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.
The distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" rights is wholly artificial. For example, the public works department is not allowed to go park a truck in front of your driveway, making it useless. Is the phone company allowed to place a filter on your line, so that you don't get DSL? Is the authors' guild allowed to place guards outside the public library to keep you out? Is the post office allowed to stop checking your mailbox? Note that, if you're in the U.S, all these infrastructures were paid for by your tax dollars.
The only difference is that the status quo is different. It's a purely historical artifact that the phone company has control over your phone line. Should we really be deciding who should control which pieces of infrastructure by looking at historical artifacts?
Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions.
> The distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" rights is wholly artificial.
Not at all. It may not apply to this situation (that Finland politically decides to provide a service doesn't mean it makes sense to call it a right), but there's a very clear distinction between positive and negative rights.
Positive right: The right to a free education. In order to provide that for a certain person, certain other persons have to pay for that. If they don't, they'll have to be forced to, otherwise it couldn't really be called a right.
Negative right: Freedom of expression. No-one is allowed to keep you away from expressing yourself. On the other hand, no-one is required to help you express yourself -- that would be a positive right.
> Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions.
Agreed. I think it's a bad idea to spend other peoples money on providing 100 mbit internet connections to someone who's very voluntarily chosen to live as far away from human civilization as possible. Just like a bigger library in a bigger town is better than a weekly visit by the bookmobile, there's a difference between living in the city and in a rural area -- one that's also included in the cost of living.
Your examples are interesting, because it's plausible that expressing oneself is impossible without a certain level of education. It's certainly a requirement to express oneself on a global scale. Is a "negative" right (such as free expression) really a "negative" right if it requires something that cannot be guaranteed save by a positive right?
The right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial (a common example of a "negative" right) likewise requires legal representation, provided that there are crimes that have that punishment. Legal representation cannot be guaranteed save by a "positive" right. Does this make the right to not be imprisoned a "positive" right?
The bottom line is that, if you're going to divide rights into "positive" and "negative" rights, you need to choose a place to draw that line. I prefer to simply not draw that line, and assess the costs and benefits of a particular proposition on their own merits. Adding superfluous labels almost never helps.
For example, it's possible that guaranteeing such a plentiful information source as the internet to the citizens of a nation could boost its economy significantly. In this way, its citizens could actually have more money than without it. This is similar to one argument for the American interstate highway system. This is by no means guaranteed, but it is a factor one should consider in evaluating the proposed law.
That's kind of a leap, and an obfuscation of a relatively straightforward concept.
A "freedom of speech" right doesn't give me anything I don't already have. That is, I can already speak, and say basically anything I want. It just so happens to be codified in US law. You'll note that it says nothing about a freedom to speak at a high level, a freedom to persuade, or even a freedom to have people listen.
The "right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial" is a negative right (if you're suspected of a crime, we will imprison you) with limitations (but you'll get a fair trial). The right to a fair trial is not a positive right, it's a limit on a negative right.
You can think of negative rights as restricting natural rights. There's no natural barrier to me taking a steaming shit on the sidewalk in front of the white house. There are negative rights, however, that restrict my ability to do that.
Positive rights provide you with something you don't already have. A right to health care, for instance, will provide me with access to medicine, doctors, and other services I might otherwise have to go out and find on my own.
Negative rights generally have more obvious consequences (and repercussions) than positive rights, which is why I and many others like to make this distinction.
The ability to express yourself in a certain way isn't a right. Freedom of speech is all too often confused with a right to be heard. It has nothing to do with that.
The right to a fair trial and the associated rights are "weird" because they're concerned with what the government has to do in order to get to violate pretty much all your rights. I'm not a legal scholar, but I think these rights can be classified as legal rights.
I think it's more relevant than ever to be mindful of positive and negative rights -- politicians in western Europe and northern America are very concerned with labelling their own policies as rights when all too often it's merely an excuse to not arguing properly for an idea -- pure newspeak. Take the Finnish here, this actually is a tax on people living in cities to pay for people living in rural areas. But that doesn't sell as well as bestowing a right on people.
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.
I don't begrudge you your education, but it's worth noting that most private schools (ie: schools that aren't a "positive right") offer need based financial aid.
That's really just a roundabout way of saying: in a rich society, it's feasible to think that you might well have received an education even without a public school system.
I also came from a poor family. I wish public education hadn't existed, because I believe there would have been private teachers to pay by the lesson. I think I'd have learned more and gone further if I'd spent a mix of time helping work for my uncle and paying teachers by the lesson for the classes I thought were really worthwhile.
While I agree that "positive rights" frequently amount to legally mandated wealth transfer, saying your neighbors must "work as slaves" is a bit extreme. A slave has no choice as to whether they work, what they work on, and how they work.
Personally, I have no problem with the fact that property rights are not absolute (taxation and regulation being the primary inroads). That limitation of the property right results in much that I think is good.
What if nobody opts to work in broadband? How will the "right" be satisfied? You may say that someone would choose to do so but what if they couldn't charge for their services because to do so was denying somebody who couldn't pay their "right". And then you'd probably mention that the government would pay for it. And I'd ask where the government would get the money. The answer, of course, being the tax powers you've already mentioned.
If I'm taxed and a growing portion of my labor is taken to pay for something I don't receive and would not agree to pay for freely, how is it not either slavery or theft? As someone noted on reddit a week or so ago (in reference to social news not politics per se)--the larger the democracy, the larger the oppressed minority.
In France and the rest of Europe they are discussing laws to shut people off the internet for pirating stuff on the internet. In that light I am not sure if the law in question here is really an obligation - it could just prevent somebodies internet connection being taken, rather than forcing "somebody" to provide.
It depends on the details, I guess. I am also against having support people living in remote areas with my phone bill - they chose to live there themselves, so they should cough up the higher connection costs, or move to a city like everybody else.
Positive rights are obligations on society to give you stuff.
Negative rights are obligations on society to not interfere with you doing something.
Freedom of speech, of religion, all forms of freedom of creed and expression are negative rights: it is incumbent upon society to not interfere with you doing these things as you please (within limits that are not harmful to others).
Even the right to keep and bear arms (USA) is a negative right: it constitutes an obligation on the government not to take your guns away, not access to free guns.
> Would you say that religions force us into slavery because of their tax-exempt status?
Nope - you'd be paying taxes even if certain religious structures had no tax-preferences.
More to the point, you're not paying taxes to the religions. If you've got a beef with paying taxes, it's with the folks who collect and spend tax money, not with folks/groups who don't pay it.
> My taxes pay for the services they receive from govt,
Your taxes pay for services received by others who don't pay taxes. Are they enslaving you too? (FWIW, the services that churches receive are at the local level, fire and police mainly.)
> I would say that they influence too much of public policy making which in turn affects me.
They have less effect than other 501c(3)s, such as Sierra Club. Is SC enslaving you?
Yes, church members may try to influence things beyond what churches can do. However, you're complaining about churches.
I'm perfectly willing to go along with the idea that folks who ask for subsidies from govt are enslaving us, but churches are a small part of that problem.
Surely you're not going to argue that there's something with enslaving you but it's okay to enslave me. (That's where you get with "but I don't mind what those other folks want".)
Freedom of speech is basically an extension of property rights. You didn't violate anyones right just by saying something controversial, so they can't punish you for it.
And you can run your own blog or hope a newspaper will publish what you write. But imagine there was government legislation giving a "right" for people to have something published in the newspapers against the will of the newspapers. That would violate the rights of the newspapers. That would be a positive right: "Everyone has the right to have their writings published in big newspapers." for instance.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean others should provide the paper, bandwidth and so on. You have to provide that stuff yourself and/or in corporate with others.
Hm. It seems like a tricky distinction. What about the 6th amendment? It seems like that gives me the positive right to a trial by jury.
The viewpoint seems to be the reverse of how rights are expressed in the bill of rights, where they're all described from the point of view of the 'end user'.
I haven't heard the phrase 'positive' and 'negative' rights before but this is how I understand it: If we were to wash ashore on a desert island, everyone could do whatever they wanted. Inevitably, some people would start to harm each other. The harmed would then gang up to overthrow those who started the fight. The gang is called government and it's members agree to renounce some of their rights to grant it _powers_. Fearing that the gang itself would turn into another oppressor the members wisely choose to limit the newfound powers to only apply against those who initiate force. Thus the purpose and scope of government is maximize the rights of individuals by delineating the boundaries between my rights and yours. I do not have the right to force you to provide me with broadband because you have your own rights. I agree that I do not have this right because I consent to maintaining some government.
Another limitation on the power granted to government is that illegitimate force is defined by the people--not the government. The government is an employee of the people that has to check in every so often. If I don't like that you won't take a shovel, dig up a trench to my house and some copper to fill it; I can't extort it from you by accusing you of stealing my car so that the government will punish you on my say-so. This is where juries come in--part of the eternal vigilance we pay to retain freedom. If we as a people want the government to punish wrong-doing, we have to sign off on it. We agree to do it on a case by case basis because we don't trust the police or judges to not abuse their position in any given case. It's another part of the rights that we delegate to create the powers.
I guess you could look at the right to a trial by jury as the right to be not tried by a single person.
Tangentially related, Richard Dawkins wrote an interesting piece arguing against trials by jury, although I confess that I'm having trouble finding a full copy of it now; http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B... has part of it, but I think that there was more.
But is Dawkins right? The jury's still out on that.
Not in my opinion. You do have the right to not be harmed by others, but when it comes to shared resources like that, you're going to have to agree as a society on what is acceptable and what isn't.
Do you think naturally occurring fresh water should not be considered a shared resource, "owned" by the citizens of the country in which the water is found?
It should be considered a resource shared by every being on the planet. It's impractical to consider polluting water an act that requires the consent of everyone whose "right" would be infringed, which is why I don't think it's meaningful to call it a right. Pollution must happen. Societies should determine the extent to which it should be allowed and who should have a say.
Still not infringing on a right, but it's something I think should be against the rules of any society. Rights are fairly black and white. "Close proximity" is gray.
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.