Has internet access become a human right?

[bassrique]

Well, try to connect then.

I can't w/out being squishy.

EDIT: To be specific, you say internet is not a right, but rather part of a larger right, and sometimes other people should pay for that right to be enjoyed by others. The words "it" and "never" make it squishy.... .. that and cleverly including something you say is not a right into a right just the same.

 

[Jim Campbell]

In the USA, public schools and libraries provide access to the internet without charge to the public. If, as some might suggest, access to the internet was a "privilage", then public institutions would not be compelled to provide this service for free. I think the idea of freedom of information, which includes access to information, plays a role in how internet access is viewed in the USA (I don't know about things in Canada). Every public library that I have been to provides free computer and
internet services to the public, even if they do not have a library card for that particular library.

Also, is it a right to home ownership? Or, is it a right to housing? Are the two things being confused? All Americans have a right to own a home if they have the resources to pay for it. Also, all Americans have a right to housing of some sort because of the threat to life and health if housing is refused (homeless shelters count as temporary housing for emergency situations, but are not supposed to be permanent.)

that's the part that gets left out.....the paying for it part.....libraries are not free....someone has to pay for them........up here we are seeing public facilities like libraries and kiddie pools that we pay for and that that used to benefit those that paid for them close up to pay for an endless stream of programs that only benefit those that contribute nothing,in the name of rights to this and that....here it has become permanent

 

[bassrique]

Because something may be in the public interest does not make it a "right". The word, "right" carries much firepower.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

Because something may be in the public interest does not make it a "right". The word, "right" carries much firepower.

This is the reason why I was mentioning other governments. It starts venturing into rights, IMO, when there are the governments of multiple countries choosing to spend money on providing it, and on the flip side, censoring it. It's not a right if only our country does it, but when it becomes a global provision.

 

[bassrique]

This is the reason why I was mentioning other governments. It starts venturing into rights, IMO, when there are the governments of multiple countries choosing to spend money on providing it, and on the flip side, censoring it. It's not a right if only our country does it, but when it becomes a global provision.

Even if most of the world provided free internet [and the means to capture it I suppose], that wouldn't make it a "right" here.

If the government can't afford to provide all that expensive goodness to me during a budget crisis *ahem* then so be it, but if the government told me I could not critique government officials, I'm going to make serious plans.

 

[fdeck]

It would be interesting to make a comparison to rural electrification, which was begun in the middle of the Great Depression.

Halfway between a "right" and a "privilege" is an entitlement, i.e., a right that's granted by the government. It could be argued that at this juncture, it's worth establishing Internet access as an entitlement.

 

[bassrique]

It would be interesting to make a comparison to rural electrification, which was begun in the middle of the Great Depression.

Halfway between a "right" and a "privilege" is an entitlement, i.e., a right that's granted by the government. It could be argued that at this juncture, it's worth establishing Internet access as an entitlement.

That's an interesting example. I've never studied how electrical platforms spread. Electricity and the refrigeration that goes along with it save lives, and created the infrastructure for a rapidly expanding population to spread out. I don't know what % of the costs were paid for by rural communities.

Q: If I decide to move out into the boonies, am I entitled to electricity paid for by others?

 

[Hawaii Islander]

I think the confusing part of this discussion resides in the notion that if something is a right, then it must be made available to everyone in an equal way. If one person has a right to free internet access, then everyone must have free internet access. It is a false equity requirement. We are a society of individuals with varying levels of resources, some people with significant resources (money, property, influence, power, etc.) at one end of the spectrum and those with virtually none of those resources. Those with resources are often required to pay for things that people without those resources get for free. There is nothing unfair about such an arrangement. It would be fairer if all people had the resources needed to do things on their own. Unfortunately, our economic structure does not succeed in availing the opportunity for acquiring resources for everyone equally.

 

[fdeck]

That's an interesting example. I've never studied how electrical platforms spread. Electricity and the refrigeration that goes along with it save lives, and created the infrastructure for a rapidly expanding population to spread out. I don't know what % of the costs were paid for by rural communities.

Q: If I decide to move out into the boonies, am I entitled to electricity paid for by others?

As I understand it, the rural electrification program forced the electric companies to serve rural customers, though the infrastructure cost was high. It revolutionized the quality of life for rural folks, especially for women.

Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson examines the lives of the people in rural parts of Texas, where Johnson grew up. Without electricity, the workload of running a household was staggering.

Invalid Link Removed

I don't know how it works today.

 

[Jim Campbell]

I think the confusing part of this discussion resides in the notion that if something is a right, then it must be made available to everyone in an equal way. If one person has a right to free internet access, then everyone must have free internet access. It is a false equity requirement. We are a society of individuals with varying levels of resources, some people with significant resources (money, property, influence, power, etc.) at one end of the spectrum and those with virtually none of those resources. Those with resources are often required to pay for things that people without those resources get for free. There is nothing unfair about such an arrangement. It would be fairer if all people had the resources needed to do things on their own. Unfortunately, our economic structure does not succeed in availing the opportunity for acquiring resources for everyone equally.

seriously,dude...are you suggesting that wealth should be distributed evenly in the name of fairness......how is it fair that those who do the work have to pony up to pay for those who won't.....didn't the ruskies try that with less than satisfying results....

 

[anonymous122511]

seriously,dude...are you suggesting that wealth should be distributed evenly in the name of fairness......how is it fair that those who do the work have to pony up to pay for those who won't.....didn't the ruskies try that with less than satisfying results....

Wow. You couldn't have oversimplified that more if you'd tried....and I'm sure you didn't.
In this world we've created the distribution of wealth has very little to do with who works the hardest.

 

[Jim Campbell]

Wow. You couldn't have oversimplified that more if you'd tried....and I'm sure you didn't.
In this world we've created the distribution of wealth has very little to do with who works the hardest.

that may be,but the reality is that rich folks will not pay taxes,po'folks cannot,so it is left to the working guy to pay for every single one of those rights,and entitlements everyone seems so fond of demanding....it seems unfair to me that the guy that works his life away will have his pockets picked to pay for a lot of services and programs that the very act of working will disqualify him from accessing.....

 

[anonymous122511]

that may be,but the reality is that rich folks will not pay taxes,po'folks cannot,so it is left to the working guy to pay for every single one of those rights,and entitlements everyone seems so fond of demanding....it seems unfair to me that the guy that works his life away will have his pockets picked to pay for a lot of services and programs that the very act of working will disqualify him from accessing.....

You're right.
On the other hand if things keep going the way they are we won't have to worry about it....we'll all be poor.

 

[Hawaii Islander]

Wow. You couldn't have oversimplified that more if you'd tried....and I'm sure you didn't.
In this world we've created the distribution of wealth has very little to do with who works the hardest.

Exactly! There are many people who work very long hours for very little pay and are lucky to just scrape by. Job availability in general and high quality/high paying jobs in particular are getting harder to come by, even for people with a college degree (I have three). The number and quality of jobs are not keeping up with the number of people that need them. This more than anything else is driving the income gap higher and higher. This income gap is the reason why public services are necessary to provide some people with services that most people can pay for on their own. The internet access example in this thread is such a case.

Keep in mind that ALL people (not just the poor) can access the internet for free at public schools and libraries. The poor are simply limited to using those internet sources because they cannot afford to have these services in their homes (if they even have a home).

 

[Jim Campbell]

Exactly! There are many people who work very long hours for very little pay and are lucky to just scrape by. Job availability in general and high quality/high paying jobs in particular are getting harder to come by, even for people with a college degree (I have three). The number and quality of jobs are not keeping up with the number of people that need them. This more than anything else is driving the income gap higher and higher. This income gap is the reason why public services are necessary to provide some people with services that most people can pay for on their own. The internet access example in this thread is such a case.

Keep in mind that ALL people (not just the poor) can access the internet for free at public schools and libraries. The poor are simply limited to using those internet sources because they cannot afford to have these services in their homes (if they even have a home).

they may access those services for free,but the services are not free....someone has to pay.....frankly i'm tired of getting a bill every time someone decides that a service they cannot afford is their right and my responsibility.....

 

[Jim Campbell]

You're right.
On the other hand if things keep going the way they are we won't have to worry about it....we'll all be poor.

yes,and i guarantee you that those that have worked the hardest will bear the burdens of everyone else until they have nothing left to give......but there will be no one there to help them.....i don't know if the tv people do tax freedom day in america,but here it is somewhere in june before the average dude can keep one red cent of his annual salary.......the rest going to taxes to pay for other peoples rights......

 

[anonymous122511]

they may access those services for free,but the services are not free....someone has to pay.....frankly i'm tired of getting a bill every time someone decides that a service they cannot afford is their right and my responsibility.....

I just worked 90 hours last week and the government took half my gross. I still don't mind paying for an hour of free internet access for every public library member though. What I do mind paying for are things like continued military presence in Afghanistan.

I truly feel your pain Jim I just think our tax dollars are well spent on anything that increases the likelihood of of our less well off fellow citizens becoming better educated. Helpless people are a burden and stupid people are more helpless than poor people.

 

[Hawaii Islander]

they may access those services for free,but the services are not free....someone has to pay.....frankly i'm tired of getting a bill every time someone decides that a service they cannot afford is their right and my responsibility.....

Letme try this again. You apparently missed the part that stated ALL PEOPLE can access the internet for free at these public places.

They are already in place and paid for anyway.

You get to use them for free too.

Taxes paid (by working poor as well) fund the schools and libraries which also recieve grants (some private) to help pay for things not already covered by taxes.

If you still have a problem with that, then that's your problem. I personally like that public services like schools and libraries and the internet are available to use.

 

[Jim Campbell]

I just worked 90 hours last week and the government took half my gross. I still don't mind paying for an hour of free internet access for every public library member though. What I do mind paying for are things like continued military presence in Afghanistan.

I truly feel your pain Jim I just think our tax dollars are well spent on anything that increases the likelihood of of our less well off fellow citizens becoming better educated. Helpless people are a burden and stupid people are more helpless than poor people.

if only they were used that way....the road to hell/good intentions and all that.....but i fear that most goes for useless programs and those that administer them are the only winners in the overall scheme/scam of things....
hopefully your 401k's/ira's work like ours in that you can defer part of your tax burden until retirement when your tax rate will be lower.....it ain't ideal,but it helps a tad....i hope....

 

[Jim Campbell]

Letme try this again. You apparently missed the part that stated ALL PEOPLE can access the internet for free at these public places.

They are already in place and paid for anyway.

You get to use them for free too.

Taxes paid (by working poor as well) fund the schools and libraries which also recieve grants (some private) to help pay for things not already covered by taxes.

If you still have a problem with that, then that's your problem. I personally like that public services like schools and libraries and the internet are available to use.

actually free internet is not one of my pet peeves,but it is still your mistake to assume that because anyone can access it at a library for free that it is not a paid for service.....it either is paid by taxes or a surcharge on your cable bill,or a combination of funding sources,but somebody has to pay for it.....just like medicare here.....you don't get a bill at the hospitasl,and there are no monthly fees,but you pay through your state and federal taxes,every payday,without fail.....