> And nobody has a “right” to have the government provide them free access to any particular information in public libraries. I might have a difference idea of

> And nobody has a “right” to have the government provide them free access to any particular information in public libraries. I might have a difference idea of democracy from you, but this feels a deep undemocratic way to go. Democracy dies in the darkness, free access to information is one of the cornerstones of democracy. All democracies have some sort of a public archive which distributes knowledge to the general public, most of the time for free. In the absence of such system you will at best have aristocracy. So yes, if we want to live in a democracy—or at least how I understand democracy—everybody should have the “right” to have the government provide them with free access to any particular information. Particularly in the school system as a part of public and universal education (another important aspect of democracy). Regarding the public transit analogy. Ideally in a democratic society where transportation equity is provided, the public should be entitled to provide input into the transportation system, but everybody living inside a reasonable density should be provided with some transit option (I live in a pretty rural place near Seattle but still I have two bus lines near my home which go to two ferry terminals, where there are four ferry lines, I consider my transportation needs “provided for” in the system). However in this ideal democracy, the input only goes to policy makers, who ultimately decide (or curate) frequency, routes, etc. based on both these inputs, but also experts in the field. If everybody is covered, and riders have some input, I would call that system democratic. What wouldn’t be democratic is if non-riding taxpayers would decide that people in certain area (say Vashon Island) shouldn’t get any buses. Or that buses should be banned in some areas (say between Woodenville and Bothell).