RANT: Sorry Folks, Internet Is Not a Civil Right
This.
“This is a Civil Rights Issue”
Some people thought the fight for civil rights hit its zenith during the 1960’s with MLK Jr. Apparently, they were wrong.
After finding out that men being able to use the women’s bathroom when they “feel like it” is suddenly a civil right, we now find another civil right that shockingly has been completely ignored since the late 1990’s - equal access to the internet.*
Bill Callahan, director of the (federally funded) project Connect Your Community, stated, “This is a civil rights issue.”
Is it, Bill Callahan? Is it really?
First off, we must know, what is a right?
“RIGHT, noun: Just claim; immunity; privilege.
All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property... Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.”
Right, Not a Right
First, you have to realize that having equal access to the internet it not a right. The internet is a good/service provided to you by businesses. You do, however, have a right to enter into a mutual business agreement with internet service providers. These are two very different things.
To illustrate, you do not have a right to equal access to owning a car. Cars are a good/service provided to you by businesses. You do, however, have a right to enter into a mutual business agreement with a car dealership.
If someone can’t afford a phone service, the service will be cut off. The same with electricity. Have their rights been violated? Of course not.
Not My Job
The key here is realizing that government’s job has never been, is not, and never will be, to provide for our rights. Government’s main purpose is to protect our rights.
Back to our example of someone who had their phone service cut off, their rights have not changed. Government is still protecting that right. They still have the right to enter into that mutual business agreement, however they don’t currently have the means to provide for that right.
And this is where many folks go off the rails.
If a person can’t afford it, it is not anyone else’s job, and it’s certainly not the government’s job, to make sure that they have their rights provided for.**
A Maxim of Life
Something that we must never forget: He who pays for it, owns it.
This is a maxim you may remember from your days living at home (unless you still do, in which case I’d say get a job). Remember, “Hey Dad, can me and Sally use the car tonight?” Dad could say yes or he could say no, because he owned it.
Why did he own it? Because he paid for the gas, he paid for the insurance, he bought that darned thing! Also, if you were lucky enough to get Dad to say ‘yes’, he was free to set stipulations such as: be back by ten, keep it under 35, don’t park on the street, etc.
Let’s apply that here. Government begins paying for your internet, providing instead of protecting. The conversation might go something like this:
“Hey Uncle Sam, can I use the internet?”
“No.”
“Hey Uncle Sam, what about now? Can I use the internet now?”
“No.”
“How about now?”
“Alright, but only for ten minutes, and to make sure everyone is equal, the speed has been reduced to below dial-up, and here’s the list of government approved websites I’m allowing you to visit.”
Can you see the potential problem with this? Everyone loves to think that if the government would just get involved we could have complete equality and everyone would have everything they needed. This is not true. Governments are run by flawed human beings who tend to err on the selfish side.
Just one of those hard facts of life.
Consequences
The belief that “equal internet access” is a civil right and something government must provide to all, is how we end up with people believing that they are entitled to things like free college, free healthcare, free government housing, free government food stamps, free government cell phones, welfare...
And now internet.
For one thing, Uncle Sam is broke. With over $19 trillion in debt (and growing by approximately $2.6 billion a day), even if giving everyone internet was the government’s job (which it’s obviously not), the government cannot afford it. At all.
For another thing, government providing, means government controlling, which means freedom decreases. We are seeing this more and more with our education system and our healthcare system. On the other hand when government stays within its proper role of protecting our rights, we see freedom increase.
So if you think this whole freedom gig is pretty good, then you don’t want the government having anything to do with providing internet to anyone. You want the government staying within its proper Constitutional role.
Because when that happens, freedom blossoms.
Follow on Twitter: @painefultruth76
Let us know what you think: painefultruth1776@gmail.com
*Note: What does “equal internet access” even mean, anyway? I’m sure that the Google headquarters has way higher speed internet that I do, therefore we are unequal in our access to the internet, right? What about someone using dial-up (if that even is still around)? Equality is a very misunderstood concept, and people shouldn’t be throwing the word around without understanding it. ~JP
** Note: A common objection to this reasoning is that it would be morally wrong to say that everyone has a responsibility to provide for their own rights because there are some who cannot provide for their rights, e.g. a starving person, a person sick and bedridden, etc.
A starving person has the right to food and water, however if they lack the ability to perform their responsibility of providing for that right that is where individual responsibility comes into contact with responsibility for our fellow man. The fallacy in this argument is assuming that it is government’s job to fix this problem.
Who sees the needs of others? Government has no eyes or ears. Government is not a person with a heart, a brain and helping hands. We, as individuals, have a responsibility to help those in need.
I will point out as well, that this is a wholly moral argument and cannot be made without an admittance of the existence of right and wrong and some transcendent arbiter of said morals. So much for survival of the fittest. ~JP
Comments
Post a Comment