3 ms·
Surely the "high quality ISPs" would easily outcompete the "low quality local alternatives". Let the market decide, and let ISP customers vote the local alterna
by Mordisquitos 5y ago
Surely the "high quality ISPs" would easily outcompete the "low quality local alternatives". Let the market decide, and let ISP customers vote the local alternatives out with their wallets! And if a local authority were to insist on using public money to subsidize a thoroughly outcompeted municipal broadband, then the locals will be free to vote them out with their, well... votes.
- renewiltord 5y agoA fine principle in theory but there are serious status quo effects with governments. Governments rarely ever roll back benefits that don’t pencil out. The reason being that people are loss averse. Knowing from behavioral economics about loss aversion, it is reasonable for us to want to avoid placing ourselves in a situation where it forces us into foolish policy decisions. For what it’s worth, I am generally in agreement with you, except that majority rule to extract money from some people to provide for others strikes me as poor taste. If the ones who want the service want to collectivize to pay for it, it makes sense to me that the government run that enterprise. The difference between a market and the government is that if a product is unviable with 50%+1 but viable with 99%, that 50%+1 population can force it upon the rest. That difference to me is significant enough that I don’t think claiming voting as equivalent to market spending is reasonable.