3 ms·

This dialog is tangential at best. Sure, if you want to call them privileges instead of rights because they are inherently violable, go ahead, but everyone else

This dialog is tangential at best. Sure, if you want to call them privileges instead of rights because they are inherently violable, go ahead, but everyone else will refer to them as rights because its the common nomenclature. The idea of a right is that governments must work to secure them for its people. To redirect back to the parent post: if you don't want to call them rights, do you think internet access should be an essential privilege that governments must secure for their people? If so, how do you propose that privilege be fulfilled in rural communities that currently don't have internet access? It would seem to be a fundamental violation of the governmental charter not to provide it, and who would be held accountable for that violation?

flubert 9y ago
>The idea of a right is that governments must work to secure them for its people. >If so, how do you propose that privilege be fulfilled in rural communities that currently don't have internet access? I think a lot of the noise around this issue comes down to not clearly delineating between positive and negative rights: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=positive+vs.+negative+rights https://duckduckgo.com/?q=positive+vs.+negative+rights ...in the American tradition, "internet access as a right" means that that others (government, etc.) can't deprive you of whatever internet access you happen to have. Whereas other traditions interpret "internet access as a right" as something that the community needs to provide to individuals.
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>If so, how do you propose that privilege be fulfilled in rural communities that currently don't have internet access? By not letting monopolistic ISPs stop municipal networks. Nationalizing everything is not going to work. Most water, electric boards are not national/state government responsibilities. Venezuela model does not work, can't work for USA for sure.

flubert 9y ago

>The idea of a right is that governments must work to secure them for its people. >If so, how do you propose that privilege be fulfilled in rural communities that currently don't have internet access? I think a lot of the noise around this issue comes down to not clearly delineating between positive and negative rights: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=positive+vs.+negative+rights https://duckduckgo.com/?q=positive+vs.+negative+rights ...in the American tradition, "internet access as a right" means that that others (government, etc.) can't deprive you of whatever internet access you happen to have. Whereas other traditions interpret "internet access as a right" as something that the community needs to provide to individuals.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago

>If so, how do you propose that privilege be fulfilled in rural communities that currently don't have internet access? By not letting monopolistic ISPs stop municipal networks. Nationalizing everything is not going to work. Most water, electric boards are not national/state government responsibilities. Venezuela model does not work, can't work for USA for sure.