Google's Monopoly-Based Foreign Policy

What is your basis for the assertion that medical care and housing are not human rights, when you just implied you should be able to kill someone who breaks into your home?

What precisely is the line here? You have the right to defend a home if you have one, but you don't have a right to have it?

Is food a human right, but not housing or medical care? Do you also believe food is not a human right?

If food is a human right (i'm going to assume favorably that you agree with me that it is), what distinguishes food - essential for survival - from medical care, which is also frequently essential for survival in modern culture?

Is it okay to deprive children of - for example - necessary vaccines and allow them to catch, spread and die from preventable diseases, because some children may survive? Near-starvation may also kill some children but not all, so is that OK?

Alternately, if you believe neither food or medicine or housing are human rights - okay? - what makes free speech a human right when those aren't, specifically? How can you exercise your free speech, exactly, if someone takes away your food as punishment for speech they dislike or if they confiscate your home along with the property you use to communicate?

Your definition of human right here is confusing and circular. Almost anything can be worth killing for depending on who you ask, otherwise you wouldn't have people getting murdered by thieves or scorned lovers. What makes it worth killing for or dying for? What makes it justified or not justified?

Obviously there are ways to establish a logical framework here but your post makes it hard to understand what framework you're operating on.

IF YOU WANTS TO JOIN ILLUMINATE BROTHER HOOD MAKE SURE YOU'RE LOYAL AND SERIOUS MINDED INDIVIDUAL. I wanna give a concise testimony of how I became rich and famous Read and pay keen interest..... We all underestimate the opportunity that comes across us in life, waking up to see a testimony like this is a blessing no man can pay for. Ten years ago, I feed from hand to mouth but today am a bonafide member of ILLUMINATE BROTHER HOOD, it's a dream come true. Back before I got initiated, I have always been curious to join the hood until I came across a testimony online about the illuminate and I decided to make a bold step by following its instructions, lol and behold am a proud member of the hood and ready to help whosoever that's willing to join the hood. Before I left you with the link , let me quickly drop you a tips of your benefits as a new member of the hood. Regardless of your professions, the hood will stand firm and support you with it, all that is expected of you, is your loyalty. And after your initiation, you will be awarded immediately with your benefits such as you desired, that's is to say , the illuminate hood gives benefits according to your wish and desires. As a matter of fact, the hood always welcome, serious and loyal new members that wants to join. So therefore, make sure you're interested before you emails us at initiationhoodofilluminate@gmail.com but you can still call the office line on +1(202) 750-0111 for further information.

Microsoft eventually caved, and put a "Browser Choice" popup in Windows. This was because the US was too big for MS to ignore. Here, we have a similar choice: Turkey wants Google to give users "Search Engine Choice", and because Turkey is relatively small of a market compared to Google's TAM, they decided they'd rather ignore than market than compromise, even though a compromise is probably the best outcome for users, for fair competition.

I think the author is not talking about what Google has a right to do or not do, nor do any moral obligation to play in which field. The problem being highlighted here is that size simply matters too much.

I think my wording was unclear. Human rights are categorically worth killing and dying for, but that's not how I would define them.

I believe in natural rights. Human rights must be things that are natural and innate to humans. This is a very Google-able thing, and there has been a lot of interesting philosophy on the topic, but I will try and summarize here.

My core belief is that humans are sovereign over themselves. My body is my own. This is where all rights flow from. If I build or buy a house, and you break in, you are violating my sovernty over myself and my property.

On the other hand, if I force you to build me a house, I am violating your sovernty. Therefore it cannot be my right to have free housing , because doing so would violate your rights to not be a slave. If we mutually agree on terms and I pay you to build me a house, that's wonderful. But saying I have a right to make you build me a house is tantamount to slavery.

Natural rights almost always boil down to force. It is wrong for me to force you to do anything, even if that thing is "good" such as providing me with free food or internet. You and I are both autonomous adults and we can either come to mutually beneficial terms or not do business at all.

> How can you exercise your free speech, exactly, if someone takes away your food as punishment for speech they dislike or if they confiscate your home along with the property you use to communicate?

If someone stole your food or your house, that would be a violation of your rights. Again, it comes down to the use of aggression and force. Are you forcing your local grocer to give you food that he doesn't want to give you? That's theft, plain and simple.

And I feel I need to reiterate: it's perfectly fine if you think the government should provide taxpayer funded medicine, housing, food, internet, etc. But just because you think something is good to have does not make it a right. It's the redefinition and watering down of the idea of human rights that upsets me.

The vast majority (at least 99.9%) of the documents that Snowden, Manning, and Assange leaked contained no illegal activity. No judge would classify them as whistlebowers.