Just so we're clear, you think stealing (or rape or fraud or any other action) is just fine and dandy so long as 50% + 1 of the population believes it's an OK thing to do. And your answer to the people who are being stolen from or raped or defrauded is "too bad, you lost". How do you not see the problem with this?
We require forced action of others that violate their rights all the time.
You understand an appeal to tradition represents a terrible defense, right?
but society has determined that the benefits to society outweigh the restaurant owner's rights.
Right.. we've determined peoples' feelings should outweigh the rights of others. We are no longer a society based on morals but a society of wants. Thank you for helping make my point.
But what if the majority of the society benefits from this legalized theft and does not want it to end? How can the minority which is being trampled upon convince the majority to act against their collective self interest?
You wouldn't have property rights in the first place if society hadn't decided that property rights enforced with laws was a better solution than everyone just taking what they want by force.
Sure I would; rights don't come from laws. Laws are (were?) supposed to be a codification of the negative rights we already possess (e.g. Bill of Rights).
I just fail to see where your argument that internet access cannot be considered a fundamental human right because it is good that is traded has any merit whatsoever.
Because you haven't defined what "access" means. Because a good cannot be a right in the moral sense since it would require the forced action of another and coercion violates one's rights.
Stop thinking about this in terms of the people watching the game and consider it in terms of the people playing the game.
Only Gatorade is allowed on NFL sidelines. If a player wants to bring his own beverage he can but expect him to be charged a penalty. So how is that agreement legal (NFL gives Gatorade a beverage monopoly) but the T-Mobile agreement to not count data from certain music providers against the cap should not be legal?
I believe laws should reflect the values and morals of those being governed
And what happens when a moral right collides with a legal right? What happens when the right to one's property (aka it's immoral/illegal to steal) conflicts with what "society" wants (the legal right to steal from some people and give to others)? I'll answer for you -- you cease to have a society based on morals and instead have a society based on wants.
I don't know the answer to that question
Sounds more like you don't want to take your desire to its logical conclusion.
83% of the world's population believes that internet access should be considered a basic human right.
The desires of the minority should outweigh the rights of the minority, is that your argument? For example if 83% of the world's population believed that it was OK to take from someone else what they don't have, that would be OK because it was a "societal consensus"?
That doesn't mean that access to such things cannot be considered a basic human right.
And how does one get access? If I build a house in a rural area I have the right to legally force an ISP to run a cable to my home irregardless as to the cost because I have a right to internet access?
I pointed that out because your appeal to authority still fails. It doesn't matter what the UN says or what the law says. To claim that a good is actually a right is to endorse (implicitly) the serving of one group by another (aka slavery).
How is T-Mobile limiting your access to any site or service? It's not counting music from certain providers towards your cap. You're still free to use any other service you'd like, just like you were 4 days ago.
Is there really anywhere in the country where T-Mobile is the only cellular provider?
"by having T-Mobile customers blocked from using their services as much as others?"
Nobody is being blocked.
"T-Mobile can screw over any competitors they want - that's your argument"
My argument is it's T-Mobile's network and if they want to make an agreement with Spotify or whomever or want to not count data bytes from certain content providers against a user's data cap it's T-Mobile's right to make such an agreement.
but that's fundamentally different than "net neutrality". NN refers to how the bytes are treated and T-Mobile is not treating podcast bytes different than spotify bytes -- it's not slowing them down or restricting their flow or any of that. It's simply saying some bytes won't count towards your cap and others will. And again, this is T-Mobile's network to operate as it sees fit. If you don't like it, switch carriers!
T-Mobile wants to set their service apart and they made a deal (or not as I'm learning) to differentiate themselves. It's T-Mobile's network is it not? If a consumer doesn't like it can a consumer not change wireless communications providers?
Let me spell it out for you then since you apparently can't see the connection on your own.
T-Mobile has struck a deal (ostensibly) with one or more music services to give them special treatment on the T-Mobile network. How is that any different than the NFL striking a deal w/ Gatorade (ignoring that the NFL deal is actually a monopoly deal and the T-Mobile one is not)?