4 ms·

Does anyone have any other ideas? Public funding for a noncommercial web. Websites that sell things have no problem paying for themselves. The noncommercial we

Does anyone have any other ideas? Public funding for a noncommercial web. Websites that sell things have no problem paying for themselves. The noncommercial web would be a place for people to socialize, share media from their lives, and enjoy their hobbies. Amateur radio is noncommercial. We should be able to have a similar regime on the web. It shouldn’t even really be that expensive to host. With peer to peer protocols there should be no need for paid hosting companies. Government could mandate that ISPs facilitate self hosting. With IPv6 every device should have static, publicly-routable IPs.

dotancohen 4y ago
So, government intervention then? I think that I dislike that no less than I dislike the current status quo.
- prophesi 4y ago
  The actual status quo is Big Tech & ISP lobbyists having their way with any government intervention or lack thereof.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mattigames 4y ago
  Everything needed for you to post that comment had to be heavily subsidized by your local government, almost every single piece of infrastructure involved, even the protocol itself was subsidized by the US government. It reminds me of that great quote: "Libertarians are like house cats, they naively believe in their fierceness and independence while being fully dependant in a system they don't understand or appreciate".
  - lumb63 4y ago
    Can you really blame libertarians for wanting a smaller government? Sure, the government subsidizes some useful activities, but more than half of US government tax dollars go to income redistribution or welfare programs.
    - creata 4y ago
      Sorry, I don't know anything about the US, but according to this one 2020 pie chart [1], 15% of the federal budget was spent on pensions/social security, and 12% was spent on welfare (the "Other" is "Agriculture, Energy, General Government Services, and International Affairs"). That doesn't add up to "more than half", so can you clarify? Edit: and, I suppose, it's a little weird to insinuate that welfare programs aren't "useful activities". [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Total_US_Government_Spending_Breakdown.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Total_US_Govern...
      - lumb63 4y ago
        My apologies. You’re right, my math was off. I based my data off that exact chart and counted “healthcare”, “social security”, and “welfare” in my statement and just had my math incorrect. The healthcare is Medicare/Medicaid which workers pay into to give themselves health insurance in old age and for the disabled, etc. Social security works similarly. I suppose it is unfair to classify them as not “useful activities”. I just think that they’re by definition negative for society. Individuals can get higher rates of return in private accounts than they can in the governments coffers. They don’t have to pay as high of administrative fees (since they are the administrators). From the perspective of people who are always having wealth redistributed away from them, these programs are unlikely to be perceived as “useful”, is what I meant. I doubt you’d see a libertarian who is a beneficiary of government programs, is more what I meant to say. EDIT: now that I think about it, there is another dimension to this. It’s not fair to say the above about high income earners without mentioning that a portion of US spending is financed entirely by debt and has been for many years. We are forcing future generations to subsidize our present-day spending. This is some of why there is a common anti-boomer sentiment amongst millennials: they prospered racking up the national debt, ignoring climate change, etc., and millennials are left to foot the bill. I’d imagine this causes a non-negligible anti-government lean to some younger folks.
        chongli 4y ago
        I doubt you’d see a libertarian who is a beneficiary of government programs, is more what I meant to say. Don’t libertarians drive on public roads? Don’t they shower and do laundry with water from public utilities? Don’t they shop at Walmart where the employees are subsidized by welfare? I’m sure plenty of libertarians own businesses whose foot traffic is brought to their door on public sidewalks and roads. This is what is meant by the cat quote. All of the infrastructure of society is paid for by public spending. Libertarians ignore all this and complain about misappropriation and government waste. Very few libertarians talk about what it would really be like to live in an “anarcho-capitalist paradise”. The answer is it wouldn’t exist for long. Pay a private corporation for everything the government does and it becomes the new government. Don’t be surprised when it starts pushing you around. I think the reality is that most libertarians don’t want that. They want to benefit from the status quo but find ways to escape paying for it. That’s fine, everyone does that to some extent. It’s just annoying when they get so self-righteous about it.

dotancohen 4y ago

So, government intervention then? I think that I dislike that no less than I dislike the current status quo.

prophesi 4y ago
The actual status quo is Big Tech & ISP lobbyists having their way with any government intervention or lack thereof.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mattigames 4y ago
Everything needed for you to post that comment had to be heavily subsidized by your local government, almost every single piece of infrastructure involved, even the protocol itself was subsidized by the US government. It reminds me of that great quote: "Libertarians are like house cats, they naively believe in their fierceness and independence while being fully dependant in a system they don't understand or appreciate".
- lumb63 4y ago
  Can you really blame libertarians for wanting a smaller government? Sure, the government subsidizes some useful activities, but more than half of US government tax dollars go to income redistribution or welfare programs.
  - creata 4y ago
    Sorry, I don't know anything about the US, but according to this one 2020 pie chart [1], 15% of the federal budget was spent on pensions/social security, and 12% was spent on welfare (the "Other" is "Agriculture, Energy, General Government Services, and International Affairs"). That doesn't add up to "more than half", so can you clarify? Edit: and, I suppose, it's a little weird to insinuate that welfare programs aren't "useful activities". [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Total_US_Government_Spending_Breakdown.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Total_US_Govern...
    - lumb63 4y ago
      My apologies. You’re right, my math was off. I based my data off that exact chart and counted “healthcare”, “social security”, and “welfare” in my statement and just had my math incorrect. The healthcare is Medicare/Medicaid which workers pay into to give themselves health insurance in old age and for the disabled, etc. Social security works similarly. I suppose it is unfair to classify them as not “useful activities”. I just think that they’re by definition negative for society. Individuals can get higher rates of return in private accounts than they can in the governments coffers. They don’t have to pay as high of administrative fees (since they are the administrators). From the perspective of people who are always having wealth redistributed away from them, these programs are unlikely to be perceived as “useful”, is what I meant. I doubt you’d see a libertarian who is a beneficiary of government programs, is more what I meant to say. EDIT: now that I think about it, there is another dimension to this. It’s not fair to say the above about high income earners without mentioning that a portion of US spending is financed entirely by debt and has been for many years. We are forcing future generations to subsidize our present-day spending. This is some of why there is a common anti-boomer sentiment amongst millennials: they prospered racking up the national debt, ignoring climate change, etc., and millennials are left to foot the bill. I’d imagine this causes a non-negligible anti-government lean to some younger folks.
      - chongli 4y ago
        I doubt you’d see a libertarian who is a beneficiary of government programs, is more what I meant to say. Don’t libertarians drive on public roads? Don’t they shower and do laundry with water from public utilities? Don’t they shop at Walmart where the employees are subsidized by welfare? I’m sure plenty of libertarians own businesses whose foot traffic is brought to their door on public sidewalks and roads. This is what is meant by the cat quote. All of the infrastructure of society is paid for by public spending. Libertarians ignore all this and complain about misappropriation and government waste. Very few libertarians talk about what it would really be like to live in an “anarcho-capitalist paradise”. The answer is it wouldn’t exist for long. Pay a private corporation for everything the government does and it becomes the new government. Don’t be surprised when it starts pushing you around. I think the reality is that most libertarians don’t want that. They want to benefit from the status quo but find ways to escape paying for it. That’s fine, everyone does that to some extent. It’s just annoying when they get so self-righteous about it.