
Applause For Finland: First Country To Make Broadband Access A Legal Right  - transburgh
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/14/applause-for-finland-first-country-to-make-broadband-access-a-legal-right/
======
laut
So called "positive rights" like that are bad.

If you want broadband and don't want to pay for it, you are basically saying
that your neighbors should work as slaves to provide it. In that if they
don't, they are violating your right.

Rights should only be negative, i.e. things you have the right for other
people not to do to you. Basically protection of your property rights
including your own body. No theft, murder, stealing, rape, fraud etc.

Not only do I personally believe positive rights are wrong, they cannot
logically be upheld without breaking the negative rights.

~~~
sounddust
Coming from an extremely poor family, I feel fortunate to have been raised in
a society that provided the "positive right" to a public education; otherwise
I would probably be unemployed or making minimum wage in a gas station right
now.

~~~
natrius
There's a difference between rights and things that any sufficiently advanced
society should ensure are available for all of its citizens.

~~~
mrkurt
If it's government mandated/enforced/funded, it's probably safe to refer to it
as a "positive right".

Otherwise, I agree.

------
jrmurad
What good is broadband access without some kind of computer? Do Finns have a
"right" to computers too?

If some Finn chooses to live in a remote area of the country, must he be
provided with broadband? By whom? How? Or else what (the provider is forced
out of business and won't be providing access to anyone)?

(I haven't read the law in question. Perhaps it answers these questions.)

Why stop with broadband? Providing it will make Internet-geeks "applaud." What
other so-called "rights" can we invent which are incumbent upon the action of
others? A right to instruments [culture is good]? Musicians might applaud. A
right to sports equipment [fitness is good]? Athletes. Etc. Tell me, what's
the difference?

~~~
enra
I think is important it's made a legal right so companies or other agents
can't take your connection away easily, like the 'Three Strikes Law' is trying
to do in France.

Second, it means that service providers are forced to provide somekind of
access to all areas. Usually in urban areas this means a broadband and in
extreme rural areas somekind of mobile or wireless access.

Third, there is some confusion in TC comments, but this doesn't mean that the
connection will be free, just that it has to be available to almost every
residence.

Anyway this doesn't change things much in Finland. I think we already have
broadband almost everywhere, this just ensures that the situation won't change
in the future.

~~~
byrneseyeview
There is a cost to providing Internet access in rural areas. Should this cost
be borne by the people who choose to live in those places, or by everybody
else?

Has there ever been a time when making _everybody_ pay for an individual's
mistakes -- whether the mistake is getting pregnant at 15 or buying AAA-rated
mortgage-backed securities -- has been the right thing to do?

~~~
grhino
Can a nation thrive with all citizens living in urban areas? The internet is
becoming the main way to disseminate information. I'd rather folks in rural
areas have access to broadband.

Libraries and broadband access are important to providing education
opportunities and to spread culture and ideas throughout a nation, and I'm
willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas.

~~~
lionhearted
Serious question, not being facetious:

> ... I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas.

I'm not willing to do that. What are you willing to do to me for refusing?
Arrest me? Shoot me?

~~~
scott_s
Tax you.

~~~
lionhearted
> Tax you.

The philosophical question is, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone
who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?"

"Tax you" does not answer that question. If you request or demand someone
contribute (in this case, broadband internet in rural areas), and they refuse
to do so, are you willing to arrest or harm them?

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
"Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and
there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work.

~~~
lionhearted
> "Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and
> there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work.

You've simply stated that there is a currently enforced law. The same argument
could be any law throughout history: Mandatory religious worship.
Conscription. Even slavery. Take ancient Sparta or Rome - "Slavery is not
optional and there are penalties for refusing to work. That's how governments
work" - that would have been a true statement, but doesn't get at whether
that's right or wrong. It just states that there is a law that is enforced.

But this question is important - "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone
who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?"

The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. In this dialog, it
comes down to, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to
subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?" I'm not speaking universally
about all law here, I'm wondering if you or anyone is willing to imprison or
harm another human being for refusing to subsidize a rural area's broadband
internet. Yes? No?

~~~
GHFigs
You're conflating refusal to pay taxes with not supporting how those taxes are
spent. Those are two very different ways of interacting with the law.

~~~
lionhearted
> _The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question._ In this
> dialog, it comes down to, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who
> refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?"

> You're conflating refusal to pay taxes with not supporting how those taxes
> are spent. Those are two very different ways of interacting with the law.

It's not conflating - if you pass a law to further an agenda (say, broadband
internet in rural areas) you need a penalty or it's just a request.

The reason I'm not talking about all taxes is because I can answer this
question: "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to
subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?"

My answer to that is no. No, I am not willing to imprison or harm someone who
refuses to do that. Therefore, I believe the law has a problem with it.

However, if my country was invaded by malicious hostile forces and I was
asked, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to defend the
country against the malicious hostile invading force?" - Then I would say yes,
in that particular emergency, I would imprison or shoot someone who refused to
defend against the invaders. I would not enjoy doing it, but I would do it if
I could not find another way to keep our people from getting killed and
pillaged.

When you pass a tax on something, you need to back it credibly. Now, it's easy
to wash your hands of it by saying, "It's the law, and if you break the law,
there are penalties." Yes, but this a generic non-statement. So far, no one is
willing to say whether they are willing to imprison or harm someone for
refusing to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet. Are you?

"The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. Are you willing
to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband
internet?"

~~~
GHFigs
You certainly are conflating. Opposing the existence of a law and breaking a
law are two different things, and your supposedly simple question is combining
then in order to make the misleading argument that a person who breaks a law
is actually punished for opposing the existence of a law. It's conflating
thoughts with deeds, and it's dishonest. I will not answer it.

A person in a democratic society has a right to determine the laws they are
legally subject to, but their mechanism for doing that is not their choice of
whether to comply with it or not. If you are tried for a crime, you are not
asked whether you agree with the law or not. You can't simply say "Oh, well, I
don't agree with that law, so it's ok if I break it." and expect that to
constitute a valid defense.

Relying on civil disobedience to communicate your opposition instead of (say)
voting and lobbying the legislature is naïve and not likely to be effective in
most cases. Your opposition is much more likely to be recognized by the arm of
government responsible for the formulation of the law than that which enforces
it. This is what I mean by two ways of interacting with the law.

~~~
lionhearted
> You certainly are conflating. Opposing the existence of a law and breaking a
> law are two different things, and your supposedly simple question is
> combining then in order to make the misleading argument that a person who
> breaks a law is actually punished for opposing the existence of a law.

No. The point is that the ends do not justify the means. I support the vast
majority of the current law's agenda - but I believe the means of how it is
carried out is wrong. Most people have never thought about this - I'm asking
you to think about it.

> A person in a democratic society has a right to determine the laws they are
> legally subject to, but their mechanism for doing that is not their choice
> of whether to comply with it or not.

I'm not speaking about legality or illegality here. Above I wrote: When you
pass a tax on something, you need to back it credibly. Now, it's easy to wash
your hands of it by saying, "It's the law, and if you break the law, there are
penalties."

But ends do not, in my opinion, justify means. Others can disagree - that's
why we're discussing. But most people can't even admit that the means that are
being used are pretty horrific. If someone says, "Yes, I think it is horrible
that someone who refuses to subsidize broadband internet in a rural area is
imprisoned, but it's necessary anyways so I support it", then I respect that
person. I disagree, but I respect it. But the man that refuses that is
refusing to see the way things currently are.

This truth is a bit ugly, I think. I don't particularly like it.

> If you are tried for a crime, you are not asked whether you agree with the
> law or not.

Again, I'm not speaking about legality or illegality here. Yes, breaking the
law is always illegal, by definition. This is not the discussion.

But this really isn't academic. The broadband internet in rural areas is very
illustrative, but let's take another example, this time from the United
States. Social Security Tax - it's to help support older and disabled people.
This is a good end goal - supporting older and disabled people.

But if someone doesn't give their income up to pay this tax to support this
cause, they go to jail. Yes, not paying this tax is against the law, therefore
it is illegal, therefore you can be punished under the law for breaking this
law. That's obvious.

But is it right? I'm going to say, categorically - no. You could disagree. You
could say, "The ends justify the means. We need to lock people in jail who
refuse to help the elderly and disabled." But you can't say, "That's
dishonest, that's not what's happening." Because that's precisely what's
happening.

I'm aware it's the law. That does not change whether the law is right or
wrong. I'm in favor of supporting the elderly and disabled. I personally have
done so in my life. I'm not in favor of jailing or otherwise hurting someone
who refuses to. Does it make sense that way? We're not talking about legality,
we're talking about ends and means. You need to ask yourself what you're
willing to incarcerate or hurt other human beings for not complying with, and
that needs to be factored into the law.

There are situations that would warrant arresting, incarcerating, hurting, or
killing another human being. The question, "Are you willing to incarcerate,
harm, or kill someone for refusing to subsidize broadband internet in a rural
area?" is a fair question, because a law mandating that you subsidize
broadband internet or suffer a penalty of incarceration or harm does precisely
that.

------
karteek
A Finnish friend of mine told me: Article forgot to mention that every
household will be taxed for around 175€/year; known as TV/Internet Tax.
Independently if TV or Internet is used in that household…

~~~
enra
It's actually known as Media Tax, which is revamped version of the old
TV/Radio Tax, where TV owners had to pay about 225€/year.

The tax is used for funding the Finnish Broadcasting Company(YLE) and the tv-
infrastructure. Most people opposed the tax, since not everyone watch TV
anymore and they're not happy how it's used, for example buying HBO shows and
producing soap operas instead of some quality programs like BBC does.

------
tseabrooks
This is completely absurd. People should not be given rights that require
someone provide something for them. Surely, the problem with believing someone
has a 'right' to broadband internet access they should also have a right to a
computer, or a television, or cable.

~~~
gloob
_People should not be given rights that require someone provide something for
them._

I read: "People should not be given rights to trial by jury or elections". The
former requires that random citizens be selected to give up their time for my
sake. The latter requires that random government-types go out of their way to
organize the whole bloody thing, which is both extraordinarily expensive and
inconvenient. Both "require someone provide something for them". Edit: For
that matter, what about universal education, as well?

I know the above is clearly not what you intended. Nonetheless, it follows
logically from your statements. Perhaps you could clarify your stance?

