5 ms·

While I agree with you, I can understand the OP's sense of frustration: it's annoying to have people rail against taxes, the government, and laud the free marke

While I agree with you, I can understand the OP's sense of frustration: it's annoying to have people rail against taxes, the government, and laud the free market, and simultaneously defend government subsidies for industries they're working in and demand public infrastructure because the free market doesn't magically provide.

protomyth 10y ago
When has broadband been a free market? Its a monopoly situation for fibre. In the areas where small companies can get in we have pretty fast broadband[1], but regulations limit their service area. Established providers are able to lock out expanding companies with little effort. We don't need the subsidies. We need the regulators to get off their butts and let in the competition. 1) BEK does 200M fibre connections with no data cap in rural North Dakota. Plenty of these companies exist and are profitable.
snuxoll 10y ago
It's a little unfair to group all rural populations up as a bunch of conservatives who want to complain about taxes but reap benefits of subsidies, however. The little farming community my grandfather has lived in his whole life is a fairly blue district surrounded by the sea of red that is northern Idaho - there's still some "keep the gubmit out of my life" people up there, but everyone I talk to up there was a bunch of pro-Sanders liberals who wanted better lives for their children and grandchildren.
- refurb 10y ago
  who wanted better lives for their children and grandchildren As opposed to the Republicans who want a worse life for their children and grandchildren?
  - honkhonkpants 10y ago
    Republicans demonstrably do not care about any future person. We have decades of data on this.
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      Whereas in contrast, Democrats will offer every comfort to your children, and make your grandchildren pay for it. It is unclear to me as to why I should prefer one over the other, when the option to build the best and most durable infrastructure we can afford without indebting future generations beyond the benefit they will realize from it has not yet been explored. Both of the major political parties in the US are actively hostile to both sound economic policy and universally beneficial infrastructure development. They have been captured by the private interests of the business-owning class (which includes to some extent the middle-class stockholders).
  - snuxoll 10y ago
    I'm not going to generalize the entire republican voter base, but they contain a disproportionate number of "I've got mine, sod off" types of people backing them (not that the current democratic party could be seen as much better). Point is though, not every person who lives in a rural area is some idiot that complains about paying taxes while raking in farming subsidies paid by said taxes.
    - refurb 10y ago
      This is why American politics is so poisonous. When people disagree with you, it's not because they have a different point of view, it's because they're "bad".
      - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
        On that note, I found this talk on Moral Politics by George Lakoff[1] elsewhere on HN. The basic idea is that people who have different political opinions to you aren't necessarily stupid or greedy or bad actors, they just have different morals and therefore a different set of rationales. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM
        refurb 10y ago
        Honestly, I would estimate 95% of Americans all have the same goals for the country. A healthy environment, prosperous economy, healthy population, stability, etc. The differences come about as to how to get there. If you have different foundational beliefs as to how things work, of course you'll disagree as to what needs to be done to fix things.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      they contain a disproportionate number of "I've got mine, sod off" types of people backing them (not that the current democratic party could be seen as much better). First you say you're not going to generalise, then you do. Then you negate your next point by saying that democrat voters are just as bad. What are you trying to say? To your last point, people who complain about paying taxes while being the beneficiaries of government largess aren't idiots. I'd posit they're probably smarter than I am, at least financially because I only ever pay tax.
mason240 10y ago
It's almost like they have a nuanced view on the role of government where it is involved with building infrastructure and not being heavy handed with regulation and not spending large amounts on welfare programs.
- nitwit005 10y ago
  Or they have self-contradictory political views, or they're dishonest about what they really believe, or they say different things when it's in their self interest. Or, quite likely, a mix of all of the above.

protomyth 10y ago

When has broadband been a free market? Its a monopoly situation for fibre. In the areas where small companies can get in we have pretty fast broadband[1], but regulations limit their service area. Established providers are able to lock out expanding companies with little effort. We don't need the subsidies. We need the regulators to get off their butts and let in the competition. 1) BEK does 200M fibre connections with no data cap in rural North Dakota. Plenty of these companies exist and are profitable.

snuxoll 10y ago

It's a little unfair to group all rural populations up as a bunch of conservatives who want to complain about taxes but reap benefits of subsidies, however. The little farming community my grandfather has lived in his whole life is a fairly blue district surrounded by the sea of red that is northern Idaho - there's still some "keep the gubmit out of my life" people up there, but everyone I talk to up there was a bunch of pro-Sanders liberals who wanted better lives for their children and grandchildren.

refurb 10y ago
who wanted better lives for their children and grandchildren As opposed to the Republicans who want a worse life for their children and grandchildren?
- honkhonkpants 10y ago
  Republicans demonstrably do not care about any future person. We have decades of data on this.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    Whereas in contrast, Democrats will offer every comfort to your children, and make your grandchildren pay for it. It is unclear to me as to why I should prefer one over the other, when the option to build the best and most durable infrastructure we can afford without indebting future generations beyond the benefit they will realize from it has not yet been explored. Both of the major political parties in the US are actively hostile to both sound economic policy and universally beneficial infrastructure development. They have been captured by the private interests of the business-owning class (which includes to some extent the middle-class stockholders).
- snuxoll 10y ago
  I'm not going to generalize the entire republican voter base, but they contain a disproportionate number of "I've got mine, sod off" types of people backing them (not that the current democratic party could be seen as much better). Point is though, not every person who lives in a rural area is some idiot that complains about paying taxes while raking in farming subsidies paid by said taxes.
  - refurb 10y ago
    This is why American politics is so poisonous. When people disagree with you, it's not because they have a different point of view, it's because they're "bad".
    - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      On that note, I found this talk on Moral Politics by George Lakoff[1] elsewhere on HN. The basic idea is that people who have different political opinions to you aren't necessarily stupid or greedy or bad actors, they just have different morals and therefore a different set of rationales. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM
      - refurb 10y ago
        Honestly, I would estimate 95% of Americans all have the same goals for the country. A healthy environment, prosperous economy, healthy population, stability, etc. The differences come about as to how to get there. If you have different foundational beliefs as to how things work, of course you'll disagree as to what needs to be done to fix things.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    they contain a disproportionate number of "I've got mine, sod off" types of people backing them (not that the current democratic party could be seen as much better). First you say you're not going to generalise, then you do. Then you negate your next point by saying that democrat voters are just as bad. What are you trying to say? To your last point, people who complain about paying taxes while being the beneficiaries of government largess aren't idiots. I'd posit they're probably smarter than I am, at least financially because I only ever pay tax.

mason240 10y ago

It's almost like they have a nuanced view on the role of government where it is involved with building infrastructure and not being heavy handed with regulation and not spending large amounts on welfare programs.

nitwit005 10y ago
Or they have self-contradictory political views, or they're dishonest about what they really believe, or they say different things when it's in their self interest. Or, quite likely, a mix of all of the above.