RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"?

RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

eihwaz -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 12:00:41 PM)
Is it a right that a government can't arbitrarily confiscate property or a service that you've paid for?

Marc2b -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 12:01:12 PM)
quote: So much for property rights. It depends on what you mean by property rights. If you mean the right to purchase property (that is, engage in a voluntary transaction of money for land) without others telling you that you can't... I don't see the problem. If you mean a right to have property... not if that requiers others to give up theirs. As for what one may do with their property... well I am of the belief that one person's rights end where the next begins. So, if the government tells me I can't build a house on my property, that would be a violation of my rights as I am not harming anyone else (neighbors who complain about the view don't count since no one has a right to a view). If, on the other hand I want to open a toxic waste dump...

pahunkboy -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 12:03:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 I don't see it as a "right" where someone should provide internet access for you. I see it as talking about a "right" the government can't just take away at their whim. This is in direct in response to Egypt shutting the internet. That was an attempt by the Government to keep the protesting masses from communicating across the net or attempting pictures from getting out if the troops fired. I agree.

Marc2b -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 12:10:50 PM)
quote: I don't see it as a "right" where someone should provide internet access for you. I see it as talking about a "right" the government can't just take away at their whim. This is in direct in response to Egypt shutting the internet. That was an attempt by the Government to keep the protesting masses from communicating across the net or attempting pictures from getting out if the troops fired. Percisely. Freedom from (the government interfering with voluntary dialogue) rather than freedom to (the government "guaranteeing" access). I am curious. Does the Egyptian government own the ISPs there or are they privately owned? If they are privately owned then it is a gross violation of people's rights. If they are government owned... well, that's the kind of shit you have to put up with in authortarian, socialistic, societies.

popeye1250 -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 12:14:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Funny, Bill O'Reilly said that Obama could declare martial law and shut down the internet but, that Mexican border remains wide open! Funny, you keep telling us you have no idea who any of those people are. Funny, you keep twisting things around. I said about 4-6 months ago that I didn't know who Glen Beck was! Now, thanks to (this site) I do. If you were paying attention I said that I do occaisionally watch Bill O'Reilly and certainly did know who he is. I believe that conversation was with Rulemylife if I'm not misstaken. He must have six or eight television sets going 24/7 in the mancave, he seems to know who everyone on t.v. is! Most of the time I watch the History Channel or Nat Geo.

eihwaz -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 12:16:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL Marc2b As for what one may do with their property... well I am of the belief that one person's rights end where the next begins. So, if the government tells me I can't build a house on my property, that would be a violation of my rights as I am not harming anyone else (neighbors who complain about the view don't count since no one has a right to a view). What if by blocking the view you are significantly lowering the value of your neighbor's property? Aren't you in some sense stealing value from your neighbor? In other words, does your neighbor not have a right to the value of their property? (With apologies for going off-topic.)

Marc2b -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 12:20:07 PM)
quote: What if by blocking the view you are significantly lowering the value of your neighbor's property? Aren't you in some sense stealing value from your neighbor? In other words, does your neighbor not have a right to the value of their property? No. Value is arbitrary.

Real0ne -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 12:26:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz quote: ORIGINAL Marc2b It you are requiered to pay for it, then it is not a right. So much for property rights. property rights like many other rights are victims of syntax terrorism and the reversal of us as in the people being the beneficiary of the trust to the government being the beneficiary of the trust. Ever notice that jail birds are trustees? How did that happen? How were they converted to a trustee? Begs lots of VERY interesting questions of the inquisitive mind. In a word those sneeky wabbits, and in not so many words they basically stole everyone rights because people doze off and are not vigilant in protecting them and its a constant fight. It was never intended to be that way but what less would you expect from a government that is nothing more than a 2 bit "democracy"? Supreme Court - murdock v pensylvania 319 us 105 "no state can convert my cont rights into a privilege"

eihwaz -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 12:32:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL Marc2b I am curious. Does the Egyptian government own the ISPs there or are they privately owned? A cursory internet search indicates that they are privately owned and include several multinational operators (e.g., Vodafone). Technically, the shutdown appears to have been accomplished by disabling domain name and network routing services. ETA add "network" to "routing services"

willbeurdaddy -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 1:34:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz Is it a right that a government can't arbitrarily confiscate property or a service that you've paid for? Some places it is, some places it isnt. Property rights are legal constructs, not human rights. But then ALL rights are, since there isnt a single "right" you can name that is and has been universally acknowledged to be so.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 1:36:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz quote: ORIGINAL Marc2b As for what one may do with their property... well I am of the belief that one person's rights end where the next begins. So, if the government tells me I can't build a house on my property, that would be a violation of my rights as I am not harming anyone else (neighbors who complain about the view don't count since no one has a right to a view). What if by blocking the view you are significantly lowering the value of your neighbor's property? Aren't you in some sense stealing value from your neighbor? In other words, does your neighbor not have a right to the value of their property? (With apologies for going off-topic.) Read your CC&Rs. If it aint there, it aint a right, thus not a human right.

DarkSteven -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 5:09:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz Is it a right that a government can't arbitrarily confiscate property or a service that you've paid for? I cannot speak to other governments. but the answer in the USA is... sorta. Under the concept of eminent domain, the government is allowed to take your property if it impedes their idea of the greater good. The classic example is if a street gets widened, and they have to buy houses and property lining it in order to expand. Under eminent domain, they are allowed to take it but must compensate for the loss. Then there are a few other confiscations. If I am suspected of committing a crime, some of my property will be confiscated as evidence. In some cases, it might not even be me committing the crime - if my car is stolen and crimes are committed using it, the car might be impounded.

tweakabelle -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 7:36:13 PM)
Is there any particular reason we are limited to the current list of human rights? I am unable to see any reason why we can't update and/or expand the list of human rights as new technologies, new ways of living and new circumstances arise. Notwithstanding the current limited protection, the right to consensual sexual expression and activity seems a case in point to me. My mind is open if someone can present a compelling case against expansion. Naturally I would oppose the converse - I would resist strongly any reduction in the current range of human rights as defined by the UN Declaration. Edited more in hope than expectation [:D]

pahunkboy -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 7:38:40 PM)
Eminant domain tho- requires that the property owner get re-imbursed. Will Egypt send cash to its people whom are harmed?

Real0ne -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 7:40:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz Is it a right that a government can't arbitrarily confiscate property or a service that you've paid for? Some places it is, some places it isnt. Property rights are legal constructs, not human rights. But then ALL rights are, since there isnt a single "right" you can name that is and has been universally acknowledged to be so. well property rights span and are the roots to everything literally! Lawfully and legally in law and equity and ecclesia so it spans everything even into canon law! Take slavery for instance, granted on here its mostly fun and games..... but in the in the final analysis in law it comes down to property ownership. That pissed me off as a child to think of myself as my own property. It just had a spirit reducing effect on me and tended to bring me down. However. . . we are like it or not in for all intents and purposes in the english law form and if we do not have paramount-absolute-supreme ownership and control over our bodies we have no rights. It relates to property rights and goes to the natural law. Constructs refer to the fictional or color of law. Take a slave in the real world of law throughout time to today they could not own property and it goes without saying that they did not own themselves, there fore its fairly easy to connect the importance of property and the control and ownership there of. If you cannot own property you cannot own your own body. So listen up everyone........You must have or be capable of ownership in exclusive-paramount-absolute-supreme ownership and control over the property of "SELF", and all else is by negotiation and contract. You need to force express contract because they will "construe" everything as themselves as the beneficiary and you as the person that has to supply it. SELF includes your physical body, your title, "Name" or names, and the relationships you create under such titles. self is physical, spiritual, ecclesia, and temporal. Take emminent domain, and lets look at the democracy claiming sovereignty over the people.... If we have a sovereign (state) that has control over us then what are we????????? Simple. . . . we are "SUBJECT TO". Subject to is slavery. You want to know why and how they can tazer people on the side of the street? Take their property even though they have no title for a tax debt that you never agreed to in the first place? Force you to get a shot, restrict medicine from you. These are all things that you can claim as a free person as your right. (to or not to do) The one thing that you will find is that they summed it up quite well..... Life, liberty, property, happiness and "EVERYTHING" comes under life, liberty, property, happiness, but its all nicely tucked away and buried in that myriad of 60 MILLION laws on the books and worse need not only the law correct but you need the form correct and the procedure correct and then you get to traverse the syntax mine-field and dealing with the private vs public side and so forth and so on and its frankly was turned into a fucking nitemare. Now after all that the average man of average intelligence in this country is supposed to be able to get justice. Ignorance of the law is no excuse except for THEM! Then its always the excuse! In addition to their immunity of office. anyway I digress.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 7:58:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy But then ALL rights are, since there isnt a single "right" you can name that is and has been universally acknowledged to be so. Does it have to be "universally acknowledged" to be a right? Wouldn't rights exist independent of the arbitrary whims of every tinpot dictator and authoritarian government?

pahunkboy -> RE: UN- Internet- a human "right"? (2/1/2011 8:07:50 PM)
....Aint that the truth. I almost fell over- when mom told me she ordered her pills from India.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125