ensure everyone is equally armed - this is just non-sense.

 

[baywax]

That's like asking if a telephone, cell phones, radio, tv, etc... is a human right. I say no.

Have to sadly agree here Greg and Evo...

clean water is a human right... or at least one should have the right to drink water without paying for it... but they'll have to pay for the filters to clean it...

human rights are a human right... what are they you ask??!

List of human rights:

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

This was the UN list of human rights laws that safeguards each and every individual. However, there are many places and many instances where these human rights are blatantly ignored. These human rights need no declaration to be drafted and passed. These are basic rights that every one, everywhere should follow. The greed for power and the false pride of begin better than the other, makes one forget the rights of others. Before anyone tries to violate the fundamental human rights of any individual, one should spare a thought, that the same thing could soon happen to them too. Hope this article on list of human rights issues has helped you understand your rights as an individual.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/list-of-human-rights.html

 

[D H]

clean water is a human right... or at least one should have the right to drink water without paying for it...

I've never lived anywhere where water is free. There is always a fee, and that's a good thing. We have enough problems with water shortages during dry summers as it is.

List of human rights: [Long list elided]

That is ridiculously long, and I doubt any government fully complies with it. There are too many "government shall pass laws ..." kinds of statements in that list. I like the way the US Constitution does it: "Congress shall pass no laws ..."

Rights are not things that governments provide for people. Rights are things that governments cannot take away from people.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[brainstorm]

Brainstorm, your view is highly idealised and doesn't reflect reality.

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.

The rights granted now only last so long as those who agree to them maintain them. If the UN, European Union etc disappeared along with the governments that support them those rights granted under them do so also (that include human rights). Period. It is only if another government steps in an upholds them that they are maintained.

Yes, but how do you define government? In the broadest sense, "governance" occurs whenever any agent of power exercises power to control themselves or someone else. You assume that formal institutionalized governance (i.e. "governments") have some special status but, of course, that status is just part of their power-tactics. It reminds me of that scene from Monty Python where Arthur goes around telling people that he's king of the Brittains and they ask, "who are Brittains?" and he says that they are "We all are." Without hegemonic recognition of hegemony and right to social-authority, there can still be power, ethics, respect for rights, etc. You're right, though, that exercising rights requires power, as does oppression.

As a private party, I can prevent you exercising your right to freedom of speech on my property - there is nothing the government can do. That's the end of it.

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?

I pointed out previously, in the UK everyone has the right to a phone line - the cost of installation and any calls are the responsibility of the consumer, not the government. The right only says a company / government cannot block a person getting a phone line and cannot stop you making an emergency services call for free.

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?

Your ability to communicate with family/friends is irrelevant. You are only granted communication for emergency purposes. Any other forms are chargeable to the consumer as they are services provided.

Interesting. Is it reasoned that people should have to submit to authority to be able to call their friends/family?

The government recognise your right to freedom of speech. They cannot prevent you from exercising it. But, they don't have to help you exercise it either.

It's not about the government "helping." 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. 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?

If the government has decided that you are a suspect or a participant in rebellion activities, do they have the right to block your access to communication lines, restrict economic opportunities, etc. without first having to try and convict you for a crime?

You have the right to own a gun (in America). The government can't stop this, but that doesn't mean they have to give out free guns. It simply means they can't stop you buying one. By your logic, the right to protect yourself with a gun implies the government should ensure everyone is equally armed - this is just non-sense.

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

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.

 

[WhoWee]

Interesting. Is it reasoned that people should have to submit to authority to be able to call their friends/family?



It's not about the government "helping." 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. 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?

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?

If you have the means to receice an email - why wouldn't you be able to respond?

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?

 

[JaredJames]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.