What good is broadband access without some kind of computer? Do Finns have a "right" to computers too?
If some Finn chooses to live in a remote area of the country, must he be provided with broadband? By whom? How? Or else what (the provider is forced out of business and won't be providing access to anyone)?
(I haven't read the law in question. Perhaps it answers these questions.)
Why stop with broadband? Providing it will make Internet-geeks "applaud." What other so-called "rights" can we invent which are incumbent upon the action of others? A right to instruments [culture is good]? Musicians might applaud. A right to sports equipment [fitness is good]? Athletes. Etc. Tell me, what's the difference?
The use of the term "right" is misleading, but I'll chalk it up to politics as usual. This is really just an infrastructure project dressed up to look like a humanitarian bill. It makes a better comparison to the American interstate highway system, or perhaps to a library system, than to a right to trained legal representation.
Let me play devil's advocate for the difference between this and your other examples. The difference is that internet is infrastructure. It allows other systems to exist, and allows the government to require citizens to interact with it online. Thus it is most like a postal system, rather than instruments, or sports equipment.
Having said that, I agree with you, and taking into account my above thoughts, I still think it is out of place as I like the positive-negative rights theory.
I think is important it's made a legal right so companies or other agents can't take your connection away easily, like the 'Three Strikes Law' is trying to do in France.
Second, it means that service providers are forced to provide somekind of access to all areas. Usually in urban areas this means a broadband and in extreme rural areas somekind of mobile or wireless access.
Third, there is some confusion in TC comments, but this doesn't mean that the connection will be free, just that it has to be available to almost every residence.
Anyway this doesn't change things much in Finland. I think we already have broadband almost everywhere, this just ensures that the situation won't change in the future.
There is a cost to providing Internet access in rural areas. Should this cost be borne by the people who choose to live in those places, or by everybody else?
Has there ever been a time when making everybody pay for an individual's mistakes -- whether the mistake is getting pregnant at 15 or buying AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities -- has been the right thing to do?
You have a point there, so the cost is shared by the people who live in rural areas (by paying relative higher rates for less bandwidth) and by the service provider, and therefore by all customers. Also there has been some discussions about how goverment could invest to the infrastructure and take some of the costs.
Anyway I think this is good since it can actually save some money in the long run. We already have many goverment services that you can use over the internet which saves taxpayers' money and makes everyone's life more productive.
Can a nation thrive with all citizens living in urban areas? The internet is becoming the main way to disseminate information. I'd rather folks in rural areas have access to broadband.
Libraries and broadband access are important to providing education opportunities and to spread culture and ideas throughout a nation, and I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas.
The philosophical question is, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?"
"Tax you" does not answer that question. If you request or demand someone contribute (in this case, broadband internet in rural areas), and they refuse to do so, are you willing to arrest or harm them?
"Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work.
> "Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work.
You've simply stated that there is a currently enforced law. The same argument could be any law throughout history: Mandatory religious worship. Conscription. Even slavery. Take ancient Sparta or Rome - "Slavery is not optional and there are penalties for refusing to work. That's how governments work" - that would have been a true statement, but doesn't get at whether that's right or wrong. It just states that there is a law that is enforced.
But this question is important - "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?"
The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. In this dialog, it comes down to, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?" I'm not speaking universally about all law here, I'm wondering if you or anyone is willing to imprison or harm another human being for refusing to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet. Yes? No?
> The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. In this dialog, it comes down to, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?"
> You're conflating refusal to pay taxes with not supporting how those taxes are spent. Those are two very different ways of interacting with the law.
It's not conflating - if you pass a law to further an agenda (say, broadband internet in rural areas) you need a penalty or it's just a request.
The reason I'm not talking about all taxes is because I can answer this question: "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?"
My answer to that is no. No, I am not willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do that. Therefore, I believe the law has a problem with it.
However, if my country was invaded by malicious hostile forces and I was asked, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to defend the country against the malicious hostile invading force?" - Then I would say yes, in that particular emergency, I would imprison or shoot someone who refused to defend against the invaders. I would not enjoy doing it, but I would do it if I could not find another way to keep our people from getting killed and pillaged.
When you pass a tax on something, you need to back it credibly. Now, it's easy to wash your hands of it by saying, "It's the law, and if you break the law, there are penalties." Yes, but this a generic non-statement. So far, no one is willing to say whether they are willing to imprison or harm someone for refusing to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet. Are you?
"The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?"
You certainly are conflating. Opposing the existence of a law and breaking a law are two different things, and your supposedly simple question is combining then in order to make the misleading argument that a person who breaks a law is actually punished for opposing the existence of a law. It's conflating thoughts with deeds, and it's dishonest. I will not answer it.
A person in a democratic society has a right to determine the laws they are legally subject to, but their mechanism for doing that is not their choice of whether to comply with it or not. If you are tried for a crime, you are not asked whether you agree with the law or not. You can't simply say "Oh, well, I don't agree with that law, so it's ok if I break it." and expect that to constitute a valid defense.
Relying on civil disobedience to communicate your opposition instead of (say) voting and lobbying the legislature is naïve and not likely to be effective in most cases. Your opposition is much more likely to be recognized by the arm of government responsible for the formulation of the law than that which enforces it. This is what I mean by two ways of interacting with the law.
> You certainly are conflating. Opposing the existence of a law and breaking a law are two different things, and your supposedly simple question is combining then in order to make the misleading argument that a person who breaks a law is actually punished for opposing the existence of a law.
No. The point is that the ends do not justify the means. I support the vast majority of the current law's agenda - but I believe the means of how it is carried out is wrong. Most people have never thought about this - I'm asking you to think about it.
> A person in a democratic society has a right to determine the laws they are legally subject to, but their mechanism for doing that is not their choice of whether to comply with it or not.
I'm not speaking about legality or illegality here. Above I wrote: When you pass a tax on something, you need to back it credibly. Now, it's easy to wash your hands of it by saying, "It's the law, and if you break the law, there are penalties."
But ends do not, in my opinion, justify means. Others can disagree - that's why we're discussing. But most people can't even admit that the means that are being used are pretty horrific. If someone says, "Yes, I think it is horrible that someone who refuses to subsidize broadband internet in a rural area is imprisoned, but it's necessary anyways so I support it", then I respect that person. I disagree, but I respect it. But the man that refuses that is refusing to see the way things currently are.
This truth is a bit ugly, I think. I don't particularly like it.
> If you are tried for a crime, you are not asked whether you agree with the law or not.
Again, I'm not speaking about legality or illegality here. Yes, breaking the law is always illegal, by definition. This is not the discussion.
But this really isn't academic. The broadband internet in rural areas is very illustrative, but let's take another example, this time from the United States. Social Security Tax - it's to help support older and disabled people. This is a good end goal - supporting older and disabled people.
But if someone doesn't give their income up to pay this tax to support this cause, they go to jail. Yes, not paying this tax is against the law, therefore it is illegal, therefore you can be punished under the law for breaking this law. That's obvious.
But is it right? I'm going to say, categorically - no. You could disagree. You could say, "The ends justify the means. We need to lock people in jail who refuse to help the elderly and disabled." But you can't say, "That's dishonest, that's not what's happening." Because that's precisely what's happening.
I'm aware it's the law. That does not change whether the law is right or wrong. I'm in favor of supporting the elderly and disabled. I personally have done so in my life. I'm not in favor of jailing or otherwise hurting someone who refuses to. Does it make sense that way? We're not talking about legality, we're talking about ends and means. You need to ask yourself what you're willing to incarcerate or hurt other human beings for not complying with, and that needs to be factored into the law.
There are situations that would warrant arresting, incarcerating, hurting, or killing another human being. The question, "Are you willing to incarcerate, harm, or kill someone for refusing to subsidize broadband internet in a rural area?" is a fair question, because a law mandating that you subsidize broadband internet or suffer a penalty of incarceration or harm does precisely that.
> You're conflating refusal to pay taxes with not supporting how those taxes are spent. Those are two very different ways of interacting with the law.
That's what people always say when you point out that they'll injure/kill you if you don't do what they want. They say that you're just being punished for breaking the law because they don't want to be held responsible for what the law requires.
The person in question isn't being punished for breaking "the law", she's being punished for breaking a specific law. By enacting a law, you're saying that whatever that said law mandates is justifies punishing people who break it. Not some abstract law, that law.
Which reminds me, the whole "authority" thing doesn't actually make sense. We did away with authority is the divine right of kings not because kings weren't special, but because authority in that sense, no matter who exercises it, doesn't make sense.
Hm. It seems like a tricky distinction. What about the 6th amendment? It seems like that gives me the positive right to a trial by jury.
The viewpoint seems to be the reverse of how rights are expressed in the bill of rights, where they're all described from the point of view of the 'end user'.
I haven't heard the phrase 'positive' and 'negative' rights before but this is how I understand it: If we were to wash ashore on a desert island, everyone could do whatever they wanted. Inevitably, some people would start to harm each other. The harmed would then gang up to overthrow those who started the fight. The gang is called government and it's members agree to renounce some of their rights to grant it _powers_. Fearing that the gang itself would turn into another oppressor the members wisely choose to limit the newfound powers to only apply against those who initiate force. Thus the purpose and scope of government is maximize the rights of individuals by delineating the boundaries between my rights and yours. I do not have the right to force you to provide me with broadband because you have your own rights. I agree that I do not have this right because I consent to maintaining some government.
Another limitation on the power granted to government is that illegitimate force is defined by the people--not the government. The government is an employee of the people that has to check in every so often. If I don't like that you won't take a shovel, dig up a trench to my house and some copper to fill it; I can't extort it from you by accusing you of stealing my car so that the government will punish you on my say-so. This is where juries come in--part of the eternal vigilance we pay to retain freedom. If we as a people want the government to punish wrong-doing, we have to sign off on it. We agree to do it on a case by case basis because we don't trust the police or judges to not abuse their position in any given case. It's another part of the rights that we delegate to create the powers.
I guess you could look at the right to a trial by jury as the right to be not tried by a single person.
Tangentially related, Richard Dawkins wrote an interesting piece arguing against trials by jury, although I confess that I'm having trouble finding a full copy of it now; http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B... has part of it, but I think that there was more.
But is Dawkins right? The jury's still out on that.
Freedom of speech is basically an extension of property rights. You didn't violate anyones right just by saying something controversial, so they can't punish you for it.
And you can run your own blog or hope a newspaper will publish what you write. But imagine there was government legislation giving a "right" for people to have something published in the newspapers against the will of the newspapers. That would violate the rights of the newspapers. That would be a positive right: "Everyone has the right to have their writings published in big newspapers." for instance.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean others should provide the paper, bandwidth and so on. You have to provide that stuff yourself and/or in corporate with others.
Positive rights are obligations on society to give you stuff.
Negative rights are obligations on society to not interfere with you doing something.
Freedom of speech, of religion, all forms of freedom of creed and expression are negative rights: it is incumbent upon society to not interfere with you doing these things as you please (within limits that are not harmful to others).
Even the right to keep and bear arms (USA) is a negative right: it constitutes an obligation on the government not to take your guns away, not access to free guns.
> Would you say that religions force us into slavery because of their tax-exempt status?
Nope - you'd be paying taxes even if certain religious structures had no tax-preferences.
More to the point, you're not paying taxes to the religions. If you've got a beef with paying taxes, it's with the folks who collect and spend tax money, not with folks/groups who don't pay it.
> My taxes pay for the services they receive from govt,
Your taxes pay for services received by others who don't pay taxes. Are they enslaving you too? (FWIW, the services that churches receive are at the local level, fire and police mainly.)
> I would say that they influence too much of public policy making which in turn affects me.
They have less effect than other 501c(3)s, such as Sierra Club. Is SC enslaving you?
Yes, church members may try to influence things beyond what churches can do. However, you're complaining about churches.
I'm perfectly willing to go along with the idea that folks who ask for subsidies from govt are enslaving us, but churches are a small part of that problem.
Surely you're not going to argue that there's something with enslaving you but it's okay to enslave me. (That's where you get with "but I don't mind what those other folks want".)
While I agree that "positive rights" frequently amount to legally mandated wealth transfer, saying your neighbors must "work as slaves" is a bit extreme. A slave has no choice as to whether they work, what they work on, and how they work.
Personally, I have no problem with the fact that property rights are not absolute (taxation and regulation being the primary inroads). That limitation of the property right results in much that I think is good.
What if nobody opts to work in broadband? How will the "right" be satisfied? You may say that someone would choose to do so but what if they couldn't charge for their services because to do so was denying somebody who couldn't pay their "right". And then you'd probably mention that the government would pay for it. And I'd ask where the government would get the money. The answer, of course, being the tax powers you've already mentioned.
If I'm taxed and a growing portion of my labor is taken to pay for something I don't receive and would not agree to pay for freely, how is it not either slavery or theft? As someone noted on reddit a week or so ago (in reference to social news not politics per se)--the larger the democracy, the larger the oppressed minority.
A Finnish friend of mine told me: Article forgot to mention that every household will be taxed for around 175€/year; known as TV/Internet Tax. Independently if TV or Internet is used in that household…
It's actually known as Media Tax, which is revamped version of the old TV/Radio Tax, where TV owners had to pay about 225€/year.
The tax is used for funding the Finnish Broadcasting Company(YLE) and the tv-infrastructure. Most people opposed the tax, since not everyone watch TV anymore and they're not happy how it's used, for example buying HBO shows and producing soap operas instead of some quality programs like BBC does.
The distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" rights is wholly artificial. For example, the public works department is not allowed to go park a truck in front of your driveway, making it useless. Is the phone company allowed to place a filter on your line, so that you don't get DSL? Is the authors' guild allowed to place guards outside the public library to keep you out? Is the post office allowed to stop checking your mailbox? Note that, if you're in the U.S, all these infrastructures were paid for by your tax dollars.
The only difference is that the status quo is different. It's a purely historical artifact that the phone company has control over your phone line. Should we really be deciding who should control which pieces of infrastructure by looking at historical artifacts?
Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions.
> The distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" rights is wholly artificial.
Not at all. It may not apply to this situation (that Finland politically decides to provide a service doesn't mean it makes sense to call it a right), but there's a very clear distinction between positive and negative rights.
Positive right: The right to a free education. In order to provide that for a certain person, certain other persons have to pay for that. If they don't, they'll have to be forced to, otherwise it couldn't really be called a right.
Negative right: Freedom of expression. No-one is allowed to keep you away from expressing yourself. On the other hand, no-one is required to help you express yourself -- that would be a positive right.
> Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions.
Agreed. I think it's a bad idea to spend other peoples money on providing 100 mbit internet connections to someone who's very voluntarily chosen to live as far away from human civilization as possible. Just like a bigger library in a bigger town is better than a weekly visit by the bookmobile, there's a difference between living in the city and in a rural area -- one that's also included in the cost of living.
Your examples are interesting, because it's plausible that expressing oneself is impossible without a certain level of education. It's certainly a requirement to express oneself on a global scale. Is a "negative" right (such as free expression) really a "negative" right if it requires something that cannot be guaranteed save by a positive right?
The right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial (a common example of a "negative" right) likewise requires legal representation, provided that there are crimes that have that punishment. Legal representation cannot be guaranteed save by a "positive" right. Does this make the right to not be imprisoned a "positive" right?
The bottom line is that, if you're going to divide rights into "positive" and "negative" rights, you need to choose a place to draw that line. I prefer to simply not draw that line, and assess the costs and benefits of a particular proposition on their own merits. Adding superfluous labels almost never helps.
For example, it's possible that guaranteeing such a plentiful information source as the internet to the citizens of a nation could boost its economy significantly. In this way, its citizens could actually have more money than without it. This is similar to one argument for the American interstate highway system. This is by no means guaranteed, but it is a factor one should consider in evaluating the proposed law.
The ability to express yourself in a certain way isn't a right. Freedom of speech is all too often confused with a right to be heard. It has nothing to do with that.
The right to a fair trial and the associated rights are "weird" because they're concerned with what the government has to do in order to get to violate pretty much all your rights. I'm not a legal scholar, but I think these rights can be classified as legal rights.
I think it's more relevant than ever to be mindful of positive and negative rights -- politicians in western Europe and northern America are very concerned with labelling their own policies as rights when all too often it's merely an excuse to not arguing properly for an idea -- pure newspeak. Take the Finnish here, this actually is a tax on people living in cities to pay for people living in rural areas. But that doesn't sell as well as bestowing a right on people.
That's kind of a leap, and an obfuscation of a relatively straightforward concept.
A "freedom of speech" right doesn't give me anything I don't already have. That is, I can already speak, and say basically anything I want. It just so happens to be codified in US law. You'll note that it says nothing about a freedom to speak at a high level, a freedom to persuade, or even a freedom to have people listen.
The "right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial" is a negative right (if you're suspected of a crime, we will imprison you) with limitations (but you'll get a fair trial). The right to a fair trial is not a positive right, it's a limit on a negative right.
You can think of negative rights as restricting natural rights. There's no natural barrier to me taking a steaming shit on the sidewalk in front of the white house. There are negative rights, however, that restrict my ability to do that.
Positive rights provide you with something you don't already have. A right to health care, for instance, will provide me with access to medicine, doctors, and other services I might otherwise have to go out and find on my own.
Negative rights generally have more obvious consequences (and repercussions) than positive rights, which is why I and many others like to make this distinction.
This is completely absurd. People should not be given rights that require someone provide something for them. Surely, the problem with believing someone has a 'right' to broadband internet access they should also have a right to a computer, or a television, or cable.
People should not be given rights that require someone provide something for them.
I read: "People should not be given rights to trial by jury or elections". The former requires that random citizens be selected to give up their time for my sake. The latter requires that random government-types go out of their way to organize the whole bloody thing, which is both extraordinarily expensive and inconvenient. Both "require someone provide something for them". Edit: For that matter, what about universal education, as well?
I know the above is clearly not what you intended. Nonetheless, it follows logically from your statements. Perhaps you could clarify your stance?
In Germany people have a right to a television. If you are on social welfare and you don't have a TV, the government will buy one for you (afaik). Some sell it for the extra dough.
Maybe it makes sense from the perspective of the government, because they can use TVs to brainwash the masses. But seriously, I think it is an OK move - or it used to be, when TV was more important. These days I would agree that people should be given a computer, as life without internet is severely hampered.
Coming from an extremely poor family, I feel fortunate to have been raised in a society that provided the "positive right" to a public education; otherwise I would probably be unemployed or making minimum wage in a gas station right now.
I also came from a poor family. I wish public education hadn't existed, because I believe there would have been private teachers to pay by the lesson. I think I'd have learned more and gone further if I'd spent a mix of time helping work for my uncle and paying teachers by the lesson for the classes I thought were really worthwhile.
I don't begrudge you your education, but it's worth noting that most private schools (ie: schools that aren't a "positive right") offer need based financial aid.
That's really just a roundabout way of saying: in a rich society, it's feasible to think that you might well have received an education even without a public school system.
In France and the rest of Europe they are discussing laws to shut people off the internet for pirating stuff on the internet. In that light I am not sure if the law in question here is really an obligation - it could just prevent somebodies internet connection being taken, rather than forcing "somebody" to provide.
It depends on the details, I guess. I am also against having support people living in remote areas with my phone bill - they chose to live there themselves, so they should cough up the higher connection costs, or move to a city like everybody else.
Not in my opinion. You do have the right to not be harmed by others, but when it comes to shared resources like that, you're going to have to agree as a society on what is acceptable and what isn't.
Still not infringing on a right, but it's something I think should be against the rules of any society. Rights are fairly black and white. "Close proximity" is gray.
Do you think naturally occurring fresh water should not be considered a shared resource, "owned" by the citizens of the country in which the water is found?
It should be considered a resource shared by every being on the planet. It's impractical to consider polluting water an act that requires the consent of everyone whose "right" would be infringed, which is why I don't think it's meaningful to call it a right. Pollution must happen. Societies should determine the extent to which it should be allowed and who should have a say.
61 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 131 ms ] threadIf some Finn chooses to live in a remote area of the country, must he be provided with broadband? By whom? How? Or else what (the provider is forced out of business and won't be providing access to anyone)?
(I haven't read the law in question. Perhaps it answers these questions.)
Why stop with broadband? Providing it will make Internet-geeks "applaud." What other so-called "rights" can we invent which are incumbent upon the action of others? A right to instruments [culture is good]? Musicians might applaud. A right to sports equipment [fitness is good]? Athletes. Etc. Tell me, what's the difference?
Having said that, I agree with you, and taking into account my above thoughts, I still think it is out of place as I like the positive-negative rights theory.
Second, it means that service providers are forced to provide somekind of access to all areas. Usually in urban areas this means a broadband and in extreme rural areas somekind of mobile or wireless access.
Third, there is some confusion in TC comments, but this doesn't mean that the connection will be free, just that it has to be available to almost every residence.
Anyway this doesn't change things much in Finland. I think we already have broadband almost everywhere, this just ensures that the situation won't change in the future.
Has there ever been a time when making everybody pay for an individual's mistakes -- whether the mistake is getting pregnant at 15 or buying AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities -- has been the right thing to do?
Anyway I think this is good since it can actually save some money in the long run. We already have many goverment services that you can use over the internet which saves taxpayers' money and makes everyone's life more productive.
Libraries and broadband access are important to providing education opportunities and to spread culture and ideas throughout a nation, and I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas.
> ... I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas.
I'm not willing to do that. What are you willing to do to me for refusing? Arrest me? Shoot me?
The philosophical question is, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?"
"Tax you" does not answer that question. If you request or demand someone contribute (in this case, broadband internet in rural areas), and they refuse to do so, are you willing to arrest or harm them?
You've simply stated that there is a currently enforced law. The same argument could be any law throughout history: Mandatory religious worship. Conscription. Even slavery. Take ancient Sparta or Rome - "Slavery is not optional and there are penalties for refusing to work. That's how governments work" - that would have been a true statement, but doesn't get at whether that's right or wrong. It just states that there is a law that is enforced.
But this question is important - "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?"
The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. In this dialog, it comes down to, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?" I'm not speaking universally about all law here, I'm wondering if you or anyone is willing to imprison or harm another human being for refusing to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet. Yes? No?
> You're conflating refusal to pay taxes with not supporting how those taxes are spent. Those are two very different ways of interacting with the law.
It's not conflating - if you pass a law to further an agenda (say, broadband internet in rural areas) you need a penalty or it's just a request.
The reason I'm not talking about all taxes is because I can answer this question: "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?"
My answer to that is no. No, I am not willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do that. Therefore, I believe the law has a problem with it.
However, if my country was invaded by malicious hostile forces and I was asked, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to defend the country against the malicious hostile invading force?" - Then I would say yes, in that particular emergency, I would imprison or shoot someone who refused to defend against the invaders. I would not enjoy doing it, but I would do it if I could not find another way to keep our people from getting killed and pillaged.
When you pass a tax on something, you need to back it credibly. Now, it's easy to wash your hands of it by saying, "It's the law, and if you break the law, there are penalties." Yes, but this a generic non-statement. So far, no one is willing to say whether they are willing to imprison or harm someone for refusing to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet. Are you?
"The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?"
A person in a democratic society has a right to determine the laws they are legally subject to, but their mechanism for doing that is not their choice of whether to comply with it or not. If you are tried for a crime, you are not asked whether you agree with the law or not. You can't simply say "Oh, well, I don't agree with that law, so it's ok if I break it." and expect that to constitute a valid defense.
Relying on civil disobedience to communicate your opposition instead of (say) voting and lobbying the legislature is naïve and not likely to be effective in most cases. Your opposition is much more likely to be recognized by the arm of government responsible for the formulation of the law than that which enforces it. This is what I mean by two ways of interacting with the law.
No. The point is that the ends do not justify the means. I support the vast majority of the current law's agenda - but I believe the means of how it is carried out is wrong. Most people have never thought about this - I'm asking you to think about it.
> A person in a democratic society has a right to determine the laws they are legally subject to, but their mechanism for doing that is not their choice of whether to comply with it or not.
I'm not speaking about legality or illegality here. Above I wrote: When you pass a tax on something, you need to back it credibly. Now, it's easy to wash your hands of it by saying, "It's the law, and if you break the law, there are penalties."
But ends do not, in my opinion, justify means. Others can disagree - that's why we're discussing. But most people can't even admit that the means that are being used are pretty horrific. If someone says, "Yes, I think it is horrible that someone who refuses to subsidize broadband internet in a rural area is imprisoned, but it's necessary anyways so I support it", then I respect that person. I disagree, but I respect it. But the man that refuses that is refusing to see the way things currently are.
This truth is a bit ugly, I think. I don't particularly like it.
> If you are tried for a crime, you are not asked whether you agree with the law or not.
Again, I'm not speaking about legality or illegality here. Yes, breaking the law is always illegal, by definition. This is not the discussion.
But this really isn't academic. The broadband internet in rural areas is very illustrative, but let's take another example, this time from the United States. Social Security Tax - it's to help support older and disabled people. This is a good end goal - supporting older and disabled people.
But if someone doesn't give their income up to pay this tax to support this cause, they go to jail. Yes, not paying this tax is against the law, therefore it is illegal, therefore you can be punished under the law for breaking this law. That's obvious.
But is it right? I'm going to say, categorically - no. You could disagree. You could say, "The ends justify the means. We need to lock people in jail who refuse to help the elderly and disabled." But you can't say, "That's dishonest, that's not what's happening." Because that's precisely what's happening.
I'm aware it's the law. That does not change whether the law is right or wrong. I'm in favor of supporting the elderly and disabled. I personally have done so in my life. I'm not in favor of jailing or otherwise hurting someone who refuses to. Does it make sense that way? We're not talking about legality, we're talking about ends and means. You need to ask yourself what you're willing to incarcerate or hurt other human beings for not complying with, and that needs to be factored into the law.
There are situations that would warrant arresting, incarcerating, hurting, or killing another human being. The question, "Are you willing to incarcerate, harm, or kill someone for refusing to subsidize broadband internet in a rural area?" is a fair question, because a law mandating that you subsidize broadband internet or suffer a penalty of incarceration or harm does precisely that.
That's what people always say when you point out that they'll injure/kill you if you don't do what they want. They say that you're just being punished for breaking the law because they don't want to be held responsible for what the law requires.
The person in question isn't being punished for breaking "the law", she's being punished for breaking a specific law. By enacting a law, you're saying that whatever that said law mandates is justifies punishing people who break it. Not some abstract law, that law.
Which reminds me, the whole "authority" thing doesn't actually make sense. We did away with authority is the divine right of kings not because kings weren't special, but because authority in that sense, no matter who exercises it, doesn't make sense.
See The Empty Idea of Authority (University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2009, No. 5, 2009) by Laurence Claus http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1484980
Freedom of speech is a negative right as it specifically disallows the government from censoring you.
The viewpoint seems to be the reverse of how rights are expressed in the bill of rights, where they're all described from the point of view of the 'end user'.
[edit: many, not all in the bill of rights]
Another limitation on the power granted to government is that illegitimate force is defined by the people--not the government. The government is an employee of the people that has to check in every so often. If I don't like that you won't take a shovel, dig up a trench to my house and some copper to fill it; I can't extort it from you by accusing you of stealing my car so that the government will punish you on my say-so. This is where juries come in--part of the eternal vigilance we pay to retain freedom. If we as a people want the government to punish wrong-doing, we have to sign off on it. We agree to do it on a case by case basis because we don't trust the police or judges to not abuse their position in any given case. It's another part of the rights that we delegate to create the powers.
Tangentially related, Richard Dawkins wrote an interesting piece arguing against trials by jury, although I confess that I'm having trouble finding a full copy of it now; http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B... has part of it, but I think that there was more.
But is Dawkins right? The jury's still out on that.
(I'm not sure if this is being distributed legally. It's in a collection of his essays called "A Devil's Chaplain".)
And you can run your own blog or hope a newspaper will publish what you write. But imagine there was government legislation giving a "right" for people to have something published in the newspapers against the will of the newspapers. That would violate the rights of the newspapers. That would be a positive right: "Everyone has the right to have their writings published in big newspapers." for instance.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean others should provide the paper, bandwidth and so on. You have to provide that stuff yourself and/or in corporate with others.
Negative rights are obligations on society to not interfere with you doing something.
Freedom of speech, of religion, all forms of freedom of creed and expression are negative rights: it is incumbent upon society to not interfere with you doing these things as you please (within limits that are not harmful to others).
Even the right to keep and bear arms (USA) is a negative right: it constitutes an obligation on the government not to take your guns away, not access to free guns.
Nope - you'd be paying taxes even if certain religious structures had no tax-preferences.
More to the point, you're not paying taxes to the religions. If you've got a beef with paying taxes, it's with the folks who collect and spend tax money, not with folks/groups who don't pay it.
Your taxes pay for services received by others who don't pay taxes. Are they enslaving you too? (FWIW, the services that churches receive are at the local level, fire and police mainly.)
> I would say that they influence too much of public policy making which in turn affects me.
They have less effect than other 501c(3)s, such as Sierra Club. Is SC enslaving you?
Yes, church members may try to influence things beyond what churches can do. However, you're complaining about churches.
I'm perfectly willing to go along with the idea that folks who ask for subsidies from govt are enslaving us, but churches are a small part of that problem.
Surely you're not going to argue that there's something with enslaving you but it's okay to enslave me. (That's where you get with "but I don't mind what those other folks want".)
Personally, I have no problem with the fact that property rights are not absolute (taxation and regulation being the primary inroads). That limitation of the property right results in much that I think is good.
If I'm taxed and a growing portion of my labor is taken to pay for something I don't receive and would not agree to pay for freely, how is it not either slavery or theft? As someone noted on reddit a week or so ago (in reference to social news not politics per se)--the larger the democracy, the larger the oppressed minority.
The tax is used for funding the Finnish Broadcasting Company(YLE) and the tv-infrastructure. Most people opposed the tax, since not everyone watch TV anymore and they're not happy how it's used, for example buying HBO shows and producing soap operas instead of some quality programs like BBC does.
The only difference is that the status quo is different. It's a purely historical artifact that the phone company has control over your phone line. Should we really be deciding who should control which pieces of infrastructure by looking at historical artifacts?
Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions.
Not at all. It may not apply to this situation (that Finland politically decides to provide a service doesn't mean it makes sense to call it a right), but there's a very clear distinction between positive and negative rights.
Positive right: The right to a free education. In order to provide that for a certain person, certain other persons have to pay for that. If they don't, they'll have to be forced to, otherwise it couldn't really be called a right.
Negative right: Freedom of expression. No-one is allowed to keep you away from expressing yourself. On the other hand, no-one is required to help you express yourself -- that would be a positive right.
> Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions.
Agreed. I think it's a bad idea to spend other peoples money on providing 100 mbit internet connections to someone who's very voluntarily chosen to live as far away from human civilization as possible. Just like a bigger library in a bigger town is better than a weekly visit by the bookmobile, there's a difference between living in the city and in a rural area -- one that's also included in the cost of living.
The right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial (a common example of a "negative" right) likewise requires legal representation, provided that there are crimes that have that punishment. Legal representation cannot be guaranteed save by a "positive" right. Does this make the right to not be imprisoned a "positive" right?
The bottom line is that, if you're going to divide rights into "positive" and "negative" rights, you need to choose a place to draw that line. I prefer to simply not draw that line, and assess the costs and benefits of a particular proposition on their own merits. Adding superfluous labels almost never helps.
For example, it's possible that guaranteeing such a plentiful information source as the internet to the citizens of a nation could boost its economy significantly. In this way, its citizens could actually have more money than without it. This is similar to one argument for the American interstate highway system. This is by no means guaranteed, but it is a factor one should consider in evaluating the proposed law.
The right to a fair trial and the associated rights are "weird" because they're concerned with what the government has to do in order to get to violate pretty much all your rights. I'm not a legal scholar, but I think these rights can be classified as legal rights.
I think it's more relevant than ever to be mindful of positive and negative rights -- politicians in western Europe and northern America are very concerned with labelling their own policies as rights when all too often it's merely an excuse to not arguing properly for an idea -- pure newspeak. Take the Finnish here, this actually is a tax on people living in cities to pay for people living in rural areas. But that doesn't sell as well as bestowing a right on people.
A "freedom of speech" right doesn't give me anything I don't already have. That is, I can already speak, and say basically anything I want. It just so happens to be codified in US law. You'll note that it says nothing about a freedom to speak at a high level, a freedom to persuade, or even a freedom to have people listen.
The "right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial" is a negative right (if you're suspected of a crime, we will imprison you) with limitations (but you'll get a fair trial). The right to a fair trial is not a positive right, it's a limit on a negative right.
You can think of negative rights as restricting natural rights. There's no natural barrier to me taking a steaming shit on the sidewalk in front of the white house. There are negative rights, however, that restrict my ability to do that.
Positive rights provide you with something you don't already have. A right to health care, for instance, will provide me with access to medicine, doctors, and other services I might otherwise have to go out and find on my own.
Negative rights generally have more obvious consequences (and repercussions) than positive rights, which is why I and many others like to make this distinction.
I read: "People should not be given rights to trial by jury or elections". The former requires that random citizens be selected to give up their time for my sake. The latter requires that random government-types go out of their way to organize the whole bloody thing, which is both extraordinarily expensive and inconvenient. Both "require someone provide something for them". Edit: For that matter, what about universal education, as well?
I know the above is clearly not what you intended. Nonetheless, it follows logically from your statements. Perhaps you could clarify your stance?
Maybe it makes sense from the perspective of the government, because they can use TVs to brainwash the masses. But seriously, I think it is an OK move - or it used to be, when TV was more important. These days I would agree that people should be given a computer, as life without internet is severely hampered.
That's really just a roundabout way of saying: in a rich society, it's feasible to think that you might well have received an education even without a public school system.
Otherwise, I agree.
It depends on the details, I guess. I am also against having support people living in remote areas with my phone bill - they chose to live there themselves, so they should cough up the higher connection costs, or move to a city like everybody else.