

Projects for Internet Access as an Inalienable Right - mazsa
http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/6-projects-for-net-access-as-an-inalienable-right

======
kiba
While I am sympathetic to the anti-censorship goal, I am not so sure about
making "internet access" an inalienable right.

I guess I am just not a big fan of positive right.

~~~
knowtheory
Do you believe that we have a right to a public education?

Because i think that internet access plugs into that pretty well.

Many of the people who seem to be down on positive rights don't really discuss
the fact that positive and negative rights are matters of degree and flow into
each other pretty fluidly.

Okay, so right to a fair trial is a negative right... but right to council is
a positive right? How are you going to get a fair trial w/o competent
representation?

~~~
kiba
_Do you believe that we have a right to a public education?_

No.

 _Okay, so right to a fair trial is a negative right... but right to council
is a positive right? How are you going to get a fair trial w/o competent
representation?_

I'll concede that point.

~~~
dantheman
I'm going to contest the 2nd point. The government is trying to take your
freedom, hence it provides certain protections. Just as you are guaranteed
food while in jail, council must be provided. They are not positive rights, in
fact they a stipulations required to enable the negative right. If they cannot
be met, then you are free to go.

In short, you have no claim on anyone else; however, if others want to
imprison you then they must act in a certain way - providing council, etc.

------
gyardley
This article's title is incredibly inaccurate - it should be something like
'six projects for preventing internet access from being shut off by a
governmental body'.

As the title currently reads, it's just setting us up for the same old
tiresome political debate.

------
pragmatic
How can there be a right to something that someone else has to provide?

With speech you can talk, no one has to listen. But with food, housing,
internet access, _someone_ has to provide it.

~~~
electromagnetic
> But with food, housing ... _someone_ has to provide it.

No they don't. You can provide it for yourself, you might not get the latter
to meet local standards easily, but then here in Canada you can build a shack
out in the country so long as you vacate if loggers roll in.

You might end up sharing it with a bear, but that's why you buy a gun and then
you're providing your own defence too.

------
michael_dorfman
Is food an inalienable right? Housing? Health care?

~~~
noarchy
That depends on where you live. For a US-based audience, the answer to all of
these will probably be, "No."

~~~
electromagnetic
For everywhere else the answer to all but the latter is no.

Why should there be a right to food. I understand if there were legal
restrictions on all forms of hunting, fishing and home-farming, but there
isn't.

I can build my own house. Most countries have provisions that allow you to do
all your own electrical, plumbing and everything on your own property with
only minimal restriction. However, there is no restriction on fulfilling the
basic need of shelter. Here in Canada you can set up a shack anywhere in like
80% of the land so long as you move if loggers (or presumably miners, etc.)
buy the land off the government.

I think most countries are a yes for healthcare mostly because they won't let
you practice medicine without a license. However, no one can stop me doing my
own stitches or providing my own first-aid, it's generally only second-aid
(hospital care) that is restricted solely to trained staff.

