Comments on: Internet Access as a Human Right

By: Windows Hater

Windows Hater — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 19:40:02 +0000

Gil,

Libertarians define rights as negatives, not as positives.

The right to be left alone.
The right to not have your property stolen from you.
The right to not be kidnapped, to not be hurt etc.

Positive “rights” imply that somebody, somewhere is forced to provide for those rights. To libertarians, those kinds of “rights” constitute a detour robbery.

If I have the right to claim unemployment benefits, this means that somebody is forced to pay unemployment premiums. Therefore that somebody no longer has the right to not have his property stolen.

That’s why libertarians cannot agree that rights are positives.

To libertarians, you don’t have the right to life. Nobody should be forced to provide for you. You have the right to not have your life taken from you but you have to provide for yourself. Others could willfully provide for you if they wish to, but they cannot be forced under the threat of violence or law. That is the view of libertarians.

So in the extreme where everything is private property and nobody wants to do business with you, you would only have the right to die.

Survival and success is not a right under libertarianism.

By: Windows Hater

Windows Hater — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 19:35:53 +0000

Rights, from a libertarian perspective, can only be defined as negatives. The right to be left alone, to not have your private property invaded, to not be robbed, to not be wounded by someone else.

A right can never be a “positive” because then it implies that there is another party which is forced to provide for your positive right.

That’s why I never claimed unemployment benefits.

By: Windows Hater

Windows Hater — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 19:33:23 +0000

You are correct in the fact that the is no such thing as an “internet”, it is not something nor someone, it’s an aggregate of networks, routes and properties.

You pay for the main route between your home and your provider, but you could conceivably make an agreement with your neighbor to share his internet access with you for a price or to directly access the internet through a company’s LAN, WAN etc.

You are right, the government cannot tell you if you can or cannot access the internet.

But your stating that the internet is not a hierarchical network is wrong. The big flaw of the internet is precisely because it uses a hierarchical routing protocol with physical addresses. This is why the internet can be censored, shut downed, traced etc.

The solution would be to use content addressing instead of physical addressing. The IP leasing is what makes the internet so regulative. If there was a way to develop a network without physical addressing but content addressing, then there would be no way to bar and regulate entry.

By: Gil

Gil — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:30:17 +0000

Since Libertarians see no such things as “human rights” whether it be internet access, eletrictiy access, clean water access, etc., then there’s no point to this article.

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 03:37:41 +0000

Guys, appreciate all the comments. To be clear: I am still against the UN. I am against all positive law. I am simply saying that one institution arguing that another institution has no right to deny, via its coercive powers, individuals access to the internet, as punishment for violation of its artificial rules, is not a terrible thing.

By: Hari Michaelson

Hari Michaelson — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 02:27:10 +0000

Hari Michaelson June 17, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Stephan,

I think you’re being desperately optimistic. This will probably lead to the US invading Iran in order to protect the “human right” of internet access. I do believe that the US and Nato involvement in Libya has something to do with “human rights” (apparently the right to get blown up by cluster bombs). When it really matters, has the UN been anything but shallow excuse and facade for unpalatable government actions? Furthermore, I simply fail to see how this can possibly have any good outcome. Will the UN stop any country from cutting off the internet if it wants to? Sure, as long as its not the US or China or Russia or England or France or Germany.

Also I predict that with enough time the hague will be bringing people up on “crimes against humanity.” You charged high prices for internet connections?? Crime against humanity. You decided to organize your network in favor of certain websites or data transfers?? Crime against humanity.

I can understand your frustration with the US gov slowly moving to take over the internet, but there is no way that the UN will do anything to halt that.

By: Hari Michaelson

Hari Michaelson — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 02:18:31 +0000

Stephan,

I can understand your frustration with the US gov slowly moving to take over the internet, but there is no way that the UN will do anything to halt that.

By: coturnix19

coturnix19 — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 01:17:08 +0000

But that means that government can not in any way tell you if you can or can not connect to the internet. Also, internet is not a hierarchical system, apart from centralised leasing of ip-addresses, which means that if you can produce some content or services, really the ‘user connects to the internet’ phrase is not correct, but rather intenet growth itself by incorporating your network into it.

By: Windows Hater

Windows Hater — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:39:09 +0000

Given that internet access is provided by private companies, it cannot be construed as a right.

From the libertarian point of view, private companies have the right to refuse to service you and if all internet companies refuse to service you, you cannot force them by law to grant you internet access.

The day that communications will be based by non-hertzian methods, “Internet” access will be free of charge and everybody will be able to connect 24/7 free of charge from anywhere in the universe without necessitating a hertzian or cable connection.

But still, nobody will be forced to grant you access to their “website”, services nor even communicate with you.

If libertarians argue that having a job is not a right, then neither is Internet access.

By: Windows Hater

Windows Hater — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:35:16 +0000

“There has been legitimate fear that it was a step towards one-world government”

How about a one-world no-governments ?

How about central deplanning ?

By: DD5

DD5 — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:48:03 +0000

“And this is why I am not opposed to the UN implicit recognition of Internet access as a human right.”

Are you just desperately trying to see if you can construct an argument in support for something,..anything, coming out of the UN (or any other Statist organization)? Perhaps as a personal challenge? Because It is pretty obvious that the implied intent is a positive right. Not a negative right. Negative rights explicitly have negatives in them: “… shall not infringe the right to acquire Internet access….” or something like that. Does the UN recognition have any such negatives in its phrasing??

By: pussum207

pussum207 — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:32:42 +0000

“Anything that restricts the power of states to hamper the Internet or to harm individuals by limiting their access to the Internet is good. And this is why I am not opposed to the UN implicit recognition of Internet access as a human right.”

But the very purpose of such policies is not to restrict states but to restrict private sector owners of networks and access to the Internet. Of course, the state will have to set up explicit or implicit subsidies to ensure that everyone has access to the internet at what the state deems to be reasonable cost. And, of course, other rules such as the minimum speed at which people are entitled to have access (and thus the type of access – wireless vs fibre) and the so-called openness of access (i.e., net neutrality) will also have to be specified, plus lots of other stuff you and I haven’t yet thought of. And, of course, entry will have to be implicitly or explicitly restricted to maintained the complex regulatory structure. There is lots and lots (and I mean lots) of precedent for this in telecom regulation all around the world.

The purpose of making internet access a right, as with all positive rights, is not to restrict governments (look at the membership of the UN!) but to allow them greater scope and ideological cover to regulate and control it. The web has been a powerful counterweight to the state not because the government has been involved but because the state was caught off guard by the relatively free developments in the web. The web is the marketplace of the future and the state wants to be in a position to rein it in.

Since when has government saying something is a positive right ever ensured a better supply of it?

By: Colin Phillips

Colin Phillips — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:05:33 +0000

I fear that the “human right” to internet will be used as a rationale to nationalise (or, since direct nationalisation is rare these days, to regulate, license and subsidise to the extent that it is not nationalisation in name only) the ISPs and other role-players in internet services. After all, if it’s a right, it’s inhuman to restrict it to only those who can pay, clearly the government must step in.