Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[WhoWee]

That'll happen.

I see it as a matter of priorities. If they won't police the border - then put a HUGE tax on the illegal profits and fix the water and sanitation problems.

 

[JaredJames]

then put a HUGE tax on the illegal profits and fix the water and sanitation problems.

Because drug dealers are known to use the local institutions to store their money...

It's hard to tax 'cash in hand' and undeclared money.

 

[WhoWee]

Because drug dealers are known to use the local institutions to store their money...

It's hard to tax 'cash in hand' and undeclared money.

Again, it's a matter of priorities. The Government officials need to find a way to fix the water supply. I have to believe that average people (out number drug dealers and) care more about their water and sanitation needs of their families than the personal safety of their Government representatives. Maybe the ACLU should take a road trip?

 

[JaredJames]

Again, it's a matter of priorities. The Government officials need to find a way to fix the water supply. I have to believe that average people (out number drug dealers and) care more about their water and sanitation needs of their families than the personal safety of their Government representatives. Maybe the ACLU should take a road trip?

Personal safety of government representatives? Where does that come into it?

You have drug dealers - some heavily armed gangs - with the majority of cash, not held in banks and undeclared.

If it isn't in the bank and is undeclared, how can the government tax it? If they are heavily armed and don't care about killing people, how can the public do anything?

 

[WhoWee]

Personal safety of government representatives? Where does that come into it?

You have drug dealers - some heavily armed gangs - with the majority of cash, not held in banks and undeclared.

If it isn't in the bank and is undeclared, how can the government tax it? If they are heavily armed and don't care about killing people, how can the public do anything?

One person can make a difference - not against drug gangs. Elected officials answer to the people - tainted water is unacceptable. If the people want their rights protected - they need to be willing to help themselves.

 

[JaredJames]

One person can make a difference - not against drug gangs. Elected officials answer to the people - tainted water is unacceptable. If the people want their rights protected - they need to be willing to help themselves.

The police are corrupt. There's no one to stand up for you which means the public would have to get together. But then they don't have the firepower of the gangs/police.

Plus, in some cases the drug money is the main income for a lot of people (in some way if not directly) so going after the gangs could prove a terrible move for a lot of people - so the incentive just isn't there.

I'd also note that people aren't necessarily elected (or at least the election may not be 'straight') and that in these countries the public officials aren't under the same scrutiny as the US/UK et al.

 

[WhoWee]

The police are corrupt. There's no one to stand up for you which means the public would have to get together. But then they don't have the firepower of the gangs/police.

Plus, in some cases the drug money is the main income for a lot of people (in some way if not directly) so going after the gangs could prove a terrible move for a lot of people - so the incentive just isn't there.

I'd also note that people aren't necessarily elected (or at least the election may not be 'straight') and that in these countries the public officials aren't under the same scrutiny as the US/UK et al.

If they are afraid to demand clean water - I guess they'll learn to do without internet access? At some point you have to be willing to help yourself.

If you're telling me the drug money is that important to the Mexican economy - maybe we should militarize our (US) border. I consider safe and drug free schools a right of our children.

 

[JaredJames]

If they are afraid to demand clean water - I guess they'll learn to do without internet access? At some point you have to be willing to help yourself.

If you're telling me the drug money is that important to the Mexican economy - maybe we should militarize our (US) border. I consider safe and drug free schools a right of our children.

I'm lost, what does the internet have to do with Toridor, Mexico?

I haven't heard any complaints from there outside of the water comment above.

It's not about them 'not caring' about clean water, it's about them not being able to do anything about it or in some cases not wanting to (income etc). Either way, you can still care strongly about the state of your water.

Why would the US spend millions militarising the US/Mexico border simply to cripple the Mexican economy?

It's Egypt that the people are having a bit of jip with the net. Best stick to the OP on this one because I really don't know where you're trying to take it.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm lost, what does the internet have to do with Toridor, Mexico?

I haven't heard any complaints from there outside of the water comment above.

It's not about them 'not caring' about clean water, it's about them not being able to do anything about it or in some cases not wanting to (income etc). Either way, you can still care strongly about the state of your water.

Why would the US spend millions militarising the US/Mexico border simply to cripple the Mexican economy?

It's Egypt that the people are having a bit of jip with the net. Best stick to the OP on this one because I really don't know where you're trying to take it.

I didn't bring Mexico into this - just trying to get us back to the OP of is internet access a human right?

At the same time, I think the Mexican situation might be relevant in that some things are more important than others. In this Mexican town, if the water is tainted with oil and the drug gangs (apparently) rule the streets and the police are corrupt - do you think internet access is a priority?

 

[JaredJames]

I didn't bring Mexico into this - just trying to get us back to the OP of is internet access a human right?

At the same time, I think the Mexican situation might be relevant in that some things are more important than others. In this Mexican town, if the water is tainted with oil and the drug gangs (apparently) rule the streets and the police are corrupt - do you think internet access is a priority?

I don't see internet access as a priority in the US / UK. It doesn't even get a look in elsewhere.

 

[croghan27]

The problem is with the recently perverted definition of "rights" that has me knee-jerk reacting against it. People argue that healthcare is a right, by which they mean the government must provide it for them. But that's not what it means for something to be a "right". To be a right - by the definition used for the past few hundred years - only means the government can't take it from you.

The government, as a reflection of the people, as per democracy, cannot let people become ill, get injured or needlessly die - for moral, economic and democratic reasons: desease control centers must be established, hospitals need to be founded, even sewerage and water system must be built. The costs of health care has so increased that it is rare that a single person can shoulder the expense. So government intervention is necessary.

Rights are not totally negative - as in they cannot be taken from you - there is a positive as well.

 

[TheodoreLogan]

To quote Russ, "Errrrr...REBOOT!"

The right to a free press does not mean the government has to supply me with a printing press. Freedom of religion does not mean the government has to build a church for me and my flock. Freedom of speech does not mean the government has to supply me with a bully pulpit. The right to petition your congresscritter does not mean the government has to buy me a plane ticket to Washington.

A right is a limitation on what the government can do. The concept of rights has been twisted as of late into meaning a requirement on what the government must do. The US Constitution, at least, is rather clear in this regard: The first amendment does not start with "Congress shall make laws ...". It instead starts with "Congress shall make no law ..."

In the sense that a right is a restriction upon what governments can do, I would say that free and unfettered access to the internet is a right, one that I may well have to pay a non-government supplier $50/month to obtain.

I agree with this. IMO Anything that is available in the universe is my right to have or use, if I am not affecting the rights of another person or persons. The internet is no different. I may have to pay for this service, but as long as it is available to purchase, no government should ever be able to stop me or anyone from being able to purchase such a service. So I would say that yes, internet access is a human right. If the question is "should everyone be entitled to internet access?" Then I would say no.

 

[WhoWee]

The government, as a reflection of the people, as per democracy, cannot let people become ill, get injured or needlessly die - for moral, economic and democratic reasons: desease control centers must be established, hospitals need to be founded, even sewerage and water system must be built. The costs of health care has so increased that it is rare that a single person can shoulder the expense. So government intervention is necessary.

Rights are not totally negative - as in they cannot be taken from you - there is a positive as well.

With out getting into a health care debate with you (that's why we purchase insurance) - what do you think about internet access (the OP)?

 

[JaredJames]

I agree with this. IMO Anything that is available in the universe is my right to have or use, if I am not affecting the rights of another person or persons. The internet is no different. I may have to pay for this service, but as long as it is available to purchase, no government should ever be able to stop me or anyone from being able to purchase such a service. So I would say that yes, internet access is a human right. If the question is "should everyone be entitled to internet access?" Then I would say no.

I think that frames it nicely, particularly the last part.

 

[croghan27]

With out getting into a health care debate with you (that's why we purchase insurance) - what do you think about internet access (the OP)?

Nah ... it is not necessary for the health and well being of anyone, (That I know of). Access to water, sewerage and health care is ... and thank you - I dropped the ball for this thread there ...

 

[WhoWee]

Nah ... it is not necessary for the health and well being of anyone, (That I know of). Access to water, sewerage and health care is ... and thank you - I dropped the ball for this thread there ...

Ok...so, what DO you think about the issue of internet access?

 

[croghan27]

Ok...so, what DO you think about the issue of internet access?

Maybe that sometime in the not-too-distant future internet access will be considered on par with a 'free press' - but that time is not yet ...so far it is another means of disseminating information - always an aid to a free press, but not a core necessity ...yet.

I think of restoration England, with the essayists Addison and Steele, Swift et al - their intelligencers were fundamental in building a thriving press as we know it, indeed, important to the development of democratic institutions. Is there any doubt that many of the current crop of bloggers will be studied in future schools (or on line, as may be the case) as instances of political and social development.

The internet is not integrated enough so far to be a human right (business has it's own agenda) - but I suspect the day is coming.

That answer the question?

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe that sometime in the not-too-distant future internet access will be considered on par with a 'free press' - but that time is not yet ...so far it is another means of disseminating information - always an aid to a free press, but not a core necessity ...yet.

I think of restoration England, with the essayists Addison and Steele, Swift et al - their intelligencers were fundamental in building a thriving press as we know it, indeed, important to the development of democratic institutions. Is there any doubt that many of the current crop of bloggers will be studied in future schools (or on line, as may be the case) as instances of political and social development.

The internet is not integrated enough so far to be a human right (business has it's own agenda) - but I suspect the day is coming.

That answer the question?

Your response is similar to what my son and his friend told me last evening. They said our definition of "rights" will evolve over time - in 10,000 years telepathy in public might be on par with breathing (or even more acceptable given CO2 emmissions)?

 

[croghan27]

Your response is similar to what my son and his friend told me last evening. They said our definition of "rights" will evolve over time - in 10,000 years telepathy in public might be on par with breathing (or even more acceptable given CO2 emmissions)?

You son is wise ... even if I have considered with some I have met that Colgate may be a human right ... for me.

 

[WhoWee]

You son is wise

I love him dearly - and he has his moments - but "wise"......again, he has his moments.

 

[croghan27]

I love him dearly - and he has his moments - but "wise"......again, he has his moments.

Being the father of three boys I found that one always was wise, one foolish and the other in trouble

(OT) Nelson's gunners (who worshiped him) would always be the first target in an battle ... the gunnery deck would fire at the gunnery decks ... their comment was: "T'is a short life, but a merry one." This applies here.

They kept life ...er...er.. interesting.

 

[croghan27]

This probably could go into two thread ... this one and one on the happenings in Egypt ...

Good 'ol Hosni is tying up the internet, even here in Canada ---- getting into al Jazeera is damn near impossible and Twitter is just a wish. "Sorry, we are busy, try again later."

 

[baywax]

The police are corrupt. There's no one to stand up for you which means the public would have to get together. But then they don't have the firepower of the gangs/police.

Plus, in some cases the drug money is the main income for a lot of people (in some way if not directly) so going after the gangs could prove a terrible move for a lot of people - so the incentive just isn't there.

I'd also note that people aren't necessarily elected (or at least the election may not be 'straight') and that in these countries the public officials aren't under the same scrutiny as the US/UK et al.

Yeah, its pretty hard to trust anyone, Mexico, USA or Canada these days... up here we have the RCMP investigating the RCMP... like that works... not! Then we have the RCMP investigating the Government... but the govt. pays the RCMP... that isn't working either.

The best solution is to legalize/tax the drugs and somehow get a trustworthy govt in power. Getting a trustworthy govt is hard but can happen if they are paid enough... along with the police force etc... and they are educated to the point of maintaining certain values that support the rights of the people to potable water, health care, inspected food and so on... this is our model here in the land of the "snowback"... where it rains a lot.

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah, its pretty hard to trust anyone, Mexico, USA or Canada these days... up here we have the RCMP investigating the RCMP... like that works... not! Then we have the RCMP investigating the Government... but the govt. pays the RCMP... that isn't working either.

The best solution is to legalize/tax the drugs and somehow get a trustworthy govt in power. Getting a trustworthy govt is hard but can happen if they are paid enough... along with the police force etc... and they are educated to the point of maintaining certain values that support the rights of the people to potable water, health care, inspected food and so on... this is our model here in the land of the "snowback"... where it rains a lot.

Government needs to be held accountable by the people. If you require the Government only be accountable to Government - the people will more than likely give up something (money, rights, freedom - something?).

 

[croghan27]

Government needs to be held accountable by the people. If you require the Government only be accountable to Government - the people will more than likely give up something (money, rights, freedom - something?).

This may seem about Greenwald - but he expands it ...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

But the real issue highlighted by this episode is just how lawless and unrestrained is the unified axis of government and corporate power. I've written many times about this issue -- the full-scale merger between public and private spheres -- because it's easily one of the most critical yet under-discussed political topics. Especially (though by no means only) in the worlds of the Surveillance and National Security State, the powers of the state have become largely privatized. There is very little separation between government power and corporate power. Those who wield the latter intrinsically wield the former

.

 

[WhoWee]

This may seem about Greenwald - but he expands it ...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

.

In the context of your post (real world application) - what do you think about the close association of the Obama Administration and GE and it's CEO?

 

[croghan27]

In the context of your post (real world application) - what do you think about the close association of the Obama Administration and GE and it's CEO?

Is this the lad that specialized in shipping GE operations off shore and has been put in charge of job creation in the US? In all truth (why would I speak otherwise ) I know so little about the subject - save what I just said - and that is less than comprehensive - I really have no set opinion on the subject.

I know I have deep concerns about the crooks and thieves Obama has installed as saviors of the economy and the thought of Holder makes me shiver. It is one indication of how bad they are that Bush thought highly of them.

That being said, the US is still a foreign country to me (even if I have lived there) - and our PM has made some doozies of choices too.

 

[WhoWee]

Is this the lad that specialized in shipping GE operations off shore and has been put in charge of job creation in the US? In all truth (why would I speak otherwise ) I know so little about the subject - save what I just said - and that is less than comprehensive - I really have no set opinion on the subject.

I know I have deep concerns about the crooks and thieves Obama has installed as saviors of the economy and the thought of Holder makes me shiver. It is one indication of how bad they are that Bush thought highly of them.

That being said, the US is still a foreign country to me (even if I have lived there) - and our PM has made some doozies of choices too.

I'm in favor of term limits in the House of Representatives and prefer Presidents first gain experience as a Governor.

The Washington community is often described as "inside the beltway" - to that (label this opinion) - inbreeding is rarely a good thing.

 

[croghan27]

I'm in favor of term limits in the House of Representatives and prefer Presidents first gain experience as a Governor.

The Washington community is often described as "inside the beltway" - to that (label this opinion) - inbreeding is rarely a good thing.

Is that not like calling out a SWAT to stop J-walking? A bit of the old overkill? I admit that all too many democratically elected members turn out to be but servants of big money interests - yet could that not be solved in other ways - ways that would not chuck out the chaff with the wheat. Edward Kennedy and Strom Thurmond served different constituencies, but were fairly elected by their chosen 'target group'.

Perhaps if election financing were talk out of private hands - who is elected is much too dependent upon money spent, and had the state fund campaigns or at least control 'the stump' in closer ways the that the electorate prefer would be able to continue.

Could you explain more about the requirement of governorship - I am not sure how that applies.

Here in Canada we have an appointed Senate - it is supposed to be 'the chamber of second thought' - that our current PM has turned into a filter to undemocratically abolish legislation he may not support and zip through laws he does. It has often been called an undemocratic vestige of our British heritage. (Not sure it is all that undemocratic. myself.) But your Senate has two members from each state - no matter the population. What ever happened to 'rep by pop'?

I think in both cases some solution can be found without invoking term limits - or banning someone's participation on arbitrary grounds.

As for those 'inside the beltway' - Mr. Greenwald, who I enjoy both for his views and for his prose, has much to say about them, and the puppy like adoration of the main stream press that fawns over them.

 

[WhoWee]

Could you explain more about the requirement of governorship - I am not sure how that applies.

I've long thought serving as the Governor of a state provides basic training for the job of President. Serving as CEO pf a multi-national corporation could also prepare a President for some of their daily tasks.

This thread is a good example of the type of issue that might be presented to the leader of a state or country. Prior knowledge of state involvement or multi-national communications experience may prove helpful. Often at the Presidential level, the balance must be maintained between what is necessary and just as to what is fair and economically viable.

 

[croghan27]

I've long thought serving as the Governor of a state provides basic training for the job of President. Serving as CEO pf a multi-national corporation could also prepare a President for some of their daily tasks.

This thread is a good example of the type of issue that might be presented to the leader of a state or country. Prior knowledge of state involvement or multi-national communications experience may prove helpful. Often at the Presidential level, the balance must be maintained between what is necessary and just as to what is fair and economically viable.

Would you rule out John McCain and Ron Paul? Paul is ideologically driven rather than practically; has spent his life in the government he seems to despise. McCain is notable for what he had not done rather than what he has.

On the 'other' side JFK was a Senator - is that enough ... Johnson just about ran the government for quite a while during WWII so he had loads of experience - perhaps that is why he was a much more effective President than his predecessor.

Certainly training and experience are as important in government as anything, but cannot be used to exclude anyone and still maintain adherence to democratic principles.

 

[WhoWee]

Would you rule out John McCain and Ron Paul? Paul is ideologically driven rather than practically; has spent his life in the government he seems to despise. McCain is notable for what he had not done rather than what he has.

On the 'other' side JFK was a Senator - is that enough ... Johnson just about ran the government for quite a while during WWII so he had loads of experience - perhaps that is why he was a much more effective President than his predecessor.

Certainly training and experience are as important in government as anything, but cannot be used to exclude anyone and still maintain adherence to democratic principles.

I'll try (again) to get us back on topic with this response.

I think both McCain and Paul serve the public well in their current capacities - we need a variety of opinions and the occasional compromise.

As for JFK - opinions vary as to his performance in dealing with the Russian leader, the Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban missle crisis. I think the Russians under-estimated him initially - because of his inexperience.

Kennedy was competitive and (IMO) responsible for making the moon shot possible. I'm not certain the civil rights movement would have been as emotion driven on campus if Kennedy was not assassinated, nor do I think the "British Invasion" would have been so important and eventful? IMO the Beatle's filled a void in the hearts of many after a 3(?) month mourning period. IMO - the distrust of all things Government and the anti-war movement were validated after JFK was killed (followed by Oswald - questions remained and doubt set in). As for Vietnam, we'll never know for sure what Kennedy would have done - opinions vary. I do think Kennedy was better equipped to deal with the social issues of the day better than Johnson or Nixon. I also think Kennedy would have focused more on growing the economy.

Johnson was a very capable politician - no argument.

I think a better comparison might be Bill Clinton to President Obama. Both are educated and intelligent. They are both lawyers. They are both Democrats and entered office with a liberal agenda including healthcare - and some of the same staff - which helped Obama become functional faster. Clinton served 4 (?) terms as a Governor. Obama served 2 (?) years in the Senate. IMO - Clinton was better prepared for the job.

Regardless of the person elected or their political affiliations, when elected President, they represent everyone and need to hit the ground running. Every President surely enters office with some type of plan or agenda or wish list or ideals - or they wouldn't be elected. Likewise, every President has a learning curve - nothing can prepare a person for every challenge of the job.

In the context of this thread - regardless of a Presidents wish list - reality will prevail. In the real world - feeding people is more important than supplying them with internet access - that requires expensive equipment to utilize and substantial support to maintain. If you take a step back now - the safety of the 82 million people of Egypt was more important than an interruption of internet access - wasn't it? Now the problem is their economy - high unemployment. Unless everyone involved in the operation of the internet is willing to work for free - the 82 million people fo Egypt will need to find a way to pay for access and participation - won't they?

 

[mugaliens]

Government needs to be held accountable by the people. If you require the Government only be accountable to Government - the people will more than likely give up something (money, rights, freedom - something?).

I attended a Tribute to the Military this evening. It was an incredible orchestra + choir event, punctuated by a couple of readings. One was the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Declaration_of_Independence#Text", which mirrors your comment. :)

 

[croghan27]

Who Wee ... lotsa stuff in that response, will have to ruminate about it for a while ... but just a quick note ...

I think both McCain and Paul serve the public well in their current capacities - we need a variety of opinions and the occasional compromise.

I certainly agree with you there ... in fact more diverse opinions would be nothing but beneficial - a few socialist or social democrats would provide a good counterpoint to McCain and Paul - and I suspect they would concur on many matters ... I chose those two as they both have or have had Presidential asperiation and we were speaking of the experience needed for that position.

One of the most successful politicians you have had for President was Nixon ... if he is to be judged in accomplishing his agenda, and he had years of experience waiting for the position to open.

Certainly feeding people is more important than supplying them with internet access yet a free press is considered at least some kind of secondary collective human right and the internet is fast becoming that.

Much to think about in your posting ... thx.

mugaliens - about 1963 made a trip to NYC with the Red Cross I was volunteering with - as part of our welcome we got to be serenaded by the West Point Men's Choir .. WOW - no I am not American, but after hearing them I would have signed up had a recruiting booth been close. Terrific!

 

[croghan27]

This is not internet access, but regular television access - a European Court has decided that http://ca.news.yahoo.com/eu-court-says-world-cup-shown-free-tv-20110217-111923-326.html" .

European states can bar pay-TV from having exclusive rights to World Cup and Euro championship football games so that fans can watch them for free, a top court said Thursday in a blow to FIFA and UEFA

It speaks of 'free TV' - I am not sure how 'free' that is, but we can take it that the decision refers to channels that do not charge for their programming in ways other than commercials. (Does this enshrine, in some way, beer commercials as some kind of right?)

On the other hand they, government(s) do exert some pressure on content ... moral considerations, and such ... I do not doubt that a program 'brought you by your neighbourhood al Qua'ida'would have a hard time making it.

The broadcasting channels belong to the people of (my) country and are administrated by the government which allots spaces for broadcasters, commercial and otherwise. So they have the ultimate hammer in this - (do what we say or we take away your license!), and I suppose it works in similar ways in the European Union. It would be interesting to see if this holds up under appeal.