>Should I really have to decide one hundred times a day if a page was worth reading? No, and the argument I was suggesting is that if the costs were low enough

>Should I really have to decide one hundred times a day if a page was worth reading? No, and the argument I was suggesting is that if the costs were low enough, no one would really need to make those decisions, any more than they need to decide whether running a glass of water is worth the cost. >If I'm rich enough that it's not a concern, just bill me the 0.33% out of my income tax that it would cost to provide this. Why? If a micropayment system worked well enough that no one cared about the prices, what reason would there be to involve the government? (Not that I'm averse to such a scheme, I just think you're making a strange leap of logic here.) > I've considered your arguments and rejected them. It feels like you just read my first sentence, and reacted to that, despite the fact the rest of my comment argues against that position, and ultimately agrees with you (although from a slightly different direction).