• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Access to the internet - a fundamental right?

is access to the internet a fundamental right?


  • Total voters
    33
My point is if the government decides whether you can have it or not, then it's not a right. If the government can give it by passing a law, then they can easily take it away by passing another law.

Yes, they can take it away. But in this country, the government can also pass a constitutional amendment taking away your right to free speech. Does that make it any less of a right, just because the POTENTIAL for repeal exists?

IMO, rights are defined by the government. The Finnish government has decided that internet access is a fundamental right, and therefore it is a fundamental right in Finland. The question of whether it SHOULD be a fundamental right is a separate question entirely. I think the phrase "fundamental right" is a red herring, because the whole concept of rights varies dramatically from one country (or even one political party) to another. A better debate to have is whether the government should guarantee everyone access to broadband.
 
Last edited:
NO! Because it's not essential for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I dunno...

Without the internet to facilitate easy communication between doctors, hospitals, and so forth, likely more people would die.

Without the internet to communicate, much liberty (in the form of speech) would be less available to all.

Without the internet, thousands of teenage (and older) males (and probably females) would be less happy... :mrgreen:

Without the internet, "pursuit of happiness" would be harder more difficult.

But no, it's not essential.
 
If it's a fundamental right, the pre-Internet age must have been man's Dark Age. No e-mail, 4chan, DP, or tub girl. Whoever brought it must be a messi... Oh my God... Al Gore is Jesus!
 
If it's a fundamental right, the pre-Internet age must have been man's Dark Age. No e-mail, 4chan, DP, or tub girl. Whoever brought it must be a messi... Oh my God... Al Gore is Jesus!

Before the invention of the printing press, "freedom the press" didn't really exist since their was nothing for that right to address. I see it as the same way
 
On what basis? Fish live too. Do they have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Please read John Locke's definition of a person vs a man. Hobbes & Locke were the original philosophers of the United States Constitution. A Person has consciousness. A man is just an animal as is the fish. And so this is the basis that I, and the founders of the our constitution, explain why we have our fundamental rights - because we live as people.


Then where did they come from?
They come from our mere existence as people.



Again, this is just a debate over semantics rather than a useful policy discussion. It doesn't really matter if you call it a "fundamental right" as Finland does, or you call it a "privilege" or "entitlement" or whatever else you like.

I believe it can seem like a debate over semantics. But I assure you it is not. I hope that you can see there is a difference between fundamental rights and Privelages. Privelages are something the government grants. The state provides these for you. A fundamental right is a right that you have regardless of what the government gives you. If your government does not give you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that does not mean you are less entitled to these rights. It means that your government is corrupt in restricting what is fundamentally yours, simply because you live! So there is a difference. Privelages are that which we are not entitled to simply because we live. Like new sneakers. Or a new car. Or the internet. We are not arguing over 'words' but over 'ideas'. It is not semantics.

So, I hope that clears that accusation up - not semantics, but rather philosophical ideas. Now to get back to the debate: Should the government provide internet to each home? Is this a privelage (which it is by definition a privelage, not a fundamental right) that we the people believe the government should force upon us?

My answer is always 'no' to any question in this context. I believe that an ideal government should protect our fundamental rights. I am willing to give to the government, in the form of taxes, if and only if it is to protect the fundamental rights of myself and of all citizens. This is the only thing taxes should ever go towards, ideally. Economies of scale would suggest that this is the most affordable way to protect these rights, which we all need protected. But as soon as we start trying to make privelages law, then we start asking people for money (privelages cost money!) for something that they may not agree with. It is their money. Their property. They have a fundamental right to keep what is there's if they choose to (beyond giving what is necessary to protect their fundamental rights). So, though I may love the idea of getting internet in every home and may voluntarily donate to such a cause, I am 100% against forcing people to pay into this privelage so that all may have it. Because by forcing it upon the people, you are taking something away that is so much more important than people getting the internet: you are taking their money/property/freedom to choose what they do with their property which IS a fundamental right. If it is mine, it is mine to choose what I should do with it (assuming that it doesn't directly conflict with the fundamental right of another person).

So it's not a question of whether or not it's a fundamental right. It's not, by definition. It's not a question of whether or not it's a good idea that everyone have the internet. It is a great idea, IMO. It's a question of whether or not it is the government's job. Does the government have the 'right' to take away your rights in order to implement what the majority feels is a 'great idea'? never.
 
Before the invention of the printing press, "freedom the press" didn't really exist since their was nothing for that right to address. I see it as the same way

"freedom of the press" is not a freedom that says that all people are entitled to the press. It's a freedom that says the press has freedom of speech.

So if you want to compare that to the freedom of the internet, it is not saying that people are entitled to the internet. It's a freedom that says the internet has freedom of speech.

I feel you've twisted a law to make a non-existant point.
 
"freedom of the press" is not a freedom that says that all people are entitled to the press. It's a freedom that says the press has freedom of speech.

So if you want to compare that to the freedom of the internet, it is not saying that people are entitled to the internet. It's a freedom that says the internet has freedom of speech.

I feel you've twisted a law to make a non-existant point.

What I'm saying is that freedom of the press didn't exist before the concept of the press was there. Why is that so hard to understand?
 
What I'm saying is that freedom of the press didn't exist before the concept of the press was there. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because it doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, speed limits exist because cars exist. Freedom of press exists because the press exists. These are laws that protect fundamental rights of people against these 'new' technologies that could possibly inhibit their rights. The government GIVING internet to every household in the US because it exists doesn't make sense. They are not protecting fundamental rights in this action. It is very difficult to understand how you 'view it the same way'.
 
Because it doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, speed limits exist because cars exist. Freedom of press exists because the press exists. These are laws that protect fundamental rights of people against these 'new' technologies that could possibly inhibit their rights. The government GIVING internet to every household in the US because it exists doesn't make sense. They are not protecting fundamental rights in this action. It is very difficult to understand how you 'view it the same way'.

Except I'm not trying to argue the merits of what Finland is doing, what I'm doing is disagreeing with DA who was suggesting that the right is invalid because we haven't always had computers, at least that's how I read it.
 
I think that can get shaky, as you have it phrased. You can excersise your rights because we have a legal system. My taxes go to pay for that legal system,
These are political, not fundamental rights. Certain rights, like due process and the protection from self-incrimination, cannot exist w/o a government against which they may be exercised. Tese are different animals than the right to life, peoperty, etc, all of which exiat outside government.

So, not the same. Sorry I didnt make that distinction earlier.
 
These are political, not fundamental rights. Certain rights, like due process and the protection from self-incrimination, cannot exist w/o a government against which they may be exercised. Tese are different animals than the right to life, peoperty, etc, all of which exiat outside government.

So, not the same. Sorry I didnt make that distinction earlier.
Ok, I get what you were saying. You can see how this would be a legal right but not a fundamental right, and I would probably agree.

Though to be honest, I am somewhat skeptical of the concept of "fundamental rights". Show me an atom of "right to life", or a waveform of "right to property".
 
Except I'm not trying to argue the merits of what Finland is doing, what I'm doing is disagreeing with DA who was suggesting that the right is invalid because we haven't always had computers, at least that's how I read it.

ahhh, I see. Thank you for the clarification. I didn't understand the context in which you made your statement.
 
Though to be honest, I am somewhat skeptical of the concept of "fundamental rights". Show me an atom of "right to life", or a waveform of "right to property".
IMHO, and given what I said before, "fundamental' rights are those that form the core of our society, without which our society ceases to be our society and becomes something else.
 
IMHO, and given what I said before, "fundamental' rights are those that form the core of our society, without which our society ceases to be our society and becomes something else.

So essentially, they're a societal construct, but the fundamental constructs society needs to function?
 
So essentially, they're a societal construct, but the fundamental constructs society needs to function?
I would argue that the 'political rights' I described earlier are 'societal constructs' in that they, at least inpart, define the interaction between society and government, specifically what the government can and cannot do to the pwople while the pople are witnin its purview (that is, under investigation, on trial, incarcerated, etc). They are necessary not so much for society to function, but for the government to not overstep its bounds and oppress the people.

Fundamental Rights are those that define the liberties of the society -- actions that people may freely take that define who we, as a people, are. We would not be us w/o the right to speak freely. We would not be us w/o the right to freely practice religion. We woudl not be us w/o the right to keep and bear arms. We do not need the rights to function as a society, but we need them to function as OUR society.

But, as I mentioned before, these rights are freedoms you may exercise that do not run afoul of the freedoms of others. By forcing people to porivde you the means to exercise a right, you run afoul of those rights of the people forced toprovide thosse means -- and so what you have is not a right but a privilege.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they can take it away. But in this country, the government can also pass a constitutional amendment taking away your right to free speech. Does that make it any less of a right, just because the POTENTIAL for repeal exists?

IMO, rights are defined by the government. The Finnish government has decided that internet access is a fundamental right, and therefore it is a fundamental right in Finland. The question of whether it SHOULD be a fundamental right is a separate question entirely. I think the phrase "fundamental right" is a red herring, because the whole concept of rights varies dramatically from one country (or even one political party) to another. A better debate to have is whether the government should guarantee everyone access to broadband.

The amendment process is a whole lot different, and a whole lot more strenuous than a 50% + 1 vote in Congress. Rights are not granted by the government. Rights exist, and our Constitution is supposed to prevent the government from infringing on those rights.
 
Except I'm not trying to argue the merits of what Finland is doing, what I'm doing is disagreeing with DA who was suggesting that the right is invalid because we haven't always had computers, at least that's how I read it.

The point I was making is that people got along without the Internet before, Plenty of people get along without it today. It doesn't need to be considered a right.
 
Back
Top Bottom