Talk about a captive audience. The government of Finland says it’s a human right to have access to the Internet, so companies must provide Internet with a speed of at least 1 megabit per second. Doesn’t that seem a little strange? You can read about this in the CNN article, “Fast Internet access becomes a legal right in Finland.”
Apparently, it’s not an unalienable right to own a car or a house, but somehow it is an essential right for every person to be connected to the Internet. To me, that is faulty logic. We can all work hard to gain access to new tools, like cars, cell phones or the Internet, to make our lives easier, but there is no guarantee we’ll get those things without effort.
Ninety-five percent of Finland’s 5.2 million citizens are already connected to the Internet. This law makes little difference to the vast majority of the population. However, officials say they are trying to not only bring Internet access to rural areas, but also increase the speed for everyone to at least 100 megabits per second by 2015.
If you ask me, this whole thing is silly. I don’t have the right to a fast Internet connection. I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, according to the Declaration of Independence. I also have many other rights enumerated in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. But luxuries or necessities like the Internet or food, respectively, are not among them.
You can read the rest of this blog entry in the Submit Solution Website Design Services Blog on November 9. The photo of the dangling cat is from Flickr, and it is the copyright of Al Abut.
Tags: article, CNN, international, internet, news, Submit Solution, web
You have to define “human right” first. If it doesn’t mean anything or it means whatever is convenient then everything goes as this example illustrates.
Along the lines of the Finish government you could argue that food is much more of a human need and thus should be a “right”.
To define proper human rights you have first decide on what rights are based on. You can take the degree of “god”, some mythical insight, etc. Or you can base it on what humans need to live. If you do so consequently you should come up with the answer that humans should have the right to get food or an Internet connection if they choose to do so.
Dear Mai,
Excellent comments. Thank you very much for responding and sharing your ideas. Of course, the Declaration of Independence assumes that there is a Creator who endowed men with certain unalienable rights. That concept of natural or God’s law comes from the writings of a Greek philosopher. I can’t remember his name, but he’s not one of the commonly known ones.
A free society is one in which no one is given all that they require to live. Everyone is given an equal chance to succeed and live, but no one is forced to. Up until the 1930s, the U.S. government never engaged in welfare because the founders noted that it hurt freedom by taking from some and giving to others. In a free society, citizens take care of each other while the government simply protects their rights to do so at their discretion.
Human rights must be based on natural law. A few wise men have actually studied and defined what that law is and I highly recommend you read “The 5,000 Year Leap” by Cleon Skousen for a wonderful overview of this law, as well as all the things that makes the United States of America so great.
Thanks again for your comments. Have a great day!
Sincerely,
Robert Lockard
Ninety-five percent of Finland’s 5.2 million citizens are already connected to the Internet. This is really great for a country like Finland.