jarednjames said:
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.
...again, he has his moments.