3 ms·

> These could be provided at a minimum Not this story again. If you provide any of those "at a minimum" then only the "minimum" will be available to the peopl

> These could be provided at a minimum Not this story again. If you provide any of those "at a minimum" then only the "minimum" will be available to the people, and those who will define what the minimum is will be those who have nothing to gain by providing those goods and services, and everythin to gain by cutting all costs and expenses right to the bone. Moreover, is it really necessary to point out the dangers of letting the state gain control over who accesses to the internet?

justratsinacoat 10y ago
This seems like a strange objection, relying as it does on "the gain" made by those who control what the "minimum" is. Postulates A2 and A3, which are assumed to hold for this question, make any savings from the cut "costs and expenses" seem a bit ridiculous. The state can control who can access the Internet even now, via the courts, should it decide someone needs to get b&. I'm not sure why a surfeit of every possible resource is going to make the government get more totalitarian. If the unrolled form of this argument is "human social competitiveness is impossible to extinguish, and even in the presence of historically unprecedented AI-based plenty, those who desire power will subjugate those they deem lesser, for the hell of it", then this makes a whole lot more sense.