Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[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.

 

[JaredJames]

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]

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]

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 into 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I recommend the confiscation of drug money - reinvested into the water system.

That'll happen.

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

Again, it's a matter of priorities. The Government officials need to find a way to fix the water supply. I have to believe that average people (out number drug dealers and) care more about their water and sanitation needs of their families than the personal safety of their Government representatives. Maybe the ACLU should take a road trip?

 

[JaredJames]

Again, it's a matter of priorities. The Government officials need to find a way to fix the water supply. I have to believe that average people (out number drug dealers and) care more about their water and sanitation needs of their families than the personal safety of their Government representatives. Maybe the ACLU should take a road trip?

Personal safety of government representatives? Where does that come into it?

You have drug dealers - some heavily armed gangs - with the majority of cash, not held in banks and undeclared.

If it isn't in the bank and is undeclared, how can the government tax it? If they are heavily armed and don't care about killing people, how can the public do anything?

 

[WhoWee]

Personal safety of government representatives? Where does that come into it?

You have drug dealers - some heavily armed gangs - with the majority of cash, not held in banks and undeclared.

If it isn't in the bank and is undeclared, how can the government tax it? If they are heavily armed and don't care about killing people, how can the public do anything?

One person can make a difference - not against drug gangs. Elected officials answer to the people - tainted water is unacceptable. If the people want their rights protected - they need to be willing to help themselves.

 

[JaredJames]

One person can make a difference - not against drug gangs. Elected officials answer to the people - tainted water is unacceptable. If the people want their rights protected - they need to be willing to help themselves.

The police are corrupt. There's no one to stand up for you which means the public would have to get together. But then they don't have the firepower of the gangs/police.

Plus, in some cases the drug money is the main income for a lot of people (in some way if not directly) so going after the gangs could prove a terrible move for a lot of people - so the incentive just isn't there.

I'd also note that people aren't necessarily elected (or at least the election may not be 'straight') and that in these countries the public officials aren't under the same scrutiny as the US/UK et al.

 

[WhoWee]

The police are corrupt. There's no one to stand up for you which means the public would have to get together. But then they don't have the firepower of the gangs/police.

Plus, in some cases the drug money is the main income for a lot of people (in some way if not directly) so going after the gangs could prove a terrible move for a lot of people - so the incentive just isn't there.

I'd also note that people aren't necessarily elected (or at least the election may not be 'straight') and that in these countries the public officials aren't under the same scrutiny as the US/UK et al.

If they are afraid to demand clean water - I guess they'll learn to do without internet access? At some point you have to be willing to help yourself.

If you're telling me the drug money is that important to the Mexican economy - maybe we should militarize our (US) border. I consider safe and drug free schools a right of our children.

 

[JaredJames]

If they are afraid to demand clean water - I guess they'll learn to do without internet access? At some point you have to be willing to help yourself.

If you're telling me the drug money is that important to the Mexican economy - maybe we should militarize our (US) border. I consider safe and drug free schools a right of our children.

I'm lost, what does the internet have to do with Toridor, Mexico?

I haven't heard any complaints from there outside of the water comment above.

It's not about them 'not caring' about clean water, it's about them not being able to do anything about it or in some cases not wanting to (income etc). Either way, you can still care strongly about the state of your water.

Why would the US spend millions militarising the US/Mexico border simply to cripple the Mexican economy?

It's Egypt that the people are having a bit of jip with the net. Best stick to the OP on this one because I really don't know where you're trying to take it.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm lost, what does the internet have to do with Toridor, Mexico?

I haven't heard any complaints from there outside of the water comment above.

It's not about them 'not caring' about clean water, it's about them not being able to do anything about it or in some cases not wanting to (income etc). Either way, you can still care strongly about the state of your water.

Why would the US spend millions militarising the US/Mexico border simply to cripple the Mexican economy?

It's Egypt that the people are having a bit of jip with the net. Best stick to the OP on this one because I really don't know where you're trying to take it.

I didn't bring Mexico into this - just trying to get us back to the OP of is internet access a human right?

At the same time, I think the Mexican situation might be relevant in that some things are more important than others. In this Mexican town, if the water is tainted with oil and the drug gangs (apparently) rule the streets and the police are corrupt - do you think internet access is a priority?

 

[JaredJames]

I didn't bring Mexico into this - just trying to get us back to the OP of is internet access a human right?

At the same time, I think the Mexican situation might be relevant in that some things are more important than others. In this Mexican town, if the water is tainted with oil and the drug gangs (apparently) rule the streets and the police are corrupt - do you think internet access is a priority?

I don't see internet access as a priority in the US / UK. It doesn't even get a look in elsewhere.

 

[croghan27]

The problem is with the recently perverted definition of "rights" that has me knee-jerk reacting against it. People argue that healthcare is a right, by which they mean the government must provide it for them. But that's not what it means for something to be a "right". To be a right - by the definition used for the past few hundred years - only means the government can't take it from you.

The government, as a reflection of the people, as per democracy, cannot let people become ill, get injured or needlessly die - for moral, economic and democratic reasons: desease control centers must be established, hospitals need to be founded, even sewerage and water system must be built. The costs of health care has so increased that it is rare that a single person can shoulder the expense. So government intervention is necessary.

Rights are not totally negative - as in they cannot be taken from you - there is a positive as well.

 

[TheodoreLogan]

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.

I agree with this. IMO Anything that is available in the universe is my right to have or use, if I am not affecting the rights of another person or persons. The internet is no different. I may have to pay for this service, but as long as it is available to purchase, no government should ever be able to stop me or anyone from being able to purchase such a service. So I would say that yes, internet access is a human right. If the question is "should everyone be entitled to internet access?" Then I would say no.

 

[WhoWee]

The government, as a reflection of the people, as per democracy, cannot let people become ill, get injured or needlessly die - for moral, economic and democratic reasons: desease control centers must be established, hospitals need to be founded, even sewerage and water system must be built. The costs of health care has so increased that it is rare that a single person can shoulder the expense. So government intervention is necessary.

Rights are not totally negative - as in they cannot be taken from you - there is a positive as well.

With out getting into a health care debate with you (that's why we purchase insurance) - what do you think about internet access (the OP)?

 

[JaredJames]

I agree with this. IMO Anything that is available in the universe is my right to have or use, if I am not affecting the rights of another person or persons. The internet is no different. I may have to pay for this service, but as long as it is available to purchase, no government should ever be able to stop me or anyone from being able to purchase such a service. So I would say that yes, internet access is a human right. If the question is "should everyone be entitled to internet access?" Then I would say no.

I think that frames it nicely, particularly the last part.

 

[croghan27]

With out getting into a health care debate with you (that's why we purchase insurance) - what do you think about internet access (the OP)?

Nah ... it is not necessary for the health and well being of anyone, (That I know of). Access to water, sewerage and health care is ... and thank you - I dropped the ball for this thread there ...

 

[WhoWee]

Nah ... it is not necessary for the health and well being of anyone, (That I know of). Access to water, sewerage and health care is ... and thank you - I dropped the ball for this thread there ...

Ok...so, what DO you think about the issue of internet access?

 

[croghan27]

Ok...so, what DO you think about the issue of internet access?

Maybe that sometime in the not-too-distant future internet access will be considered on par with a 'free press' - but that time is not yet ...so far it is another means of disseminating information - always an aid to a free press, but not a core necessity ...yet.

I think of restoration England, with the essayists Addison and Steele, Swift et al - their intelligencers were fundamental in building a thriving press as we know it, indeed, important to the development of democratic institutions. Is there any doubt that many of the current crop of bloggers will be studied in future schools (or on line, as may be the case) as instances of political and social development.

The internet is not integrated enough so far to be a human right (business has it's own agenda) - but I suspect the day is coming.

That answer the question?

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe that sometime in the not-too-distant future internet access will be considered on par with a 'free press' - but that time is not yet ...so far it is another means of disseminating information - always an aid to a free press, but not a core necessity ...yet.

I think of restoration England, with the essayists Addison and Steele, Swift et al - their intelligencers were fundamental in building a thriving press as we know it, indeed, important to the development of democratic institutions. Is there any doubt that many of the current crop of bloggers will be studied in future schools (or on line, as may be the case) as instances of political and social development.

The internet is not integrated enough so far to be a human right (business has it's own agenda) - but I suspect the day is coming.

That answer the question?

Your response is similar to what my son and his friend told me last evening. They said our definition of "rights" will evolve over time - in 10,000 years telepathy in public might be on par with breathing (or even more acceptable given CO2 emmissions)?

 

[croghan27]

Your response is similar to what my son and his friend told me last evening. They said our definition of "rights" will evolve over time - in 10,000 years telepathy in public might be on par with breathing (or even more acceptable given CO2 emmissions)?

You son is wise ... even if I have considered with some I have met that Colgate may be a human right ... for me.

 

[WhoWee]

You son is wise

I love him dearly - and he has his moments - but "wise"......again, he has his moments.

 

[croghan27]

I love him dearly - and he has his moments - but "wise"......again, he has his moments.

Being the father of three boys I found that one always was wise, one foolish and the other in trouble

(OT) Nelson's gunners (who worshiped him) would always be the first target in an battle ... the gunnery deck would fire at the gunnery decks ... their comment was: "T'is a short life, but a merry one." This applies here.

They kept life ...er...er.. interesting.

 

[croghan27]

This probably could go into two thread ... this one and one on the happenings in Egypt ...

Good 'ol Hosni is tying up the internet, even here in Canada ---- getting into al Jazeera is damn near impossible and Twitter is just a wish. "Sorry, we are busy, try again later."

 

[baywax]

The police are corrupt. There's no one to stand up for you which means the public would have to get together. But then they don't have the firepower of the gangs/police.

Plus, in some cases the drug money is the main income for a lot of people (in some way if not directly) so going after the gangs could prove a terrible move for a lot of people - so the incentive just isn't there.

I'd also note that people aren't necessarily elected (or at least the election may not be 'straight') and that in these countries the public officials aren't under the same scrutiny as the US/UK et al.

Yeah, its pretty hard to trust anyone, Mexico, USA or Canada these days... up here we have the RCMP investigating the RCMP... like that works... not! Then we have the RCMP investigating the Government... but the govt. pays the RCMP... that isn't working either.

The best solution is to legalize/tax the drugs and somehow get a trustworthy govt in power. Getting a trustworthy govt is hard but can happen if they are paid enough... along with the police force etc... and they are educated to the point of maintaining certain values that support the rights of the people to potable water, health care, inspected food and so on... this is our model here in the land of the "snowback"... where it rains a lot.

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah, its pretty hard to trust anyone, Mexico, USA or Canada these days... up here we have the RCMP investigating the RCMP... like that works... not! Then we have the RCMP investigating the Government... but the govt. pays the RCMP... that isn't working either.

The best solution is to legalize/tax the drugs and somehow get a trustworthy govt in power. Getting a trustworthy govt is hard but can happen if they are paid enough... along with the police force etc... and they are educated to the point of maintaining certain values that support the rights of the people to potable water, health care, inspected food and so on... this is our model here in the land of the "snowback"... where it rains a lot.

Government needs to be held accountable by the people. If you require the Government only be accountable to Government - the people will more than likely give up something (money, rights, freedom - something?).

 

[croghan27]

Government needs to be held accountable by the people. If you require the Government only be accountable to Government - the people will more than likely give up something (money, rights, freedom - something?).

This may seem about Greenwald - but he expands it ...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

But the real issue highlighted by this episode is just how lawless and unrestrained is the unified axis of government and corporate power. I've written many times about this issue -- the full-scale merger between public and private spheres -- because it's easily one of the most critical yet under-discussed political topics. Especially (though by no means only) in the worlds of the Surveillance and National Security State, the powers of the state have become largely privatized. There is very little separation between government power and corporate power. Those who wield the latter intrinsically wield the former

.

 

[WhoWee]

This may seem about Greenwald - but he expands it ...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

.

In the context of your post (real world application) - what do you think about the close association of the Obama Administration and GE and it's CEO?

 

[croghan27]

In the context of your post (real world application) - what do you think about the close association of the Obama Administration and GE and it's CEO?

Is this the lad that specialized in shipping GE operations off shore and has been put in charge of job creation in the US? In all truth (why would I speak otherwise ) I know so little about the subject - save what I just said - and that is less than comprehensive - I really have no set opinion on the subject.

I know I have deep concerns about the crooks and thieves Obama has installed as saviors of the economy and the thought of Holder makes me shiver. It is one indication of how bad they are that Bush thought highly of them.

That being said, the US is still a foreign country to me (even if I have lived there) - and our PM has made some doozies of choices too.

 

[WhoWee]

Is this the lad that specialized in shipping GE operations off shore and has been put in charge of job creation in the US? In all truth (why would I speak otherwise ) I know so little about the subject - save what I just said - and that is less than comprehensive - I really have no set opinion on the subject.

I know I have deep concerns about the crooks and thieves Obama has installed as saviors of the economy and the thought of Holder makes me shiver. It is one indication of how bad they are that Bush thought highly of them.

That being said, the US is still a foreign country to me (even if I have lived there) - and our PM has made some doozies of choices too.

I'm in favor of term limits in the House of Representatives and prefer Presidents first gain experience as a Governor.

The Washington community is often described as "inside the beltway" - to that (label this opinion) - inbreeding is rarely a good thing.

 

[croghan27]

I'm in favor of term limits in the House of Representatives and prefer Presidents first gain experience as a Governor.

The Washington community is often described as "inside the beltway" - to that (label this opinion) - inbreeding is rarely a good thing.

Is that not like calling out a SWAT to stop J-walking? A bit of the old overkill? I admit that all too many democratically elected members turn out to be but servants of big money interests - yet could that not be solved in other ways - ways that would not chuck out the chaff with the wheat. Edward Kennedy and Strom Thurmond served different constituencies, but were fairly elected by their chosen 'target group'.

Perhaps if election financing were talk out of private hands - who is elected is much too dependent upon money spent, and had the state fund campaigns or at least control 'the stump' in closer ways the that the electorate prefer would be able to continue.

Could you explain more about the requirement of governorship - I am not sure how that applies.

Here in Canada we have an appointed Senate - it is supposed to be 'the chamber of second thought' - that our current PM has turned into a filter to undemocratically abolish legislation he may not support and zip through laws he does. It has often been called an undemocratic vestige of our British heritage. (Not sure it is all that undemocratic. myself.) But your Senate has two members from each state - no matter the population. What ever happened to 'rep by pop'?

I think in both cases some solution can be found without invoking term limits - or banning someone's participation on arbitrary grounds.

As for those 'inside the beltway' - Mr. Greenwald, who I enjoy both for his views and for his prose, has much to say about them, and the puppy like adoration of the main stream press that fawns over them.

 

[WhoWee]

Could you explain more about the requirement of governorship - I am not sure how that applies.

I've long thought serving as the Governor of a state provides basic training for the job of President. Serving as CEO pf a multi-national corporation could also prepare a President for some of their daily tasks.

This thread is a good example of the type of issue that might be presented to the leader of a state or country. Prior knowledge of state involvement or multi-national communications experience may prove helpful. Often at the Presidential level, the balance must be maintained between what is necessary and just as to what is fair and economically viable.