Tuesday, October 6, 2009

About Human Rights and About Human Wrongs

Fundamental Human Right. It's a phrase we use a lot, we who posture intellectually. It is one of those things - like 'illegal war' or 'monstrous tyrant' that we use as an axiom, assuming that somewhere, at some point, someone has performed the logical contortions necessary to demonstrate its validity. We tend to assume that there is someone somewhere who could specify which particular law it was that a war broke. We assume that someone has checked off the behaviours of a dictator against a checklist of monstrosity. The result is that we throw about our pre-assumed rhetoric, hoping to convince others, when in fact we are fighting with blunted swords - their blades deadened by the simple fact that our arguments rest on things unshared.

So it is with fundamental human rights. I might say, for example, that access to the internet is a fundamental human right: you might adequately counter that it isn't - and there we would be, staring at each other across the barricades of assumption as the wheels of legislation turn without us.

Instead then, let's ask what a fundamental human right actually is and see where that gets us.

Firstly: Fundamental to what? I think we can safely ignore for the moment the idea that humans have been gifted any intrinsic rights by a deity or by their innate dignity or even by their ability to suffer - if only because there are too many different ideas on this for us to agree. Instead, let's work from the most basic moral axiom going: that one should treat others as one would wish to be treated.

If we accept this as a founding principle, then it follows that a good society would be one that protects individuals from suffering fates they would not wish to, of necessity by acting punitively against those who seek to cause such suffering. We do, of course, have a contradiction already, in that we would not wish to be punitively acted against ourselves, however, the benefit of acting as a society is the ability of societies to assess the relative merits of contradictory moral acts. We would accept that some immoral punitive action is justified when weighed against the broader moral benefits they cause. While we have now moved away from our nice basic principle, it is not too great a leap to a new one: that a good society, when faced with conflicting options, chooses to act in the way that least causes individuals to suffer fates they would not wish too.

With such a society established, we might begin writing basic rules of thumb in order to help define the nature of fates that individuals would not wish to suffer. The first (and one might have thought the most obvious) of these is the 6th commandment: Thou shalt not murder. Very few of us wish to be murdered. It seems entirely correct that anyone wishing to murder should be prevented from doing so and that anyone who has murdered should be prevented from doing so again. It seems entirely accurate to say that the urge to murder goes against the most basic assumptions underpinning any good society and that not being murdered is the least we can expect from any organised body of humans. Not being murdered is, in fact, fundamental to our experience of being humans among humans. It is a Fundamental Human Right.

The key thing about this is not that the right to continue living is divinely apportioned or intrinsic to our dignity or self-evidently apparent. It is that it can be deduced logically and that we can choose to adopt it (or otherwise) based on our conception of a good society. A right is not divine, nor is it intrinsic - it is better than that: it is an aspiration that is consciously declared. When we adopt something as a fundamental human right we make a statement about the world we wish to live in, we do not appeal to any absolute, we aspire to something greater than our current condition and challenge ourselves to do our aspiration justice.

So now, when I say that access to the internet is a Fundamental Human Right, do not misunderstand me. I don't say so lightly. It is not a position I have adopted because it looks good on a petition, or because I know it will get a cheer from people who already agree with me. I say it because, right now, sat at my computer, I am more than I was when I was in the kitchen. Ask me a question about anything within the realm of human knowledge and, chances are, I will be able to give you an answer in a few minutes or less. Ask me to survey distant kingdoms from space, ask me to deliver a lengthy message of salvation to a prophet almost anywhere on the planet, ask me what something looks like, where anywhere is, ask me anything. Ask me who dissents from the position of my government and what they say. Ask me where the demonstrators are assembling. Ask me who is being persecuted, and what village has been raided and where it looked like they were being taken...

I say it too because, tomorrow I may wish to make art of some kind and key to the creation of art is an appreciation of other art. On the internet I can find free or inexpensive tools able to perform tasks that would have required my parents to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds merely to access. I can immerse myself in the art of others, be influenced by it, use these tools to create art of my own and then, at almost no cost, I can distribute the fruits of my labours to the four corners of the world.

I want a society where these things are available to everyone as readily as they are to me. I believe firmly that such a society would be more free, would be less at risk from tyranny and would have more beautiful things in it. It is a society that I am proud to aspire to, and one for which universal, high-speed internet access is fundamental. And believing these things, as I do, I consider internet access to be a fundamental human right.

Now, you'll remember that earlier we acknowledged that societies sometimes have to break moral principles in order to protect themselves against greater moral wrongs. We saw how in certain cases a moral judgement had to be made that balanced the harm done to some against the harm done to a greater number of others. The argument currently circulating about the music industry and the business secretary's attempt to pass a law removing internet access from those who persistently share files is such a case.

On the one side we have a law that would breach what I consider to be a fundamental right. On the other we have an industry that, due to the expense of recording, manufacturing and distributing records and CDs was once able to make and sell a scarce resource at a high cost - but which now finds the value of its product collapsing as the internet replaces expensive processes with cheap ones. This industry (and several of its high-profile employees) believes that a contributory factor to its decline is the sharing of music files and that removing the right to internet access from those who persistently do so will halt said decline. I don't believe it will, but even if you do, you still find yourself facing a choice. Either you support a measure that may or may not prolong the profitability of an industry at the expense of declaring the right to internet access conditional and not fundamental - thus crushing much of its potential as a transformative, liberating technology or you decide that yes, indeed, universal access to the internet is more important than the right to control the not-for-profit reproduction of your intellectual property.

It is not an easy choice, but it comes down to which society you'd prefer to live in. The one we lived in ten years ago when you heard less recorded music and when money you spent on it ended up in the hands of large record companies and the tiny minority of musicians they chose to make financially viable (while most made little or no money) - or the one you could live in soon, where there is more music than you know what to do with and any money you choose to spend on it goes directly to the musicians you choose to reward (while most make little or no money) and where, in addition, all the information of the world is right there, inalienably, at your fingertips.

I think it's a fundamental human right. I think if you want to take one of those away you need a damn good reason, a better reason than my copyright, a better reason than the collapse of some companies with a redundant business model and a much better reason than the dwindling salaries of those who signed the Air Statement.

The times they are a-changing, boys and girls, they can change for the better if we make them.
XX.S.I.

12 comments:

DaveCromwell said...

How can you not agree with "not being murdered" and "internet access" as fundamental rights? I'm all for both of these things!

Unknown said...

Good post. A point with regard to file sharing on the internet, im probably a bit older than a lot of the kids who use this technology but its like the old home tapeing row magnified. Always been a big music fan & after stumbling across a blog that said some good things about your band & also posted a link i well erm "may" have downloaded it. Thought your stuff was really good & bought the CD & plan to catch you live on your next tour.I understand that not everyone does this but hopefully some will & in some small way support the artist.I have found other music this way & done the same, Hell i may never have heard it otherwise!
As for the paid download market, itunes & the like (well on principle i wont pay for a compressed format) if i pay for someting i want the best qualiity & then if i want to make an mp3 to play on my phone or something i can do so. Also they seem to be doing ok, making bundles (not the artist)What happens if your pc hard drive or ipod dies & you lose everything?

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

(here's my real comment!)

I'm interested in two things regarding this post. Firstly, can we really claim the internet itself (and even access to it) to be a fundamental human right? If so then we are claiming that without access to the internet society cannot exist yet we have countless examples of societies which have existed despite having no access at all (specifically because the internet didn't exist at the time).
I think that the fundamental right here is that of freedom of communication; the internet is a means to realise this but it is not the only means. It is vital to have a level of communication in a society which is sufficient to (e.g.) keep people informed about current affairs, to allow people to talk to one another and arrange future events and also to maintain a visible judicial system which answers to public criticism and allows for appeals. This can all happen without the internet, despite it being a fantastic medium for such communication. As such, I would argue that we might have a right to access the internet if it exists but this is not a fundamental right.

I agree with what you write about any money going directly to the artist. I would go further and say that the money should go to anyone who is directly involved in the production/distribution of the music (there are many who could be said to be 'indirectly' involved but it might be difficult to determine who is and is not involved to a sufficient degree - for example we might end up claiming that a songwriter's mum should get some money for bringing them into the world in the first place).
If a band has put something together themselves and distributes it without the assistance of a third party then it seems fair for them to get the full amount paid. However, what band has the time to do all this? Many can make the time at the beginning (and know that they have to in order to get any recognition at all) but many are not able to afford this, both in regards to time and to money. This is where the third party comes in. I admit that this doesn't need to be a corporation; it can be a local person or group who are willing, for a small fee, to help promote bands around the town or region.
What, however, happens when enough people have heard and like the band to warrant their touring around the whole country? Again, the band could put this together themselves - they could book the venues, hire the transport, book places to stay (if necessary) and just head on out there. However, what if - again - they don't have the time to ring the venues or keep in contact with them? What if they don't have enough money to book vans/coaches for transport? The group assisting them can do this but what if this same group is looking after other bands as well and doesn't have the time either? There will need to be larger 'groups' which operate on a national level and will probably be able to charge a higher amount (and will need to given how much a tour of that size might cost).

Do you see where I'm going with this, at this point? There is a need for some degree of music 'industry' insofar as musicians can only make money through getting their music heard and known, thus bringing people to see them live.

Unknown said...

As far as distribution is concerned, a similar thing can happen. Artists can use itunes, myspace etc. and do it all digitally. Now imagine every artist doing this, bringing about an over-saturation of music (which is pretty much what we have right now!) - how does a band get themselves heard from within this clamour for attention? Again, they can do it themselves but they might not have time etc. etc.

Ultimately, I can see how a music industry could and would develop. Alongside this, I can see how a world without such an 'industry' would favour the wealthier musicians who have enough time and money to further their musical careers. At present, talent does not guarantee success but a band without any money could still become well-known and perhaps world famous.

So the question we need to ask, before that of whether there should be a change in the way music is distributed, is whether such a change can take place at all? We could certainly have a system in place which does not favour the record company executives and limits profit by transferring more money to artists and producers (i.e. those who do the street-level work); we probably could get rid of the system we have now. However, it would be highly difficult - and, I would argue, wrong - to prevent a system from re-establishing itself.

Ovi Demetrian Jr said...

I may have missed this in the article, but if the Internet is a Human Right, should access be something provided to everyone by any entity like the government? Like public education? Or transportation? Or healthcare? If so, then what about food, that's certainly a Human Right, should groceries be covered as well? And a place to live, that should be a Human Right as well, should it not?

Like you said, what someone considers a Human Right does have assumptions behind it. I think the best way to deal with them though is not by forcing more and more ideas of 'Human Rights' on others until it gets to the point where no one has a choice of their own human rights.

lyingtothekids said...

well, SDTE, you offer an entirely different definition of a fundamental human right to the one I spent most of the piece constructing. Fine, but I don't feel there's a case to answer.

Ditto on the broader point re: music industries, you don't seem to be responding to what I've written. Yes, the things you raise are minor problems - I believe, and argue, that they need to be weighed against the greater problems of society as a whole and I believe and argue that when this is done they are problems we can live with. All the same, the market is flooded with music because the ability to make passable music is neither rare nor valuable. It doesn't matter to me at all that most musicians can't make money - such is the economic fact of the matter. It doesn't matter to me that they can't be heard above the multitude: the only thing that suggests they should be is their own corrosive and erroneous vanity.

Ovi Demetrian:
I believe that the fundamental rights to food and shelter are covered in our conception of a good society. As I say, when we declare a fundamental right, we aspire to a kind of society where it is extended to all. We tailor the organisation of our social structures to furthering such aims, hence the welfare state, food stamps, council housing etc. I, personally, argue that Internet access is of a similar character to these needs and yes, consequently I would support measures to organise society in a way that would further the provision of access to all - be it through direct spending, tax incentives or by any of the other means available.

Ovi Demetrian Jr said...

Why should one pay taxes for someone else before taking care of themselves? What if some people don't have a a computer to access the Internet, does that mean the next step is to tax the rest of us for that as well?

(Not to mention that as soon as government taxes the Internet, they begin controlling and regulating it which will limit our freedom of speech among other rights.)

More and more taxation on goods means less and less choice of spending one's own money on one's own human rights.

Declaring more Human Rights and forcing people to pay for them through taxation sounds like a path towards Socialism to me.

lyingtothekids said...

>Why should one pay taxes for
>someone else before taking care of
>themselves?

whoah there, Ayn Rand, I think it might be more helpfully characterised as paying for the foundations of the kind of society you wish to live in. I think the internet is better the more people are on it, I think my life is better when the internet is better, I think this is worth paying for and I think that that is worth arguing for as a consensus position for society.

We seem to manage OK with the provision of a free library service without sliding into 'socialism', so I think we'll be OK.

Ovi Demetrian Jr said...

As Randian as that sounds, it seems like a fair question in response to additional taxation 'for the good of society'.

The Internet and communication is actually expanding to more people faster than ever with no need for taxpayer money.

If you want more people to have access to the Internet sooner, how about donating to charities that provide computers and access for families that can't afford it, I'm sure they're out there. Or, how about voluntary taxes? If you add a note for an extra amount you want put towards improving the internet access in public libraries, I'm sure they'll take it. And if you want more people to join your cause, how about starting an organization?

The public library system is just that, OK. But compared to bookstores like Barnes and Noble, I prefer the Barnes and Noble. To me the Internet is actually a good example of how private libraries could work better.

lyingtothekids said...

This is veering very far from the point. We live in broadly capitalist, slightly socialist societies that provide certain things - my fairly involved but limited argument would be that internet access is something such a society should prioritise when choosing which provisions to make.

There are all manner of creative, cheap solutions to broaden internet access extant and waiting to be discovered - many requiring little public money - and I think treating it as a right would help things along, that's all. Really though, it is an article about not taking internet access away from people who already have it and probably not the most productive place to debate the finer balance of social democratic principles - so I'm leaving it there.

Good luck with the ghosts at christmas :)

Ovi Demetrian Jr said...

Being a web designer myself, I tend to have a strong opinion on the issue of who controls the Internet. I like how it has been capitalist, it's worked very well, and feel that any government intervention will only hurt it and everyone using it. That is all.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.