3 ms·

-1 for the assumption that government services are less efficient than private. Were you even modestly observant you would know that isn't true, and there are

by earl 15y ago

-1 for the assumption that government services are less efficient than private. Were you even modestly observant you would know that isn't true, and there are examples floating everywhere (eg Medicare's provisioning of medical services, community broadband in many localities) -1 for surveillance worries -- is this a glibertarian talking point or something? This network is explicitly for providing internet access to the various University of Wisconsin campuses and WI libraries. The latter, btw, are completely anonymous: you can come in, sit down at a computer, and start typing. There apparently was discussion of extending the network to communities which, you may or may not know, have shit internet service now.

billybob 15y ago
-1 for the rude and condescending tone.
scythe 15y ago
>Were you even modestly observant you would know that isn't true, and there are examples floating everywhere (eg Medicare's provisioning of medical services, community broadband in many localities) P1: You'll notice I mentioned the advantages of everyone using the same infrastructure. Those apply in both of the examples you have chosen. P2: East Germany. I would be interested to see an example where government outperforms the market in an area that is not infrastructure dependent. The least infrastructure dependent industry might be software, and here we see the market run circles around the government. Even Anonymous remains relevant! >-1 for 'surveillance worries'. Is this a glibertarian talking point? Yes, it is. That's partly why it depresses me. But it also reflects the fact that we've come to expect the government to spy on us, which is not how things should be in a supposed land of the Free. You may have read my post wrong. The evidence I've seen seems to support broadband Internet, and I had hoped to show the reasoning behind my decision. http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_... In this case it looks like the common-infrastructure benefit outweighs the ordinary benefits of the market. That is not to deny either effect.

by earl 15y ago

billybob 15y ago

-1 for the rude and condescending tone.

scythe 15y ago

>Were you even modestly observant you would know that isn't true, and there are examples floating everywhere (eg Medicare's provisioning of medical services, community broadband in many localities) P1: You'll notice I mentioned the advantages of everyone using the same infrastructure. Those apply in both of the examples you have chosen. P2: East Germany. I would be interested to see an example where government outperforms the market in an area that is not infrastructure dependent. The least infrastructure dependent industry might be software, and here we see the market run circles around the government. Even Anonymous remains relevant! >-1 for 'surveillance worries'. Is this a glibertarian talking point? Yes, it is. That's partly why it depresses me. But it also reflects the fact that we've come to expect the government to spy on us, which is not how things should be in a supposed land of the Free. You may have read my post wrong. The evidence I've seen seems to support broadband Internet, and I had hoped to show the reasoning behind my decision. http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_... In this case it looks like the common-infrastructure benefit outweighs the ordinary benefits of the market. That is not to deny either effect.