4 ms·

Any discussion of rights without discussing duties is vacuous because rights can't exist without duties ie: My right to X imposes a duty on you to provide or n

Any discussion of rights without discussing duties is vacuous because rights can't exist without duties ie: My right to X imposes a duty on you to provide or not prevent me from X. So if internet access was a right, what is the corresponding duty it imposes and who is that duty imposed upon? Must the state (and therefore you) provide me with a super computer & T1 connection or is free netbook and dial-up for all sufficient? Or perhaps your rich neighbour. Why not TV or radio as human rights? Claiming these things as human rights imposes unjustifiable burdens upon others when you have no right to do so. If you disagree, please explain why I should be forced to ensure you have access to facebook and where your power of imposition comes from. But just because something is not a right, doesn't mean that universal access is not a good thing. Plenty of goods such as education, healthcare and sanitation fail the duty test but their universal access is still a very good thing. We may even agree that these things 'should' be a right but in that case the right is a political one based on mutual agreement, not some inalienable human right.

danssig 15y ago
Internet should absolutely be a right, but that's not a burden on you. It's like the right to bear arms: a normal citizen can't be prevented from doing so, but he still has to buy them himself.
- davekinkead 15y ago
  You are missing Cerf's point. It may be a desirable but its not a human right. What you are describing is negative freedom: no one should stop me from doing X. But this is very different from a human right: something that is inalienable and fundamental to human existence. The right to bear arms is a political right (in the US at least) as well as a negative freedom. It is not however, a human right. If it was, the nearly every other country in the world would be violating fundamental human rights by denying their citizens the opportunity to carry a weapon that kills with such ease. Access to the internet wasn't fundamental to human existence 100 years ago when it didn't exist or even 10 year ago when it did. Its still not fundamental to our existence today - its just very useful.
  - mindcrime 15y ago
    It is not however, a human right. I, for one, disagree. If it was, the nearly every other country in the world would be violating fundamental human rights by denying their citizens the opportunity to carry a weapon that kills with such ease. Yes, yes they are. What could possibly be a more fundamental right than the right to defend oneself? And arming oneself to do so obviously follows from that, IMO. Heck, a wildly popular definition of what "government" is, is based on the idea of self-defense as the fundamental innate right (I'm referring to Bastiat and his idea of "government as the collective extension to our individual right of self-defense").
    - davekinkead 15y ago
      You are missing the link between rights and duties. If you have a right to bear arms, then in the positive sense I have a duty to provide you with arms and in the negative sense, I have the duty not to stop you bearing arms. I'll assuming you refer the the negative sense. If so, what grants you the authority to impose that duty upon me? Why am I not allowed to protect myself by ensuring you don't have the means to harm me? One way to protect oneself is to ensure no one has the means to do harm to each other. Given that that option exists, then the right to bear arms can't be a fundamental human right because it is clear not fundamental to human existence. If it is a right, then it is a political right that comes from mutual agreement.
      - mindcrime 15y ago
        You are missing the link between rights and duties. I just default to the definition of "right" that's more like "something you can do without needing anyone's permission." I don't accept that anyone is ever obligated to do something (provide me with a gun, for example) because of someone else's rights. in the negative sense, I have the duty not to stop you bearing arms No, you could try if you feel justified. But at that point there's no more reasoning from first principles or anything... you just have two sovereign individuals with a dispute over something. The dispute can be settled through diplomacy, force, or whatever. I'd hope it was the former not the latter, of course. One way to protect oneself is to ensure no one has the means to do harm to each other Any living human being has the means to do harm to another, including killing them. Killing another human with your bare hands isn't terribly difficult, especially if you catch them unaware (e.g., slap on a rear-naked-choke and simply choke them to death). So by your standard, living itself can't be a fundamental right, since we all have a right to commit genocide (since that's one way to make sure no human can harm another human).

danssig 15y ago

Internet should absolutely be a right, but that's not a burden on you. It's like the right to bear arms: a normal citizen can't be prevented from doing so, but he still has to buy them himself.

davekinkead 15y ago
You are missing Cerf's point. It may be a desirable but its not a human right. What you are describing is negative freedom: no one should stop me from doing X. But this is very different from a human right: something that is inalienable and fundamental to human existence. The right to bear arms is a political right (in the US at least) as well as a negative freedom. It is not however, a human right. If it was, the nearly every other country in the world would be violating fundamental human rights by denying their citizens the opportunity to carry a weapon that kills with such ease. Access to the internet wasn't fundamental to human existence 100 years ago when it didn't exist or even 10 year ago when it did. Its still not fundamental to our existence today - its just very useful.
- mindcrime 15y ago
  It is not however, a human right. I, for one, disagree. If it was, the nearly every other country in the world would be violating fundamental human rights by denying their citizens the opportunity to carry a weapon that kills with such ease. Yes, yes they are. What could possibly be a more fundamental right than the right to defend oneself? And arming oneself to do so obviously follows from that, IMO. Heck, a wildly popular definition of what "government" is, is based on the idea of self-defense as the fundamental innate right (I'm referring to Bastiat and his idea of "government as the collective extension to our individual right of self-defense").
  - davekinkead 15y ago
    You are missing the link between rights and duties. If you have a right to bear arms, then in the positive sense I have a duty to provide you with arms and in the negative sense, I have the duty not to stop you bearing arms. I'll assuming you refer the the negative sense. If so, what grants you the authority to impose that duty upon me? Why am I not allowed to protect myself by ensuring you don't have the means to harm me? One way to protect oneself is to ensure no one has the means to do harm to each other. Given that that option exists, then the right to bear arms can't be a fundamental human right because it is clear not fundamental to human existence. If it is a right, then it is a political right that comes from mutual agreement.
    - mindcrime 15y ago
      You are missing the link between rights and duties. I just default to the definition of "right" that's more like "something you can do without needing anyone's permission." I don't accept that anyone is ever obligated to do something (provide me with a gun, for example) because of someone else's rights. in the negative sense, I have the duty not to stop you bearing arms No, you could try if you feel justified. But at that point there's no more reasoning from first principles or anything... you just have two sovereign individuals with a dispute over something. The dispute can be settled through diplomacy, force, or whatever. I'd hope it was the former not the latter, of course. One way to protect oneself is to ensure no one has the means to do harm to each other Any living human being has the means to do harm to another, including killing them. Killing another human with your bare hands isn't terribly difficult, especially if you catch them unaware (e.g., slap on a rear-naked-choke and simply choke them to death). So by your standard, living itself can't be a fundamental right, since we all have a right to commit genocide (since that's one way to make sure no human can harm another human).