have already found to to be immoral and we have made laws against them.
I'll admit my use of the word "rape" was hyperbole, but certainly taxation and asset forfeiture are easy and clear examples of theft, and, as we've found out from Dr. Jonathan Gruber (which many had warned prior), ObamaCare was fraudulently sold to the American people. If we have laws against theft and fraud how are the prisons not full of politicians?
Morals are subjective and mine are different than yours. The debate over morals will not be ended here, however even if you use the rules we currently have as a basis for morality we suffer from serious cognitive dissonance -- theft is wrong at the individual level, for example, but not at the governmental level.
if individual rights are placed above the good of society as a whole But society is nothing but a collection of individuals; it isn't a thing that can benefit. Which means we're back to the beginning in that what you're really arguing is that it's OK to violate the rights of a smaller quantity of people so long as a larger quantity of people benefit from said violation.
You do not have the right to defame another person
Many laws exist which haven't been Constitutionally challenged. I believe defamation laws are one of them. Your reputation is what others think of you. Since you don't have a right to the thoughts of others or to force others to think a certain way about you, you don't have the right to tell someone how to speak of you. Therefore defamation laws clearly violate the right to free speech.
Those same financial restrictions applied before the announcement as well. If I'm using a service which isn't whitelisted I can still continue to use said service with no change in operation. This decision by T-Mobile changes nothing for me since T-Mobile isn't changing how they treat the traffic, only how they bill for it.
The NFL is a business striking a deal with another business for special treatment. That the NFL receives other special treatment is not relevant to the NFL deciding what beverage to carry.
But for sake of argument, let's consider Walmart. If Walmart decided to give premium placement in their stores to a particular cereal or even offer this cereal for free, would/should that be legal? If not, why not? If so, how is that agreement fundamentally different from T-Mobile's?
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?