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 government to do through tax revenue.
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.
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.
Simply not true.
Property rights require someone to enforce them; police don't work for free.
Jury's require jurors who very often don't want to be there.
Speedy trials require judges and jurors to work efficiently, and again, not free.
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it.
The right to confront your accuser requires the accuser to testify.
> The "right to use the Internet" is absurd.
I never implied otherwise. I was objecting to your conclusion that rights shouldn't require other people when the facts are, many of your existing rights do.
No, property rights and enforcement of property rights are separate things.
Jury's require jurors who very often don't want to be there. Speedy trials require judges and jurors to work efficiently, and again, not free. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it. The right to confront your accuser requires the accuser to testify.
The inability to confront your accuser, produce jurors and promptly render a verdict results in the inability to prosecute, not the inability to have your trial heard by jury.
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it.
This someone is the judicial system, which is (likely) the same system conducting the searches. It is again a "safe by default" system.
I was objecting to your conclusion that rights shouldn't require other people when the facts are, many of your existing rights do.
It is true that you never implied that the right to the Internet was absurd. That was a comment on the discussion at large. However your arguments that rights require the actions of others is unconvincing. My argument is that rights are a limit on the actions of others, and paid for by the agressor. When they are paid for by idle bystanders (likely through taxation), they are a form of socialist benefits and not "rights".
As are your rebuttals.
I wonder if there is notion of wall-time in the HN codebase, with which we could only allow a reply that took at least a minute to compose.
Jury trials prevent unfair convictions being levied by the government. Jurors enforce this limit.
Speedy trials prevent unjust imprisonment without trial being forced upon an individual.
The right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure is there to limit the government's invasion of a citizens property and life.
The right to face your accuser limits people's ability to make false accusations against others.
All of these are obvious limitations upon others. Yes, they require people to enforce them, but the net result is less action, not more.
Providing internet access or clean water is adding something not previously inherent to the system as opposed to preventing what is not part of that system (theft, false imprisonment, etc.)
I'm surprised that this difference need be pointed out.
edit: As a side note, anybody that avoids jury duty or regrets the necessity of safeguarding a fellow citizen's rights should be ashamed and spend some serious time in reflection on why we conduct jury trials.
Meaningless if not enforced.
> Yes, they require people to enforce them
Exactly the point.
> but the net result is less action, not more.
Irrelevant distinction.
> Providing internet access or clean water is adding something not previously inherent to the system
Who cares, I said nothing about any of that.
> I'm surprised that this difference need be pointed out.
If you paid attention to what I said, you'd be surprised you're bothering to point it out since I didn't say anything about it.
> As a side note, anybody that avoids jury duty or regrets the necessity of safeguarding a fellow citizen's rights should be ashamed and spend some serious time in reflection on why we conduct jury trials.
Agreed.
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.
Perhaps it is a result of our history, but I don't see why promoting a basic standard of living through socio-economic rights is a mistake - you can't properly exercise your right to freedom of speech (which I assume is the sort of right that you are in favour of) without food and water.
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.
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).