11–20 of 36 posts
Not lucky so much as able to Select All and then stand about 4' back from the screen. What a horrible design.
No, mysterious group hiding its identity, I will not invest more mouse clicks just to read your advertising spiel. If you want me to read something you can give it to me in plain twelve-point text, thanks.
I think it is a mistake to make something a human right that has to be provided by somebody else.
You might notice that all of these invented rights are from socialists whose main purpose is to increase the power and extent of the state.
Your sentence woudl be acceptable if you said "left-leaning people" as opposed to equating everything to political left with socialism. And even then, you'd need to specify which country you're talking about; for example, compare the UK's nationalized healthcare with the USA's current attempt.
I think it is a mistake to make something a human right that has to be provided by somebody else.
> I think it is a mistake to make something a human right that has to be provided by somebody else. So you don't believe in property rights; the right to an attorney; the right to a trial by jury; the right of a speedy trial; protection from unreasonable search and seizure; the right to confront your accuser? All of these things require someone else to do something they might not be paid to do or would be paid by the…
The right to keep people OFF my property and do with it what I like.
> the right to an attorney; the right to a trial by jury; the right of a speedy trial; protection from unreasonable search and seizure; the right to confront your accuser?
The right NOT to be hassled or detained by the government unnecessarily.
Oversimplified explanations yes, but I don't see any of those as requiring others to step up and fulfill my own rights. Police keep people off my property using the implied threat of violence not because that is the only way to fulfill it, but because the alternative -- me enforcing it with overt violence -- is less palatable both to myself and to the police.
Whether the proposal by this website falls does fall under "positive rights" depends on the interpretation but I gave up on trying to read it so I can't say. If they call for the right to obtain access to the internet without interference (censorship, etc.) then I respect that although I don't necessarily stand behind it. If they call for the right to have free WiFi across every square millimeter of Earth then I don't think anyone who gave more than a cursory thought would agree.
I think it is a mistake to make something a human right that has to be provided by somebody else.
> I think it is a mistake to make something a human right that has to be provided by somebody else. So you don't believe in property rights; the right to an attorney; the right to a trial by jury; the right of a speedy trial; protection from unreasonable search and seizure; the right to confront your accuser? All of these things require someone else to do something they might not be paid to do or would be paid by the…
Usage of the term "right" as a benefit and not a limitation comes generally from humanitarian groups. For instance, there is no "right to clean water". If you choose to live in the middle of a desert, you can't expect someone else to bring you water.
The "right to use the Internet" is absurd. It implies the right to a free, usable computer, and free, well functioning communication systems, with free electricity. If you live on an island hundreds of miles off the coast, do you still have this "right"? Who will you expect to provide these for you? This makes no sense.
I think it is a mistake to make something a human right that has to be provided by somebody else.
> I think it is a mistake to make something a human right that has to be provided by somebody else. So you don't believe in property rights; the right to an attorney; the right to a trial by jury; the right of a speedy trial; protection from unreasonable search and seizure; the right to confront your accuser? All of these things require someone else to do something they might not be paid to do or would be paid by the…
Don't confuse our society's paradigm with fundamental rights, like life and liberty. It leads to long arguments where people shout right past each other.
I think it is a mistake to make something a human right that has to be provided by somebody else.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
- http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Looks to me like they are saying "we will build a free communications network because equal access to information is a human right" not "because it should be a human right".
(Also, "protection from X" is mentioned in several of the articles in the universal declaration and that always has to be provided by somebody else. So does the court of law and the other countries to which you have a right to travel).
Wait, wait. It's "A FREE COMMUNICATION NETWORK AVAILABLE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD" yet only accessible to "95%" of the world's population? .. either "95%" have the technology to access it, or 5% live in outer space .. or did I miss something.
Not lucky so much as able to Select All and then stand about 4' back from the screen. What a horrible design.