Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Minimum standard of living

lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 8:07:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What standard of living do you think the government should support for it's citizens?
Only the bare essentials? People who don't work should get clothes, food, shelter and no more?
Or should they have tv phone internet etc.
If someone contributes nothing to society, what kind of a standard of living should society provide for them?
Let me be clear I'm talking about fully able people who simply chose not to work.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 8:11:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Every attempt by government to provide basic necessities for its citizens has led to those citizens getting less of those necessities and in worse quality. Why do you think it is the government's responsibility to provide for these things? What effect do you think it will have for poor people who work for those things?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 9:41:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it should be whatever private charities allow it to be, but most people think the govt should do it so I want to know what they think.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 10:22:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
On one hand, poor people are negative externalities of the market process. On the other, they do serve a purpose as an incentive for innovation and hard-work. This incentive would probably still hold if people weren't starving and dying on the streets, so some small safety net would be appropriate- nothing major or very long-lasting, of course.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 7:48:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 8:11:52 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Every attempt by government to provide basic necessities for its citizens has led to those citizens getting less of those necessities and in worse quality. Why do you think it is the government's responsibility to provide for these things? What effect do you think it will have for poor people who work for those things?

That is pretty bold statement. I find the libertarian position that there has never been a government that has lasted over a 1,000 years because of entitlements to be intellectually dishonest.

Why is it acceptable for government to provide the charity of providing roads and interstates to everyone but it is not capable of providing food? Why can it provide $600 billion worth military and defense expenditures but not $70 billion for food stamps?

The USSR has proved it possible to implode the state by excessive military expenditures, particularly beyond means.

The point is that the government can function spending some amount of monies on some amount of programs. It is a matter of priorities and setting up smart systems to avoid growing faster than rate of inflation. It is intellectually dishonest to always portray only entitlement programs as the downfall of society. There are many more factors that go into that.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 8:04:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 8:07:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What standard of living do you think the government should support for it's citizens?
Only the bare essentials? People who don't work should get clothes, food, shelter and no more?
Or should they have tv phone internet etc.
If someone contributes nothing to society, what kind of a standard of living should society provide for them?
Let me be clear I'm talking about fully able people who simply chose not to work.

Nobody should starve in this country and nobody should go without medical care.

What gov should provide its people? (note not necessarily run the ops but pay for)
1. Defense
2. Foreign relationships and trade.
3. Roads, ports, transportation infrastructure.
4. Electric delivery infrastructure.
5. Basic health care
6. Food
7. 12th grade education, but willing to extend that to 14 grades as a sign of times. Highschool not good enough to be competitive.
8. Well funded judicial system.
9. Food and strategic oil stockpiles. (we eliminated our gov food stockpiles a couple years ago)

What needs to be eliminated.
1. Unemployment insurance should be moved to private. You either buy a private policy or you don't and you either get a benefit or you don't.
2. Social Security - needs to be moved to private insurance/pension program.
3. Post office - why keep it??????????????

The list goes on and on, but get the point. There is a good mixture of what gov can provide that helps create a better environment that will elevate more people without breaking the bank. It however has to come with the realization that the constitution and hard code written in it such as postal service are relics that can be foregone while still keeping the intent of our governmental system that does the best for the most.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 11:50:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem with the government providing essentials is that the classification of "the needy" evolves from socio-economic factors to political power factors. Basically, strong supporters of the government get fed first: See Russian History.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 1:13:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 8:04:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/18/2012 8:07:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What standard of living do you think the government should support for it's citizens?
Only the bare essentials? People who don't work should get clothes, food, shelter and no more?
Or should they have tv phone internet etc.
If someone contributes nothing to society, what kind of a standard of living should society provide for them?
Let me be clear I'm talking about fully able people who simply chose not to work.

Nobody should starve in this country and nobody should go without medical care.

What gov should provide its people? (note not necessarily run the ops but pay for)
1. Defense
2. Foreign relationships and trade.
3. Roads, ports, transportation infrastructure.
4. Electric delivery infrastructure.
5. Basic health care
6. Food
7. 12th grade education, but willing to extend that to 14 grades as a sign of times. Highschool not good enough to be competitive.

That sounds awful, the faster kids can get out of the public school system the better. We aren't falling behind because kids don't go through 14 grades, we are falling behind because the 12 they do go through don't teach them sht. At least based on the purely anecdotal evidence of my attending a public school.
You could learn all they teach you in high school in half the time.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 1:16:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 8:04:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/18/2012 8:07:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What standard of living do you think the government should support for it's citizens?
Only the bare essentials? People who don't work should get clothes, food, shelter and no more?
Or should they have tv phone internet etc.
If someone contributes nothing to society, what kind of a standard of living should society provide for them?
Let me be clear I'm talking about fully able people who simply chose not to work.

Nobody should starve in this country and nobody should go without medical care.

What gov should provide its people? (note not necessarily run the ops but pay for)
1. Defense
2. Foreign relationships and trade.
3. Roads, ports, transportation infrastructure.
4. Electric delivery infrastructure.
5. Basic health care
6. Food
7. 12th grade education, but willing to extend that to 14 grades as a sign of times. Highschool not good enough to be competitive.
8. Well funded judicial system.
9. Food and strategic oil stockpiles. (we eliminated our gov food stockpiles a couple years ago)

We had a strategic food stockpile? I thought we'd always subsidized farmers and dumped the excesses in foreign markets destroying their local agriculture industries.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 1:19:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 8:04:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
3. Post office - why keep it??????????????

Think of all those poor postal workings you're throwing out on the street, they have families and spend money. Do you want children starving because their parents are laid off?
That's the reason I hear all the time.
Of course the same can be said about every now obsolete industry in history but people tend to have trouble with actual progress.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 4:32:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 1:13:56 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 8:04:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/18/2012 8:07:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What standard of living do you think the government should support for it's citizens?
Only the bare essentials? People who don't work should get clothes, food, shelter and no more?
Or should they have tv phone internet etc.
If someone contributes nothing to society, what kind of a standard of living should society provide for them?
Let me be clear I'm talking about fully able people who simply chose not to work.

Nobody should starve in this country and nobody should go without medical care.

What gov should provide its people? (note not necessarily run the ops but pay for)
1. Defense
2. Foreign relationships and trade.
3. Roads, ports, transportation infrastructure.
4. Electric delivery infrastructure.
5. Basic health care
6. Food
7. 12th grade education, but willing to extend that to 14 grades as a sign of times. Highschool not good enough to be competitive.

That sounds awful, the faster kids can get out of the public school system the better. We aren't falling behind because kids don't go through 14 grades, we are falling behind because the 12 they do go through don't teach them sht. At least based on the purely anecdotal evidence of my attending a public school.
You could learn all they teach you in high school in half the time.

I don't disagree with that. I would clarify my thought by adding more vocational technical curriculum to high school. If it could be absorbed in 12 years, great. If not, a couple extra years would not hurt. What ever it takes to have the best qualified labor pool in the world. We missed the boat when all this coding became filled by immigrants because we didn't have enough and still don't have the trained labor.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 4:38:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 1:16:14 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 8:04:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/18/2012 8:07:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What standard of living do you think the government should support for it's citizens?
Only the bare essentials? People who don't work should get clothes, food, shelter and no more?
Or should they have tv phone internet etc.
If someone contributes nothing to society, what kind of a standard of living should society provide for them?
Let me be clear I'm talking about fully able people who simply chose not to work.

Nobody should starve in this country and nobody should go without medical care.

What gov should provide its people? (note not necessarily run the ops but pay for)
1. Defense
2. Foreign relationships and trade.
3. Roads, ports, transportation infrastructure.
4. Electric delivery infrastructure.
5. Basic health care
6. Food
7. 12th grade education, but willing to extend that to 14 grades as a sign of times. Highschool not good enough to be competitive.
8. Well funded judicial system.
9. Food and strategic oil stockpiles. (we eliminated our gov food stockpiles a couple years ago)

We had a strategic food stockpile? I thought we'd always subsidized farmers and dumped the excesses in foreign markets destroying their local agriculture industries.

We did, although it was more for humanitarian reasons when we shipped foods to various countries for various reasons. I think there is greater awareness with dumping food in any country and how it impacts local farmers. That in fact maybe why we got away from a reserve and try to source locally if possible these days.

Back in my day, in fact the gov stockpiles of foods were doled out to those in need. There were not food stamps. One got bricks of cheese and cans of pork straight from uncle sam.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 4:42:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 1:19:25 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 8:04:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
3. Post office - why keep it??????????????

Think of all those poor postal workings you're throwing out on the street, they have families and spend money. Do you want children starving because their parents are laid off?
That's the reason I hear all the time.
Of course the same can be said about every now obsolete industry in history but people tend to have trouble with actual progress.

I would respond. FedEx and UPS will hire them. Plus I do want their children to starve so my children can eat them. Might as well as have someone benefit from their misfortune.

Oh, we could reverse telemarketing laws and all the direct mail marketers could hire them to sell stuff over the phone.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 6:41:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 8:04:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/18/2012 8:07:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What standard of living do you think the government should support for it's citizens?
Only the bare essentials? People who don't work should get clothes, food, shelter and no more?
Or should they have tv phone internet etc.
If someone contributes nothing to society, what kind of a standard of living should society provide for them?
Let me be clear I'm talking about fully able people who simply chose not to work.

Nobody should starve in this country and nobody should go without medical care.

What gov should provide its people? (note not necessarily run the ops but pay for)
1. Defense
2. Foreign relationships and trade.
3. Roads, ports, transportation infrastructure.
4. Electric delivery infrastructure.
5. Basic health care
6. Food
7. 12th grade education, but willing to extend that to 14 grades as a sign of times. Highschool not good enough to be competitive.
8. Well funded judicial system.
9. Food and strategic oil stockpiles. (we eliminated our gov food stockpiles a couple years ago)

What needs to be eliminated.
1. Unemployment insurance should be moved to private. You either buy a private policy or you don't and you either get a benefit or you don't.
2. Social Security - needs to be moved to private insurance/pension program.
3. Post office - why keep it??????????????

The list goes on and on, but get the point. There is a good mixture of what gov can provide that helps create a better environment that will elevate more people without breaking the bank. It however has to come with the realization that the constitution and hard code written in it such as postal service are relics that can be foregone while still keeping the intent of our governmental system that does the best for the most.

"12th grade education, but willing to extend that to 14 grades as a sign of times."

So you are saying it now takes 14 years to teach the "enlightened" what only took the ignorent 12 years to learn?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 8:14:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 8:07:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What standard of living do you think the government should support for it's citizens?
Only the bare essentials? People who don't work should get clothes, food, shelter and no more?
Or should they have tv phone internet etc.
If someone contributes nothing to society, what kind of a standard of living should society provide for them?
Let me be clear I'm talking about fully able people who simply chose not to work.

In the US, at least for the time being, until it goes bankrupt. The minimum standard of living is anything you will tolerate. There are a million and one ways to make money to raise it. Relying on govt is probably the lowest standard of living you will live at. You are required to be poor to live off the govt. Why anyone would choose this life is beyond me. I know lawn maintenance guys who make $150,000 a year and can't read or write and barely speak English. But ambition has everything to do with that.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 8:49:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 8:14:06 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/18/2012 8:07:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What standard of living do you think the government should support for it's citizens?
Only the bare essentials? People who don't work should get clothes, food, shelter and no more?
Or should they have tv phone internet etc.
If someone contributes nothing to society, what kind of a standard of living should society provide for them?
Let me be clear I'm talking about fully able people who simply chose not to work.

In the US, at least for the time being, until it goes bankrupt. The minimum standard of living is anything you will tolerate. There are a million and one ways to make money to raise it. Relying on govt is probably the lowest standard of living you will live at. You are required to be poor to live off the govt. Why anyone would choose this life is beyond me. I know lawn maintenance guys who make $150,000 a year and can't read or write and barely speak English. But ambition has everything to do with that.

lawn maintenance for 150k a year? What are they mowing lawns for Halliburton in Iraq?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Numidious
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 10:13:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The government should provide a minimum safety net for all of it's citizens, especially the disabled, the retired, children, and other dependents, as exists in most industrialized first world societies.

The government should ensure that fundamental freedoms are ensured and that nobody is subjected to wage slavery or bad working conditions, as well as creating anti - monopoly laws.

In an anarcho - syndicalist system, these problems would not exist. In fact, co - operatives are the natural way that humans work i.e. in primordial times this is how humans were organized.

The Netherlands one of the top GDPs per capita for a reason - it has a social democratic system and this system ensures that extremes of wealth and poverty do not exist, and thus less poverty exists and more opportunity exists.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 11:47:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 4:32:26 PM, slo1 wrote:

I don't disagree with that. I would clarify my thought by adding more vocational technical curriculum to high school. If it could be absorbed in 12 years, great. If not, a couple extra years would not hurt. What ever it takes to have the best qualified labor pool in the world. We missed the boat when all this coding became filled by immigrants because we didn't have enough and still don't have the trained labor.

I don't like the idea of extending the time we have kids getting an education on the government's dime, but I like the idea of actually teaching them something useful in high school. If we aren't going to privatize education, we should cut out all the BS classes like Dance, Art, Music, etc and replace them with courses that trains juniors and seniors to be paramedics, electricians, book keepers, and programmers.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 12:13:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 11:47:44 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/19/2012 4:32:26 PM, slo1 wrote:

I don't disagree with that. I would clarify my thought by adding more vocational technical curriculum to high school. If it could be absorbed in 12 years, great. If not, a couple extra years would not hurt. What ever it takes to have the best qualified labor pool in the world. We missed the boat when all this coding became filled by immigrants because we didn't have enough and still don't have the trained labor.

I don't like the idea of extending the time we have kids getting an education on the government's dime, but I like the idea of actually teaching them something useful in high school. If we aren't going to privatize education, we should cut out all the BS classes like Dance, Art, Music, etc and replace them with courses that trains juniors and seniors to be paramedics, electricians, book keepers, and programmers.

Some technical high schools actually do that.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 1:14:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 12:13:37 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/19/2012 11:47:44 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/19/2012 4:32:26 PM, slo1 wrote:

I don't disagree with that. I would clarify my thought by adding more vocational technical curriculum to high school. If it could be absorbed in 12 years, great. If not, a couple extra years would not hurt. What ever it takes to have the best qualified labor pool in the world. We missed the boat when all this coding became filled by immigrants because we didn't have enough and still don't have the trained labor.

I don't like the idea of extending the time we have kids getting an education on the government's dime, but I like the idea of actually teaching them something useful in high school. If we aren't going to privatize education, we should cut out all the BS classes like Dance, Art, Music, etc and replace them with courses that trains juniors and seniors to be paramedics, electricians, book keepers, and programmers.

Some technical high schools actually do that.

Yeah, I was watching one of Stossel's episodes that mentioned them. They sound like a great idea. My school spends way too much money on "electives" that don't actually do anything for students other than give them off time from solid courses while getting a grade.

In my opinion, they might as well use the money to train them to do something that could turn into a legitimate career later on.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 1:47:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 1:43:50 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Whatever essentials have the effect of increasing general prosperity.

So internet but no XBox?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:38:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 11:47:44 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/19/2012 4:32:26 PM, slo1 wrote:

I don't disagree with that. I would clarify my thought by adding more vocational technical curriculum to high school. If it could be absorbed in 12 years, great. If not, a couple extra years would not hurt. What ever it takes to have the best qualified labor pool in the world. We missed the boat when all this coding became filled by immigrants because we didn't have enough and still don't have the trained labor.

I don't like the idea of extending the time we have kids getting an education on the government's dime, but I like the idea of actually teaching them something useful in high school. If we aren't going to privatize education, we should cut out all the BS classes like Dance, Art, Music, etc and replace them with courses that trains juniors and seniors to be paramedics, electricians, book keepers, and programmers.

Amen brother. You are talking too much common sense, which unfortunately disqualifies you from running the educational system.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 9:29:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 1:47:11 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 9/20/2012 1:43:50 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Whatever essentials have the effect of increasing general prosperity.

So internet but no XBox?

Well internet could be used to find a job if we're talking unemployed people here. (Sorry, just skimmed the thread.)
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 2:37:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 1:47:11 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 9/20/2012 1:43:50 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Whatever essentials have the effect of increasing general prosperity.

So internet but no XBox?

Lol, yes actually. Universal internet access would do a lot of good. Although, I don't know for sure. If it were established and then shown with proper evidence to be a bad idea, then I would change my mind.

I think there's a lot of things we should test.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 3:40:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 2:37:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/20/2012 1:47:11 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 9/20/2012 1:43:50 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Whatever essentials have the effect of increasing general prosperity.

So internet but no XBox?

Lol, yes actually. Universal internet access would do a lot of good. Although, I don't know for sure. If it were established and then shown with proper evidence to be a bad idea, then I would change my mind.

I think there's a lot of things we should test.

I am wondering what you mean when you say Universal Internet Acces, because even if you have acces you will need a computer to use it. So should it be something like public computers with internet acces at the liberary, public wifi in all major cities or just country wide G4?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 4:33:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 3:40:03 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 9/20/2012 2:37:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/20/2012 1:47:11 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 9/20/2012 1:43:50 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Whatever essentials have the effect of increasing general prosperity.

So internet but no XBox?

Lol, yes actually. Universal internet access would do a lot of good. Although, I don't know for sure. If it were established and then shown with proper evidence to be a bad idea, then I would change my mind.

I think there's a lot of things we should test.

I am wondering what you mean when you say Universal Internet Acces, because even if you have acces you will need a computer to use it. So should it be something like public computers with internet acces at the liberary, public wifi in all major cities or just country wide G4?

Probably only complete public wifi, as to keep the computer market competitive.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 4:39:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 4:33:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/20/2012 3:40:03 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 9/20/2012 2:37:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/20/2012 1:47:11 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 9/20/2012 1:43:50 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Whatever essentials have the effect of increasing general prosperity.

So internet but no XBox?

Lol, yes actually. Universal internet access would do a lot of good. Although, I don't know for sure. If it were established and then shown with proper evidence to be a bad idea, then I would change my mind.

I think there's a lot of things we should test.

I am wondering what you mean when you say Universal Internet Acces, because even if you have acces you will need a computer to use it. So should it be something like public computers with internet acces at the liberary, public wifi in all major cities or just country wide G4?

Probably only complete public wifi, as to keep the computer market competitive.

I still think people will buy computers even if they have acces to public computers at public buildings ;-)
so should this wifi be everywhere or just a few places, because it is proberly hard to get out to the country side.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 4:53:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 4:39:07 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
I still think people will buy computers even if they have acces to public computers at public buildings ;-)
so should this wifi be everywhere or just a few places, because it is proberly hard to get out to the country side.

I would say everywhere. It would be a good infrastructure project. Unless, however, it were proved that such signals increase risk of cancer, which some have argued. I haven't seen any compelling evidence though.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord