http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm

Quote :

"Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests."

3/8/2010 1:24:59 PM

bonerjamz 04 makes an excellent point,

3/8/2010 1:26:32 PM

EVERYTHING GOOD FOR SOCIETY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS!!!

3/8/2010 1:35:14 PM

But how many people would claim that highways are a fundamental right?

7 out of 10 people know that polls are bullshit, btw.

3/8/2010 1:39:57 PM

sounds like those 4 in 5 people don't understand what the fuck "fundamental right" means.

3/8/2010 1:41:22 PM

Not a fundamental right but it's something everybody should be provided with, if we have the means.

3/8/2010 1:46:25 PM

Should governments be obligated to provide everyone in the world with internet access? No.

Should governments be allowed to control, limit or deny internet access? No.

I have a feeling that a lot of the people polled for this were probably answering the second question and not the first, but they don't explicitly say what questions they asked.

3/8/2010 1:52:26 PM

It would be a real travesty if the many deposed Nigerian crown princes of the world no longer had aol.

3/8/2010 1:55:39 PM

Quote :

"bonerjamz 04 makes an excellent point,"

My opinions are as valid as the next man's!

Quote :

"Not a fundamental right but it's something everybody should be provided with, if we have the means."

I agree, "we" being the private sector.

3/8/2010 1:56:59 PM

I agree with indy, everything should be outsourced to the private sector.

Now excuse me while I write a check for my monthly payment to MegaCorp so they will send a fire truck to my home in case it catches fire.

And I think you missed my point about boner jamz.

[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 2:02 PM. Reason : ]

3/8/2010 2:00:35 PM

you are still confusing "fundamental right" with "entitlement"

One is something that can only be taken away, and the other is something that can only be taken away if first given.

3/8/2010 2:03:35 PM

Quote :

"I agree with indy, everything should be outsourced to the private sector."

Here's a tip: When you construct a straw man, make it actually close to something the person said.
You see, we're clearly only talking about internet access. Wait until the topic is charity in general, then do your straw man. (You're welcome.)

Quote :

"And I think you missed my point about boner jamz."

No, I got it right. He posted a question title, a link to an article, and a quote from that article. You commented on his "point". He made no point. You made sure to use his name. It is clear that you were commenting on the silly nature of the name, and that any point from someone with that type of name must be less than credible. You know, the whole ad hominem thing? Here's a tip: when you do an ad hominem attack, make sure the person actually expressed a point. It's their point that the ad hominem attack targets, so they must have had made one. (You're welcome.)

[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 2:16 PM. Reason : ]

3/8/2010 2:07:33 PM

the next thing you know they're going to think that "not starving" to death is a "fundamental right"

...

we need to see some killing fields and then these people will understand what "fundamental rights" really are...

3/8/2010 2:07:50 PM

NippleTitLickr1965 makes a good point,

3/8/2010 2:10:42 PM

Fundamental rights do not have to be given to people. If you are alone on a desert island, you may not have internet, health care, food, or even clean water. But I don't think anyone could make an argument that anyone is infringing on your fundamental rights. So those things must not be included.

3/8/2010 2:25:11 PM

Actually the internet is a really powerful educational tool.

We should be providing it to the public at large, and we do (in public libraries). Pretty vital service right there.

3/8/2010 2:31:17 PM

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

My argument is mostly semantic, but I think it's important to be precise with these types of discussions.

[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2010 2:34:09 PM

Having a right to something like transportation doesn't mean everybody needs a private vehicle. Not everybody needs a private internet connection either, but having some public access to the internet is something the government should provide to people as a perk of being in the first fucking world.

[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 2:49 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2010 2:48:51 PM

It should be provided as part of education services. Even if its too expensive to push dsl out to individual homes, you should get high speed internet into local schools and libraries along with teachers who know how to use it.

3/8/2010 2:52:53 PM

A thing being beneficial does not in any sense make it a right. What you're saying is that people who are able have an obligation to provide internet to those who don't have it. That is your belief, and many people would likely agree that it is a good idea. That doesn't translate into a "right".

Like I said, if you don't have it on a deserted island with no one else around, it is not a right. If something is a right and yet you are unable to exercise that right, then someone must be there actively denying it.

3/8/2010 2:54:52 PM

Quote :

"Having a right to something like transportation doesn't mean everybody needs a private vehicle. Not everybody needs a private internet connection either, but having some public access to the internet is something the government should provide to people as a perk of being in the first fucking world."

There is no right to transportation.
And plenty of sources in the private sector offer free internet access.
Rural? Oh well, that's a kick in the pants... same with hospitals -- which you also don't have a right to.

Quote :

"Fundamental rights do not have to be given to people. If you are alone on a desert island, you may not have internet, health care, education, transportation, housing, clothing, food, or even clean water. But I don't think anyone could make an argument that anyone is infringing on your fundamental rights. So those things must not be included."

(added some)

3/8/2010 2:57:46 PM

I am fond of governments putting free wifi in their downtown area, but I wouldn't be outraged at those that didn't.

3/8/2010 2:58:53 PM

Quote :

"There is no right to transportation. And plenty of sources in the private sector offer free internet access. Rural? Oh well, that's a kick in the pants... same with hospitals -- which you also don't have a right to."

If you couldn't get anywhere you wouldn't be able to do much. Giving people transportation in a broad sense makes a lot of sense and ends up helping everybody, including those that don't use public transportation.

Not sure there was a consensus on what makes a "right", but a decent guide for them in my opinion is "anything that, if people don't get it, makes society worse for absolutely everybody". Things that, if denied them, people do (and should) revolt or resort to crime, putting the unaffected classes into the "affected" category. If that criterion doesn't carve out the "rights", it at least carves out the superset of "what governments would be wise to provide".

[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 3:05 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2010 3:02:59 PM

Having food isn't a right.

3/8/2010 3:20:51 PM

^^
That kinda seems to suggest that the limits of government involvement in society should be based on the degree of people's willingness to resort to crime in order to get what everybody deserves. That would indeed be some dangerous liberal shit, if that's what you're saying.

3/8/2010 3:24:38 PM

Quote :

"That kinda seems to suggest that the limits of government involvement in society should be based on the degree of people's willingness to resort to crime in order to get what everybody deserves. That would indeed be some dangerous liberal shit, if that's what you're saying."

At some point in time the crime ceases to be worth it. Everybody would rather be a part of a stable, nice society, where everybody's needs (and even many of their wants!) are available and accessible. The further out of this state they get, especially due to exploitation, the less risky crime gets in terms of expected value. The attractiveness of crime to a normal individual is a decent measurement of how unjust a society is.

[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2010 3:28:16 PM

Haha. Okay, wow.

3/8/2010 3:32:46 PM

Quote :

"you are still confusing "fundamental right" with "entitlement" One is something that can only be taken away, and the other is something that can only be taken away if first given."

Yeah.

The internet is a medium of expression in the same way that a books is, and the government should have no right to take away either.

3/8/2010 3:44:35 PM

"Not resorting to crime" is not the reason government provides things to it's citizens. It's a fortunate side effect.

3/8/2010 3:45:33 PM

Quote :

""Not resorting to crime" is not the reason government provides things to it's citizens. It's a fortunate side effect."

Could be used as fairly convincing argument for utilitarian-minded folks. Nobody wants to be rich if a horde of hungry people are willing to rob you for food.

3/8/2010 3:52:39 PM

Quote :

"anything that, if people don't get it, makes society worse for absolutely everybody"

Then nothing is a right, by your definition. As anything the government could do or decide not to do would make society worse for someone, be it the people forced to provide it or the people unable to get the service they would have otherwise wanted.

Quote :

"you are still confusing "fundamental right" with "entitlement" One is something that can only be taken away, and the other is something that can only be taken away if first given."

[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 4:08 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/8/2010 3:53:55 PM

I think we're having a quantification problem here

3/8/2010 3:55:42 PM

which is one of the many reasons that a poll asking such a question is bullshit and should be disregarded.

3/8/2010 4:19:32 PM

The internet is an elite privilege we must keep for only the wise and learned amongst us.




[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM. Reason : -]

3/8/2010 5:05:23 PM

^ Specifically, anyone that wanders into the local privately provisioned library.

3/8/2010 8:49:18 PM

Necessity != fundamental right

3/8/2010 8:53:30 PM

You'd think libertarians would want a well-educated, productive workforce. People can't exactly be productive if they're hungry, homeless, sick, and unable to move from location to location. Redistributing enough marginal utility from the top to unlock this labor seems like not a bad idea, as those people will turn to something to subsist, and I'd rather it be labor than robbery.

3/9/2010 10:10:51 AM

no doubt, but poorly thought out redistribution is terrible because the system is so hard to fix once its in place.

Internet access is a pretty easy problem to understand, as opposed to something much larger like education or healthcare. We could start building internet out to rural community centers and it would be real hard to fuck up (but i imagine they'd find a way).

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

3/9/2010 10:50:04 AM