You have the right to 10Mbps
-
The UK decides 10 Mbps broadband should be a legal right
Over the past decade, the UK government has attempted to lock in a basic level of broadband service across Britain. The idea is that by 2020, members of the public will have the legal right to request speeds of at least 10 Mbps from their ISP, whether they happen to live in a big city or in the...
That's not how rights work.
-
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
The UK decides 10 Mbps broadband should be a legal right
Over the past decade, the UK government has attempted to lock in a basic level of broadband service across Britain. The idea is that by 2020, members of the public will have the legal right to request speeds of at least 10 Mbps from their ISP, whether they happen to live in a big city or in the...
That's not how rights work.Our good old friend </sarcasm>--the malicious confusion between positive rights and negative rights. Hint: only one type are real rights.
-
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
That's not how rights work.
Quite apart from the whole thing of enumerated and unenumerated rights…
It's just a minimum service standard that builds on top of previous decisions that people have a general (though conditional) right to use the internet. Given how many important services work that way, it's reasonable to have a right to physical access for a (legally) reasonable charge. All we've got here is an update to the exactly the point at which people can get court orders to compel their relevant provider (probably BT Openreach) to make infrastructure improvements.
It makes no odds at all to me personally. It will make more difference to people who live in rural areas.
-
@dkf said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
Given how many important services work that way, it's reasonable to have a right to physical access for a (legally) reasonable charge.
No, but it might be reasonable for providers to be obligated to provide that access for a (legally) reasonable charge. I know, it's semantics, but this one is important, because you are putting obligations on others.
-
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
That's not how rights work.
In what way is that not how that rights work?
In most countries, you have the legal right to housing, water, electricity, postal service and internet.
-
@anonymous234 Yes, how dastardly of the state to provide me with the right to electricity!
-
@anonymous234 said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
That's not how rights work.
In what way is that not how that rights work?
In most countries, you have the legal right to housing, water, electricity, postal service and internet.
Meaning that you can force others to pay for them? Even if you do nothing for yourself? You have the legal privilege (in it's correct meaning) to demand others servitude, but you don't have the right to demand it, unless slavery is a thing.
-
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@anonymous234 said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
That's not how rights work.
In what way is that not how that rights work?
In most countries, you have the legal right to housing, water, electricity, postal service and internet.
Meaning that you can force others to pay for them? Even if you do nothing for yourself? You have the legal privilege (in it's correct meaning) to demand others servitude, but you don't have the right to demand it, unless slavery is a thing.
Wah? Seriously, how did you get from "a right to be provided with something" to "force someone to provide something for free"?
Also, the "slavery" thing only works if corporations are people. Oh, wait, I forgot...
-
Yeah, how dare the UK have slightly different definitions of words than the US.
-
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
No, but it might be reasonable for providers to be obligated to provide that access for a (legally) reasonable charge. I know, it's semantics, but this one is important, because you are putting obligations on others.
In this case, it's almost certainly about controlling what BT Openreach do. They're the domestic infrastructure part of the old telco monopoly, and while they're very much still a monopoly, they're also regulated extremely tightly and are kept well separated from the rest of the telco (in particular, you don't buy telecoms service from them, and there are regulations about allowing non-BT providers to use the Openreach infrastructure).
Why some idiotic mouth-breather of a journalist decided to call it a Right…
-
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@anonymous234 said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
That's not how rights work.
In what way is that not how that rights work?
In most countries, you have the legal right to housing, water, electricity, postal service and internet.
Meaning that you can force others to pay for them? Even if you do nothing for yourself? You have the legal privilege (in it's correct meaning) to demand others servitude, but you don't have the right to demand it, unless slavery is a thing.
Wah? Seriously, how did you get from "a right to be provided with something" to "force someone to provide something for free"?
Also, the "slavery" thing only works if corporations are people. Oh, wait, I forgot...
The right to be provided with something (in a world where such things cost resources ) is indistinguishable from a right to get free crap and from slavery (or theft). You're forcibly taking the fruits of someone else's labors for your own at gunpoint (just conveniently abstracted through the fiction of government). Make no mistake. People are the ones who are losing what they've earned to pay for your supposed rights.
That's why negative rights (the right to not be stopped from doing X ) are the only real rights. The others are just privileges granted by governments to people they consider special. It's white privilege, just for real, and not racially associated.
-
@dkf I think the problem stems from some confusion over a very narrow definition of the word "right".
-
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@anonymous234 said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
That's not how rights work.
In what way is that not how that rights work?
In most countries, you have the legal right to housing, water, electricity, postal service and internet.
Meaning that you can force others to pay for them? Even if you do nothing for yourself? You have the legal privilege (in it's correct meaning) to demand others servitude, but you don't have the right to demand it, unless slavery is a thing.
Wah? Seriously, how did you get from "a right to be provided with something" to "force someone to provide something for free"?
Also, the "slavery" thing only works if corporations are people. Oh, wait, I forgot...
The right to be provided with something (in a world where such things cost resources ) is indistinguishable from a right to get free crap and from slavery (or theft). You're forcibly taking the fruits of someone else's labors for your own at gunpoint (just conveniently abstracted through the fiction of government). Make no mistake. People are the ones who are losing what they've earned to pay for your supposed rights.
That's why negative rights (the right to not be stopped from doing X ) are the only real rights. The others are just privileges granted by governments to people they consider special. It's white privilege, just for real, and not racially associated.
No, as I just said, you're defining the word "right" very narrow. Just because you think that a word means something doesn't mean that your idea of its meaning is identical with the legal definition.
Not to mention that it's a fucking different country. Your US notions don't necessarily apply.
-
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
Seriously, how did you get from "a right to be provided with something" to "force someone to provide something for free"?
In the US, "you have a right to ______" means that everyone has that right, and furthermore, the basic minimum to meet the right must be provided, regardless of someone's ability to pay for it.
Hence why this follows: "You have to right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided for you".
-
@anotherusername said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
Seriously, how did you get from "a right to be provided with something" to "force someone to provide something for free"?
In the US, "you have a right to ______" means that everyone has that right, and furthermore, the basic minimum to meet the right must be provided, regardless of someone's ability to pay for it.
Hence why this follows: "You have to right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided for you".
That's nice. Have you guys ever considered that you're not the center of the universe?
-
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
Meaning that you can force others to pay for them?
Well, in this case we're talking about a service that you have a right to purchase, but not a duty to do so. Nor does anyone have a duty to purchase it for you on your behalf. The story was about updating the definition what level of service would be considered by courts to be an adequate discharge of provision of that service to satisfy that right, should a court order be sought as part of an attempt by someone to exercise that right to purchase.
I tend to think of rights and duties as the mathematical duals of each other. If I have the right to do X, it means that I do not have the duty to not do X; if I have the duty to do Y, it means that I do not have the right to not do Y.
-
@rhywden FYI, @Benjamin-Hall is from the US, and I'm guessing that's how he got an idea which apparently seemed foreign to you.
-
@anotherusername said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden FYI, @Benjamin-Hall is from the US, and I'm guessing that's how he got an idea which apparently seemed foreign to you.
That's nice. We're talking about something the UNITED KINGDOM does. He can split hairs about the US all day long. It doesn't matter a iota.
By the way, we Germans have the right to found our own private school.
Does that now mean that somehow someone will be forced to finance this thing as soon as we got the idea?
-
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@anonymous234 Yes, how dastardly of the state to provide me with the right to electricity!
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. It makes no sense.
-
@dkf said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
I tend to think of rights and duties as the mathematical duals of each other. If I have the right to do X, it means that I do not have the duty to not do X; if I have the duty to do Y, it means that I do not have the right to not do Y.
Precisely. Thank you for that phrasing.
-
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@anonymous234 Yes, how dastardly of the state to provide me with the right to electricity!
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. It makes no sense.
Maybe, just maybe, other countries have other definitions of the word?
Over here it does not only mean "legal requirement to be provided with" but also "legal requirement to be provided with under certain circumstances"
The latter part usually denotates: "If you want it." It may also stand for: "If you pay for it."
-
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
By the way, we Germans have the right to found our own private school.
Does that now mean that somehow someone will be forced to finance this thing as soon as we got the idea?
No, that actually makes perfect sense as a right. It's something that you can do but which does not put obligations on others. The second sentence makes no sense here at all, not even in relation to the UK broadband thing.
-
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@anotherusername said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden FYI, @Benjamin-Hall is from the US, and I'm guessing that's how he got an idea which apparently seemed foreign to you.
That's nice. We're talking about something the UNITED KINGDOM does. He can split hairs about the US all day long. It doesn't matter a iota.
By the way, we Germans have the right to found our own private school.
Does that now mean that somehow someone will be forced to finance this thing as soon as we got the idea?
That's a negative right. The government is restricted from stopping you. That's a very different (foundationally different, in fact) thing than requiring someone else to provide you with a private school.
And the UK conception of rights is where the US got theirs originally. It's only recently where they've diverged because people wanted to justify enslaving others to hand out privileges to favored people. Don't get me wrong--there are a lot of US people who talk the same way. And it's just as wrong.
-
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@anotherusername said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden FYI, @Benjamin-Hall is from the US, and I'm guessing that's how he got an idea which apparently seemed foreign to you.
That's nice. We're talking about something the UNITED KINGDOM does. He can split hairs about the US all day long. It doesn't matter a iota.
By the way, we Germans have the right to found our own private school.
Does that now mean that somehow someone will be forced to finance this thing as soon as we got the idea?
That's a negative right. The government is restricted from stopping you. That's a very different (foundationally different, in fact) thing than requiring someone else to provide you with a private school.
And the UK conception of rights is where the US got theirs originally. It's only recently where they've diverged because people wanted to justify enslaving others to hand out privileges to favored people. Don't get me wrong--there are a lot of US people who talk the same way. And it's just as wrong.
Oh, please cut this CRAP about slavery.
And favoured people? Crap. It's a right everyone in the country has.
-
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@anotherusername said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden FYI, @Benjamin-Hall is from the US, and I'm guessing that's how he got an idea which apparently seemed foreign to you.
That's nice. We're talking about something the UNITED KINGDOM does. He can split hairs about the US all day long. It doesn't matter a iota.
By the way, we Germans have the right to found our own private school.
Does that now mean that somehow someone will be forced to finance this thing as soon as we got the idea?
That's a negative right. The government is restricted from stopping you. That's a very different (foundationally different, in fact) thing than requiring someone else to provide you with a private school.
And the UK conception of rights is where the US got theirs originally. It's only recently where they've diverged because people wanted to justify enslaving others to hand out privileges to favored people. Don't get me wrong--there are a lot of US people who talk the same way. And it's just as wrong.
Oh, please cut this CRAP about slavery.
What else do you call having to give a portion of your earnings to another private citizen at the barrel of a gun? This is different than taxes that go to core government functions (like public order and defense)--those benefit everyone and are true public goods. This is just redistribution. It's either slavery or it's theft. Which sounds better?
-
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
By the way, we Germans have the right to found our own private school.
Does that now mean that somehow someone will be forced to finance this thing as soon as we got the idea?
No, that actually makes perfect sense as a right. It's something that you can do but which does not put obligations on others. The second sentence makes no sense here at all, not even in relation to the UK broadband thing.
We also have the right to a connection to drinkable water.
-
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@anotherusername said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden FYI, @Benjamin-Hall is from the US, and I'm guessing that's how he got an idea which apparently seemed foreign to you.
That's nice. We're talking about something the UNITED KINGDOM does. He can split hairs about the US all day long. It doesn't matter a iota.
By the way, we Germans have the right to found our own private school.
Does that now mean that somehow someone will be forced to finance this thing as soon as we got the idea?
That's a negative right. The government is restricted from stopping you. That's a very different (foundationally different, in fact) thing than requiring someone else to provide you with a private school.
And the UK conception of rights is where the US got theirs originally. It's only recently where they've diverged because people wanted to justify enslaving others to hand out privileges to favored people. Don't get me wrong--there are a lot of US people who talk the same way. And it's just as wrong.
Oh, please cut this CRAP about slavery.
What else do you call having to give a portion of your earnings to another private citizen at the barrel of a gun? This is different than taxes that go to core government functions (like public order and defense)--those benefit everyone and are true public goods. This is just redistribution. It's either slavery or it's theft. Which sounds better?
Say, you really didn't get the whole "not for free" part? Again: UNITED KINGDOM.
Not US.
-
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
Meaning that you can force others to pay for them?
No, meaning that the government has to create an environment where you can, by some reasonable means, obtain those things. Reasonable means includes paying for them.
Yes, this will force some company to build a DSL line to your house they don't want to, just like how taxation is theft and prison is kidnapping and all that. It's no big deal for the vast majority of people.
-
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@anotherusername said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden FYI, @Benjamin-Hall is from the US, and I'm guessing that's how he got an idea which apparently seemed foreign to you.
That's nice. We're talking about something the UNITED KINGDOM does. He can split hairs about the US all day long. It doesn't matter a iota.
By the way, we Germans have the right to found our own private school.
Does that now mean that somehow someone will be forced to finance this thing as soon as we got the idea?
That's a negative right. The government is restricted from stopping you. That's a very different (foundationally different, in fact) thing than requiring someone else to provide you with a private school.
And the UK conception of rights is where the US got theirs originally. It's only recently where they've diverged because people wanted to justify enslaving others to hand out privileges to favored people. Don't get me wrong--there are a lot of US people who talk the same way. And it's just as wrong.
Oh, please cut this CRAP about slavery.
What else do you call having to give a portion of your earnings to another private citizen at the barrel of a gun? This is different than taxes that go to core government functions (like public order and defense)--those benefit everyone and are true public goods. This is just redistribution. It's either slavery or it's theft. Which sounds better?
Say, you really didn't get the whole "not for free" part? Again: UNITED KINGDOM.
Not US.
Doesn't matter whether it's free or just at a "reduced price." That only changes how much is being stolen, not the fact that theft is occurring. BTW--it has to be either free or at a reduced price (compared to the market-clearing status quo), otherwise it's would have already been provided.
-
@anonymous234 said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
Meaning that you can force others to pay for them?
No, meaning that the government has to create an environment where you can, by some reasonable means, obtain those things. Reasonable means includes paying for them.
Yes, this will force some company to build a DSL line to your house they don't want to, just like how taxation is theft and prison is kidnapping and all that. It's no big deal for the vast majority of people.
And maintain an unprofitable line--if it were profitable they'd have done it already. And that isn't cheap.
This is worse than standard taxation for redistribution, because it caters to monopolies (the only ones who can absorb the profit hit) and punishes innovation and deters market entry. Thus making everyone poorer off.
-
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@anotherusername said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden FYI, @Benjamin-Hall is from the US, and I'm guessing that's how he got an idea which apparently seemed foreign to you.
That's nice. We're talking about something the UNITED KINGDOM does. He can split hairs about the US all day long. It doesn't matter a iota.
By the way, we Germans have the right to found our own private school.
Does that now mean that somehow someone will be forced to finance this thing as soon as we got the idea?
That's a negative right. The government is restricted from stopping you. That's a very different (foundationally different, in fact) thing than requiring someone else to provide you with a private school.
And the UK conception of rights is where the US got theirs originally. It's only recently where they've diverged because people wanted to justify enslaving others to hand out privileges to favored people. Don't get me wrong--there are a lot of US people who talk the same way. And it's just as wrong.
Oh, please cut this CRAP about slavery.
What else do you call having to give a portion of your earnings to another private citizen at the barrel of a gun? This is different than taxes that go to core government functions (like public order and defense)--those benefit everyone and are true public goods. This is just redistribution. It's either slavery or it's theft. Which sounds better?
Say, you really didn't get the whole "not for free" part? Again: UNITED KINGDOM.
Not US.
Doesn't matter whether it's free or just at a "reduced price." That only changes how much is being stolen, not the fact that theft is occurring. BTW--it has to be either free or at a reduced price (compared to the market-clearing status quo), otherwise it's would have already been provided.
Jesus Christ, you guys are really begging the autocrats in the White House to nickel and dime you for everything.
This is getting way too idiotic for me.
-
@rhywden I hate to burst your bubble, but the whole positively/negatively defined rights definition is the same thing I was taught in high school civics class, over a decade ago, just southeast of you...
-
@blek said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden I hate to burst your bubble, but the whole positively/negatively defined rights definition is the same thing I was taught in high school civics class, over a decade ago, just southeast of you...
And? That's why we Germans make a legal distinction between "rights" and "basic rights".
But, hey, sure, you surely remember everything correctly from your studies of law?
Also, for the "BUT IT'S STEALING!" idiocy: Yes. And? Go live in a mud hut in the hills somewhere if you don't want to live in a society and are incapable of sharing like a decent human being.
-
@dkf said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
No, but it might be reasonable for providers to be obligated to provide that access for a (legally) reasonable charge. I know, it's semantics, but this one is important, because you are putting obligations on others.
In this case, it's almost certainly about controlling what BT Openreach do. They're the domestic infrastructure part of the old telco monopoly, and while they're very much still a monopoly, they're also regulated extremely tightly and are kept well separated from the rest of the telco (in particular, you don't buy telecoms service from them, and there are regulations about allowing non-BT providers to use the Openreach infrastructure).
Why some idiotic mouth-breather of a journalist decided to call it a Right…
The idiotic mouth-breather of a journalist probably quoted the official statement:
High speed broadband to become a legal right
Universal Service Obligation will deliver high speed broadband across the UK
The Government will now set out the design for a legal right to high speed broadband in secondary legislation early next year, alongside our detailed response to the consultation.
-
You are perfectly allowed to not create an ISP, but if you do create an ISP, it immediately has to be a good one or no dice. You therefore need a pretty good tier of service from day one. That should boost competition, right? Right? Especially considering you can't sell cheaper plans to people who don't need anything stronger? How about people who don't want the expensive plans?
I support net neutrality, but this is taking it a bit far. Crazy European countries are crazy. News at 11.
-
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
By the way, we Germans have the right to found our own private school.
Does that now mean that somehow someone will be forced to finance this thing as soon as we got the idea?
No, that actually makes perfect sense as a right. It's something that you can do but which does not put obligations on others. The second sentence makes no sense here at all, not even in relation to the UK broadband thing.
We also have the right to a connection to drinkable water.
Look, I know that my crusade here is akin to being upset at people who "could of cared less." And I'm not impressed by your shoulder alien redefinition of a word.
A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.
I'm not sure if it's an ESL problem or what, but your right to drinkable water (i.e., it's not illegal to have one) is not the same as someone's (local government? private utility?) legal obligation to provide that service.
-
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@anotherusername said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden FYI, @Benjamin-Hall is from the US, and I'm guessing that's how he got an idea which apparently seemed foreign to you.
That's nice. We're talking about something the UNITED KINGDOM does. He can split hairs about the US all day long. It doesn't matter a iota.
By the way, we Germans have the right to found our own private school.
Does that now mean that somehow someone will be forced to finance this thing as soon as we got the idea?
That's a negative right. The government is restricted from stopping you. That's a very different (foundationally different, in fact) thing than requiring someone else to provide you with a private school.
And the UK conception of rights is where the US got theirs originally. It's only recently where they've diverged because people wanted to justify enslaving others to hand out privileges to favored people. Don't get me wrong--there are a lot of US people who talk the same way. And it's just as wrong.
Oh, please cut this CRAP about slavery.
What else do you call having to give a portion of your earnings to another private citizen at the barrel of a gun? This is different than taxes that go to core government functions (like public order and defense)--those benefit everyone and are true public goods. This is just redistribution. It's either slavery or it's theft. Which sounds better?
Say, you really didn't get the whole "not for free" part? Again: UNITED KINGDOM.
Not US.
So what?
-
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@anotherusername said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@rhywden FYI, @Benjamin-Hall is from the US, and I'm guessing that's how he got an idea which apparently seemed foreign to you.
That's nice. We're talking about something the UNITED KINGDOM does. He can split hairs about the US all day long. It doesn't matter a iota.
By the way, we Germans have the right to found our own private school.
Does that now mean that somehow someone will be forced to finance this thing as soon as we got the idea?
That's a negative right. The government is restricted from stopping you. That's a very different (foundationally different, in fact) thing than requiring someone else to provide you with a private school.
And the UK conception of rights is where the US got theirs originally. It's only recently where they've diverged because people wanted to justify enslaving others to hand out privileges to favored people. Don't get me wrong--there are a lot of US people who talk the same way. And it's just as wrong.
Oh, please cut this CRAP about slavery.
What else do you call having to give a portion of your earnings to another private citizen at the barrel of a gun? This is different than taxes that go to core government functions (like public order and defense)--those benefit everyone and are true public goods. This is just redistribution. It's either slavery or it's theft. Which sounds better?
Say, you really didn't get the whole "not for free" part? Again: UNITED KINGDOM.
Not US.
Doesn't matter whether it's free or just at a "reduced price." That only changes how much is being stolen, not the fact that theft is occurring. BTW--it has to be either free or at a reduced price (compared to the market-clearing status quo), otherwise it's would have already been provided.
Jesus Christ, you guys are really begging the autocrats in the White House to nickel and dime you for everything.
This is getting way too idiotic for me.
Unpossible.
-
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
And? That's why we Germans make a legal distinction between "rights" and "basic rights".
You're using a different language, too. Your translations are imperfect.
-
@rhywden said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
Have you guys ever considered that you're not the center of the universe?
No.
-
I see two
s here:- Everyone arguing about the definition of word "right". What difference does it make?
- @pie_flavor saying 10Mbps is "good". But his view might be skewed by living in USA.
-
@gąska said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
saying 10Mbps is "good".
I think that's what I have now... Or is it 5. (could upgrade, but $$$. I don't stream, so it's good enough.)
-
@pie_flavor said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
You are perfectly allowed to not create an ISP, but if you do create an ISP, it immediately has to be a good one or no dice. You therefore need a pretty good tier of service from day one.
That's not how it works.
Believe it or not, those filthy bureaucrats that make those rules actually put some thought into them.
-
@anonymous234 Well, don't leave us hanging. How does it actually work?
-
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
What else do you call having to give a portion of your earnings to another private citizen at the barrel of a gun?
Taxes. It's what the word was invented for.
This is different than taxes that go to core government functions (like public order and defense)--those benefit everyone and are true public goods.
What developed country in the world has a government where taxes only go to core government functions?
They all have tons of programs like these. Because they work.
Yes, we get that you dislike it, but 99% of the world does not, so at least don't pretend to be surprised every time you see a government doing a thing.
-
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
I'm not sure if it's an ESL problem or what, but your right to drinkable water (i.e., it's not illegal to have one) is not the same as someone's (local government? private utility?) legal obligation to provide that service.
Yes, it quite literally does. That's the thing about positive rights. It means someone is legally obligated to provide that to you. It's a common thing in many countries.
-
@anonymous234 said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
Yes, it quite literally does. That's the thing about positive rights. It means someone is legally obligated to provide that to you. It's a common thing in many countries.
I know. Just like "literally" is its own antonym these days. Don't expect me to stop ranting about it.
-
-
@anonymous234 when government goes outside its core functions of protecting the fundamental rights of humanity, it's usurping power that doesn't belong to it and enslaving humans to do so. More precisely, it's one group of people enslaving another. Whether they do it for ostensibly noble purposes out not it pretty irrelevant. In fact, cue the CS Lewis quote about the tyranny of the do-gooder.
-
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
when government goes outside its core functions of protecting the fundamental rights of humanity,
Well, my governments' core function is looking after the interests of its citizens. "Fundamental rights of humanity" might be one aspect of it, but I'm fairly OK with going a bit further than that by, for example, ensuring access to basic services (running water, electricity, and now, apparently, a decent network connection, health care and whatnot). This specifically would align with my interests; if enough people were opposed to something like this, they could always force a popular vote (well, in one of the places, the other one unfortunately doesn't have this option, which is a pity).
Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data
Universal service - Wikipedia
