5 ms·

Illustrates the common confusion between negative and positive rights. You have the right to have access to the internet, but you don't have the right to force

Illustrates the common confusion between negative and positive rights. You have the right to have access to the internet, but you don't have the right to force others to provide you with internet access; just as you have the right to free speech, but don't have the right to force others to print you pamphlets.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
I've reached the conclusion over the last few years that very, very few people have any idea what a right is. To them, it's something they want and can feel morally outraged if they don't get. This lack of education is wreaking havoc with western democracies. Having said that, technology is quickly becoming part of our brains, our souls, and not part of the external reality. The ability to communicate over the net is getting closer and closer and even beginning to overlap the ability to assemble, the ability to protest, or the ability to speak freely. It's not a right -- I don't think it can ever be a right -- but it's going to become a critical part of the social contract between governments and citizens. That's because it overlaps "natural" rights, not because it's morally right, it's the advanced thing to do, or any of that other feel-good nonsense.
- pmccool 17y ago
  Agree. I fear that "fundamental" is becoming debased in the same way as "evil" seems to be.
mfukar 17y ago
While true, nowhere in the article is there a hint to link the study to your assertion (no, not in "Rural Retreat" either). I have the right to have access to the internet, which implies the obligation of others to, quoting, "a 'fair and impartial procedure' before any measures can be taken to limit their net access.", at the very least.
yardie 17y ago
That doesn't make any sense. I'm still trying to figure what in your positive and negative rights mean. Rights are what you can't take away, not what you can force on others. No one is required to pay for anyone elses internet or print anyones pamphlets. I have the right to speak freely or remain silent. I can't be forced to speak nor can I be forced into silence. 4 out of 5 people agree no one should be denied access to the internet. If I paid for it, it's mine to use. If I use the free airport wifi it's mine to use. Gov'ts or individuals shouldn't be able to say I can't use the internet at all.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "Rights are what you can't take away, not what you can force on others. No one is required to pay for anyone elses internet or print anyones pamphlets." There are people who claim that their right to the Internet means that if they cannot afford t then someone else is obligated to pay for it, else they are being denied their right to the 'Net. (And, presumably, if there is no Internet then someone has to go make one.) This is a 'positive right'. It obligates other people to take action to provide something.
kmano8 17y ago
By extension, could we say that people have a right to equal, quality health care, but shouldn't expect taxpayers to foot the bill?

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

I've reached the conclusion over the last few years that very, very few people have any idea what a right is. To them, it's something they want and can feel morally outraged if they don't get. This lack of education is wreaking havoc with western democracies. Having said that, technology is quickly becoming part of our brains, our souls, and not part of the external reality. The ability to communicate over the net is getting closer and closer and even beginning to overlap the ability to assemble, the ability to protest, or the ability to speak freely. It's not a right -- I don't think it can ever be a right -- but it's going to become a critical part of the social contract between governments and citizens. That's because it overlaps "natural" rights, not because it's morally right, it's the advanced thing to do, or any of that other feel-good nonsense.

pmccool 17y ago
Agree. I fear that "fundamental" is becoming debased in the same way as "evil" seems to be.

mfukar 17y ago

While true, nowhere in the article is there a hint to link the study to your assertion (no, not in "Rural Retreat" either). I have the right to have access to the internet, which implies the obligation of others to, quoting, "a 'fair and impartial procedure' before any measures can be taken to limit their net access.", at the very least.

yardie 17y ago

That doesn't make any sense. I'm still trying to figure what in your positive and negative rights mean. Rights are what you can't take away, not what you can force on others. No one is required to pay for anyone elses internet or print anyones pamphlets. I have the right to speak freely or remain silent. I can't be forced to speak nor can I be forced into silence. 4 out of 5 people agree no one should be denied access to the internet. If I paid for it, it's mine to use. If I use the free airport wifi it's mine to use. Gov'ts or individuals shouldn't be able to say I can't use the internet at all.

jamesbritt 17y ago
"Rights are what you can't take away, not what you can force on others. No one is required to pay for anyone elses internet or print anyones pamphlets." There are people who claim that their right to the Internet means that if they cannot afford t then someone else is obligated to pay for it, else they are being denied their right to the 'Net. (And, presumably, if there is no Internet then someone has to go make one.) This is a 'positive right'. It obligates other people to take action to provide something.

kmano8 17y ago

By extension, could we say that people have a right to equal, quality health care, but shouldn't expect taxpayers to foot the bill?