• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I'd like to see the government involved in more public needs

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
58,398
Reaction score
29,693
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Imagine if, seeing the internet coming - which the government already funded - the government created a public system for transferring money on it. It would be cheaper if not free for people, and more importantly, we wouldn't have Elon Musk and Peter Thiel as mega billionaires using that money to attack our democracy.

Imagine public internet service - and public satellite systems so countries didn't have to fund and beg Elon Musk for Starlink, and we weren't funding him to launch rockets. Obviously healthcare could be improve for far less cost. And so on. There's still most of the economy find to be private, but a lot more should be done for people as public services.
 
So you want to live in a communist country?
 
I'm fine with public internet. I'd also like to see single payer and a public sector energy production competitor.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
Right. Publicly supported infrastructure is decidedly Communist. All those roads and stuff. Those filthy Reds.
Click to expand...
What would you call the government taking over the internet so they can control what people can access?
 
Girlpower said:
What would you call the government taking over the internet so they can control what people can access?
Click to expand...
You mean like banning porn?

The Constitution prohibits the government from controlling what people can access, regardless of who "owns" the internet. At least, that's my position, we'll see what this Heritage Foundation-stacked SCOTUS has to say about that today.
 
Hard pass.

I imagine that those services/products would become decidedly worse should we move in that direction.

The reason the USA has achieved the standard of living and influence it has is that we have generally resisted this type of policy. Although, regretfully we have been moving in that direction since the time of Woodrow Wilson and perhaps earlier.
 
I generally agree that internet service would be worse if provided by the government rather than a competitive private sector. The private sector does it cheaply and well. Let's spend our finite financial resources on other things.
 
Girlpower said:
What would you call the government taking over the internet so they can control what people can access?
Click to expand...
Much of the infrastructure in this country is already heavily subsidized by the government.

Has been, in fact.

Including the same lines that allow internet signal to be transferred from point A to point B..especially in rural areas where there wouldn’t be enough customers to incentivize private expansion without government subsidy.

And yet…no “taking over the internet” by the government.

Weird, huh?
 
Cameron said:
I generally agree that internet service would be worse if provided by the government rather than a competitive private sector. The private sector does it cheaply and well. Let's spend our finite financial resources on other things.
Click to expand...
The people in rural areas who wouldn’t have connection to the internet - but even to phones and/or tv back in the day - would probably change their minds if the govt subsidies hadn’t existed
 
Exactly, why would anyone want the government to run the internet?

If a democrat is in office suddenly all information about God would be off limits.
 
Girlpower said:
What would you call the government taking over the internet so they can control what people can access?
Click to expand...
Who says they would? I supposed you'd say if the government built roads, they'd create something called "police" who tyrannicized you and told you where you are allowed to drive?
 
Cameron said:
At least, that's my position, we'll see what this Heritage Foundation-stacked SCOTUS has to say about that today.
Click to expand...

Yep, if they go with intermediate scrutiny, then that would mean content based restrictions at the state level.

Ain't democracy grand? Not only does government tax the living shit out of you, it also acts like your mommy by preventing you from seeing naughty pictures.
 
Craig234 said:
Who says they would? I supposed you'd say if the government built roads, they'd create something called "police" who tyrannicized you and told you where you are allowed to drive?
Click to expand...
Did police come after roads?
 
Craig234 said:
they'd create something called "police" who tyrannicized you
Click to expand...

Then you'd be correct. No one, not even a cop lover, feel "safer" when being followed by some stupid pig with a ticket quota.
 
Girlpower said:
Exactly, why would anyone want the government to run the internet?
Click to expand...

For *more* privacy rights and lower cost and universal availability, for a start.

Girlpower said:
If a democrat is in office suddenly all information about God would be off limits.
Click to expand...

That's as delusional as... well, it's hard to find an analogy. But it keeps you in your right-wing misinformation bubble voting how the oligarchs want.
 
Girlpower said:
Did police come after roads?
Click to expand...
The Highway Patrol did. Whoosh, you missed the point, I'm not shocked. By the way, when was "before roads"?
 
Girlpower said:
Exactly, why would anyone want the government to run the internet?

If a democrat is in office suddenly all information about God would be off limits.
Click to expand...
I've never heard of any Democrat proposing that. And not even the most liberal SCOTUS judges would permit it. Banning/restricting porn is definitely on the GOP agenda, though.
 
Craig234 said:
The Highway Patrol did. Whoosh, you missed the point, I'm not shocked. By the way, when was "before roads"?
Click to expand...
Another good question I was thinking about.

I'd guess the road would have to have come first, or did it?

Did Native American tribes have some version of police? I'm sure they must have.

So maybe the police came first.
 
Well, that's false right-wing ideology. I'd discuss it but have found right-wingers who have drunk the kool-aid can't be talked to rationally. Just look at the Post Office and Social Security, massive waste that created billionaires from the corruption!
 
Girlpower said:
Another good question I was thinking about.

I'd guess the road would have to have come first, or did it?

Did Native American tribes have some version of police? I'm sure they must have.

So maybe the police came first.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I wasted time giving you information in another thread, no need for more.
 
Cameron said:
I've never heard of any Democrat proposing that. And not even the most liberal SCOTUS judges would permit it. Banning/restricting porn is definitely on the GOP agenda, though.
Click to expand...
The OP suggested it.

I called him a communist for doing so.

I believe I am correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…