UN Declares Internet Access a Human Right

[Zoolander]

I can't tell who is trolling and who is getting straight up wooshed by the entire premise and reasoning behind this measure. Honestly I hope most of you are just trolls, because if not...hooollyy shit haha

The baseline for all Human Rights standards is human dignity. Expanding on that, Self Determination & Autonomy, as long as you don't expand on your right to self determination to the point of affecting/reducing that same right of other people. Really it boils down to having the choice to live how you want to live, within the previously stated limits. Its not about forcing women to live non-tradition Muslim lives in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc; its about giving them a choice as to which sort of life they want to live, free from being forced to comply or die. If they choose a traditional lifestyle, that is their right. (Just highlighting one somewhat prominent example in current HR issues to illustrate the point).

Human Rights aren't arbitrary, they are various laws that make the above possible. That internet didn't exist 50 years ago is totally irrelevant to it being a right. There is a case to be made that the West is gotten overzealous in the number of rights they have codified in certain areas, but I actually wouldn't put access to internet as one of them. For anyone who was wooshed by the entire purpose...don't be fucking retarded, this isn't like that law up in Norway.

[guartz]

it's also one that people are pathologically incapable of having without being disingenuous. most people's political beliefs are little more than brand loyalty brought about by advertising and geographical/familial chance. the majority of people who think something like "health care isn't a right, it's a privilege that should be bought with money," think that for the same reason they might drink bud light over coors light. it's not that they like one more than the other, or that one idea "makes more sense" or resonates with them.

Ha, I like that. It's like when parrots prefer to quote Nozick instead of Rawls based on.... well, I won't presume to know the fancies of parrots. Anyway, if you are implying that people should take a scientific approach to this, it's already been done and failed miserably to garner attention even from intelligentsia. It's called anarcho-capitalism.

[test123]

When/if the dollar collapses, food prices will rise, massive layoffs, the people will be angry, the gov regulating prices, people assembling to topple a corrupt system, suspension of Posse Comitatus.... Ask the demonstrators of Bahrain whose blown out brains fill the storm drains where their precious rights where when they needed it the most. George Carlin was spot on, rights aren't rights if they can be taken away, they are temporary privileges. It is a jungle we are living in, sure we act civilized now but when realism comes knocking on a shitty night you better hope you have a wife and daugther you can give away to spare your life.

[Zoolander]

Any & everything can be taken away, so there are no rights? Talk about a stupid quote that is steeped in retarded semantics.

We have laws & systems in place to protect one's rights against those "shitty nights." Obviously rights aren't always protected everywhere at all times...if they were then there would be no need for the entire notion of Human Rights.

Are you trying to sound like the Joker or some other far out there anarchist? Not sure if serious. That rambling post made no real point.

[pahnphoenix]

i'm an anarchist. we (usually) believe in rights, and i'm not sure how far "out there" we are. don't confuse us with libertarians or nihilists.

[Tempyst]

Anyone citing that George Carlin bit automatically loses the argument because they're citing a bit from when George Carlin had long since stopped being funny

[Yugl]

The baseline for all Human Rights standards is human dignity. Expanding on that, Self Determination & Autonomy, as long as you don't expand on your right to self determination to the point of affecting/reducing that same right of other people. Really it boils down to having the choice to live how you want to live, within the previously stated limits. Its not about forcing women to live non-tradition Muslim lives in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc; its about giving them a choice as to which sort of life they want to live, free from being forced to comply or die. If they choose a traditional lifestyle, that is their right. (Just highlighting one somewhat prominent example in current HR issues to illustrate the point).

This sounds awfully similar to the rhetoric of liberal theorists. If that is the case, then how do you handle problems arising from liberal pluralism such as inherent domination and configuration of the individual within the system? Just because you're not placing formal restraints, it doesn't mean social configurations cannot inherently undermine the well being (And subsequently, "dignity" as you describe it) of individuals.

Human Rights aren't arbitrary, they are various laws that make the above possible.

It's still arbitrary to the extent you believe in 'celebrating' the baseline. Even more so, what constitutes enforcing that baseline. Quite frankly, it would be much better to recognize them as arbitrary and enforce them anyways than it would be to BS through loops justifying their existence.

[Kuya]

When/if the dollar collapses, food prices will rise, massive layoffs, the people will be angry, the gov regulating prices, people assembling to topple a corrupt system, suspension of Posse Comitatus.... Ask the demonstrators of Bahrain whose blown out brains fill the storm drains where their precious rights where when they needed it the most. George Carlin was spot on, rights aren't rights if they can be taken away, they are temporary privileges. It is a jungle we are living in, sure we act civilized now but when realism comes knocking on a shitty night you better hope you have a wife and daugther you can give away to spare your life.

Why are you arguing when you don't know what rights are?

[Zoolander]

i'm an anarchist. we (usually) believe in rights, and i'm not sure how far "out there" we are. don't confuse us with libertarians or nihilists.

I wasnt trying to imply all were "far out there," i was trying to imply he was acting like some radical anarchist (as in not a more down to earth anarchist) alla the Joker, etc. I know what anarchists are.

[Kuya]

If you know what anarchists are, then you know they are usually "far out there".

[Zoolander]

This sounds awfully similar to the rhetoric of liberal theorists. If that is the case, then how do you handle problems arising from liberal pluralism such as inherent domination and configuration of the individual within the system? Just because you're not placing formal restraints, it doesn't mean social configurations cannot inherently undermine the well being (And subsequently, "dignity" as you describe it) of individuals.

Yea, pretty much everything I posted in the quoted text was human rights theory, although the liberal aspect of it is certainly debatable (and which form/definition of liberal one is even referring to - i really hate that term. I could easily see neocons having the same general belief). As long as the individual is working within that system of their own free will what is the problem? Human rights isnt pushing for a totally egalitarian society. Diversity is fine, its again about choice. You can say a a certain society's culture is to restrict certain freedoms of women (rationale of it being for their well being is irrelevant), but its still restricting their freedom no matter how you cut it. I'm not sure if I'm totally understanding your point or not, as I haven't heard it ever worded quite like how you did. I'm not sure I'd equate "inherent human dignity" with "well being" either. I'd liken Human Rights to giving people the opportunity and ability to live the life they want to without being restricted by outside forces (again, within reason of not harming the self determination of others). Whether or not they succeed is up to them.

If you're talking about cultural relativism...well welcome to the great debate in human rights theory.

[Yugl]

.

If you're talking about cultural relativism...well welcome to the great debate in human rights theory.

Pretty much this and women's rights. I don't expect these forums to have a serious conversation about that, so I didn't specifically bring up the topic. There are real differences between the unofficial duties of men and women in society whether imposed or left to pluralistic forces. I'm not talking about outlandish cultures either. Even in the US, the ability to sustain a long-term career often means better income. As it stands, men inherently thrive within this system (Not to say it meets the agenda you set forth, but you'll see why I bring this up in a second) because they do not have to interrupt their business/career for the sake of the family. Furthermore, the tendency of courts to leave the children with the woman in most cases adds to this burden. This is one example of how, even without legal parameters, pluralism has inherent disadvantages for particular groups.

As a separate issue, I would also like to bring up the issue of harm. Is environmental pollution constitutive of harm to other individuals? Is participation within the market that leads to rising prices in essential goods constitutive of harm to others? If we allow the program to play itself out, what about those who lack the capability to achieve what they want? By this, I mean that certain restrictions can lead to what people want and without them, they would not achieve what they want. Remember, autonomy, opportunity, ability, and desires do not necessarily coincide.