Hacker News Reader

Comment by duncan_bayne | Hacker News Reader

More generally: nothing can be a right if it must be paid for by other people; rights can only be proscriptive, never prescriptive.

View on HN

When people talk about a right to Internet access, they generally mean a negative right: you can't be barred from using the Internet (as in the oppressive countries Cerf mentions), but you still have to pay for it. This is similar to the right of free press, which belongs only to those who own one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

>This is similar to the right of free press, which belongs only to those who own one.

Didn't it also speak to being able to hire a press (i.e. get someone to run a print for you) to avoid something like "thou shalt not print any materials concerning x, y or z on behalf of a, b or c."

The right to keep and bear arms is also similar. That right doesn't entitle you to free guns.

I'm curious about one thing. If it's a human right in France, it would appear to be an alienable right, given some conditions, such as the "three strikes" (HADOPI) law[1], which seeks to address copyright infringement, allows for suspension of internet access for violations.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HADOPI_law

I don't think it's a human right in France. The UN decided it is a human right, and many countries signed it, but Sarkozy refused to do it as far as I know. So HADOPI can carry on for now, at least until Sarkozy loses the election.

That's not how rights work. For instance, there's an inalienable right not to be locked in a cage, but if you violate other people's rights not to have their car radios stolen, you can still be locked in a cage.

Exactly. The first version of the HADOPI law was censored by the French Constitutional Council in 2009 on the ground that only a judge could restrict a fundamental right. This is the case with the current version of the law.

Well, that's like, your opinion, man. Rights are an abstract concept, and people have different definitions of them. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights include such as:

    Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of
    himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
    necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment,
    sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances
    beyond his control.

And

    Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary
    and fundamental stages.

These are definitively rights that have to be paid for by other people, and yet many consider them perfectly valid.

IIRC for USA: Is access to a lawyer in court not a right because it is paid for by the court?

The sixth amendment guarantees the right to "a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury" and the "assistance of counsel."

The state must provide for the defendant in order to ensure those rights are met. Same as the state must incur the cost of sitting an impartial jury, presenting witnesses against him, etc.

This is not a given, although it is a defensible position. Are you confusing human rights with civil rights?

So, the poor don't have a right to education because they cannot pay? What about food aid to Africa? I think the concept of human right is independent of the cost or who pays for it, at least in principle.

Depends on where you're from. There are some countries where that's true and some where it is not.

Well, aren't human rights meant to be intrinsic to humans, not dependent on the legal jurisdiction like civil rights?

One can argue whether this is realistic, or not, but in principle human rights are distinct from civil rights.

Ah, well, if you're arguing from that perspective then no, these things are not human rights.

aren't human rights meant to be intrinsic to humans

Those are Natural rights, also called "nonsense upon stilts" by Jeremy Bentham and "imaginary, like the Bogeyman" by George Carlin ;)

All rights have to be paid for by other people—if you believe that the notion of "right" is well-posed, that is—which I don't.

My understanding of a "right" is not something that must be provided--rather, it's something that cannot be proscribed. A right is passive; all that's needed to provide one is inaction. You don't have to pay anything to not stop me from speaking.

Something that has to be provided is probably better called an "entitlement".

Isn't persecution a form of disregarding your rights? Isn't removing Internet access a form of persecution?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com