Andrew Colclough

Finland has become the first country in the world to make broadband internet access a legal right for all citizens.

The legislation, which came into effect Thursday, forces telecom operators to provide a reasonably priced broadband connection with a downstream rate of at least one megabit per second (mbs) to every permanent residence and office, the Finnish government said in a statement.

"From now on a reasonably priced broadband connection will be everyone's basic right in Finland," said Finnish communications minister Suvi Linden. "This is absolutely one of the government's most significant achievements in regional policy and I am proud of it.

"Reasonably priced" ...That sounds like a really solid and objective base for just law...

Think of what is really going on here. Imagine if it were my legal right to force you to provide me a service at whatever price I determine is "reasonable?" You don't have to imagine this if you live in Finland. The Law, better described as the collective force, is being directed by the vast majority of Fins, against a minority group (telecoms). The Law, which is supposed to be an instrument of justice and defense, is perverted into on offensive weapon of plunder.

And the Finnish government is an utter disgrace, promoting this concept as a "significant achievement." It is a digression and perversion of the high concepts of Rule of Law, Individual Rights, and Justice for which generations of men have struggled and died to advance.

What is next? "Reasonably priced" computers? Automobiles and Fuel? Food? Clothing? As soon as the law ceases to be just - where do you draw the line?

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

[...]

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

-The Law, Frederick Bastiat

Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.

Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?

You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.

True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.

None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.

Emphasis Added.

This is a thoughtful critique of the private vs. public control of our air traffic control system. However, it raises some important issues which deserve more attention.

Whenever someone trots out the 'Profits vs. People' line (or its various forms - as above: "Profits over People"), it is important to recognize this as nothing more than an economically illiterate straw-man. We live in a society of free people, not of slaves.  Therefore, there is no such thing as People versus Profit, rather - they go hand in hand.

In a free society, Profit in not something which necessarily requires the sacrifice of People. In fact, Profit is not possible without People - whether workers or consumers. Nor is Profit simply "making money," though it is almost exclusively discussed this way. (Note that money is nothing more than a representation of value, and a means of easily trading it. Without money - trading would be nearly impossible. I would have to barter hours of web development directly for flight control service, or mexican food, or Wii games, or my mortgage payment, etc.) People trade things they value and produce, (usually represented by money), for things they value more or are incapable of producing. This creates a 'profit' for both traders. The one offering the service - turns a profit on the service provide, the other gains a profit from the service rendered. There is no 'versus'.

Likewise, the animosity toward the 'profit motive' is also illogical. This phrase is often used as a pejorative describing an enterprise making money. But what of the consumer's 'profit motive' to obtain the service for the cheapest cost? Both parties are negotiating a trade of value. Why is only one seen as profiting, and is thus demonized? As a service provider or producer in a free market - it runs counter to the 'profit motive' to 'put profits over people' and do something that is destructive to your customers or the public image of your company. Because a private entity does not have the ability to use force (in contrast with the government, which IS force), it is inherently imperative to, not only, earn your trust and support - but provide something of greater value, than whatever thing of value (money) you would trade for it. If a certain product or service is not of greater value - or if the provider is known to harm its customers, you are free to trade for something else that isn't harmful and is a better deal. Essentially - you are free to choose to pursue a better trade - one in which you gain a bigger (here comes that 'evil' word again...) profit with regard to what you offer to trade. The profit motive is hardly more than the desire to not get screwed over when making a trade.

Consider these thoughts the next time someone attempts to decry Profits, the profit motive, or pushes the false idea that Profits and People are enemies fighting for opposing teams.

One Crucial Distinction About Capitalism

Above I am arguing for capitalism. It is essential to point out that private entities who do use governmental force to compel consumers to trade for their service are not practicing capitalism. Capitalism is free trade, hence -laissez faire.  The power to determine and negotiate value and fairness is on the individual traders. Forced trade is a feature of socialism, communism, and/or fascism. With forced trade, the government (force) is used to increase a private entities influence or bargaining power. For example: Let's say General Electric is lobbying congress (which they are) for all sorts of things (as is their constitutional right). Among those things is likely a push to pass legislation against incandescent light bulbs in the interest of climate change. Congress then may outlaw these bulbs, and you will be obligated to purchase the new curly florescent bulbs. Obviously, G.E. will profit greatly from this new legislation, even if you buy your new bulbs elsewhere, because the new law will necessarily create an increase in demand. The point is that G.E. will have bargained with the politicians to borrow the government's monopolistic force to influence the market and raise the value of florescent light bulbs. This is anti-capitalism. 

Perhaps you may argue that you get to vote about the new legislation (usually you don't, but for the sake of the argument...) - but your decision is either upheld or overruled by the majority of other voters. This is a far cry from actually freely choosing - "I will trade some value, in exchange for something you value more".

This difference is crucial and must be distinguished, as it is commonplace to blame laissez faire capitalism (free trade) for the faults which are actually aspects of socialism (government sponsored forced trade). Ayn Rand further lays out this distinction in the video below: