But if I wish to purchase internet from a different provider, I still have to subsidize other people's internet. I'm forced to pay for something whether I use it or not.
Everyone gets to go to school for free, your taxes should be thought of as paying off your own education.
It seems silly to me that someone goes through public schools, then doesn't have kids and starts complaining that schools don't benefit them and they shouldn't have to pay.
What makes you think this is the correct perspective? Many Americans had parents who were educated abroad or not at all (if I'm paying for my education, what did my parents pay for?). Further, my education was less expensive than my education-focused-taxes are now - if I really were paying just for myself, shouldn't it be an inflation adjusted amount? Instead, I pay what it costs to educate a kid today.
We're not 100% keeping score here: some kids will die they day after they graduate high school, but on the whole people start lives as children, have a period of productivity and then are too old to really be productive.
I think it's not good to be bitter about supporting the young or old while you are working because you have been and will be (to some rough approximation) supported by the previous and the next generation.
Roughly 15 years of education roughly $5k annually at an interest rate roughly set at 15% interest (you have no credit history or school grades to showcase your credibility).
Roughly owing $150k at the end of high school, and building until you can pay it off.
Are you sure you want to make the argument that a public school education cost you many many times what a private school education would paid over a lifetime of taxes?
Of course not. There is nothing wrong with the argument you are paying for other people's kids. You are. It's a net good for society. I personal don't want roving gangs of uneducated youths who today are confined to schools all day, this is a big win for everyone. The day-prison system works well unless you're really interested in high quality education.
Deal with it, don't make weird excuses and pretend scenarios (like mine above).
I know that's how taxes work. The point is that there's no reason that should apply to purchasing internet.
Even if you think it should be government provided, that doesn't mean it needs to be funded in that way. Many government utilities are billed to the consumer based on usage. There's no real public good in forcing me to pay for other people's internet.
Something potentially offering a good to the public is not irrefutable argument that the government should do it.
You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community, you can then take advantage of it or not - that's your prerogative.
I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I get my money back?
Government mediating equal access to last mile lines and funding their construction — probably good to everyone.
Government running consumer ISPs end-to-end is a tougher sell.
Private business should justify itself by doing better and ensuring nobody wants the public version -- which also ensures the public version stays cheap. [Expensive per unit, but inexpensive overall]
>" You can get you own armed guards - but you will still subsidize other people's police force."
Why? This is an especially open question in areas with large police forces and high crime rates, or histories of police abuse of power.
>"You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community, you can then take advantage of it or not - that's your prerogative."
Again, why? What's 'a minimum service to the community'? Do you mean public goods, or services that have positive externalities, or things that help the poor?
>"I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I get my money back?"
Maybe! Depends on your beliefs surrounding political authority and ethics.
Perhaps you might do better to point to your ethical framework, and highlight what it means with respect to municipal fiber.
Not should it. An ideal government functions to help the people not individual persons.
I see national defense and public schools as very different. Defense is a non-excludable, fixed cost, so-called ‘public good’. Primary and secondary education are not public goods, though they may be long-term investments (which defense is not).
I am not saying that I ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ either, but they’re very different.
>”An ideal government functions to help the people not individual persons.”
I’ve never heard this argument before, could you please elaborate, or point to a good source for your “ideal government” ethical framework?
Ironically a functioning police service is a necessary condition for far-libertarianism to exist. It is a self extinguishing ideology.
Especially if the service eventually becomes revenue positive and pays for itself, possibly providing non-tax revenue into the municipal general fund and lowering your tax load.
To play devils advocate, not everyone wants or needs internet. My grandmother has buried fiber available straight to her rural home. I'm sure it cost tens of thousands of dollars to get that buried fiber run a mile down her dead-end road. She's never owned a computer and never will. Neither do any of the Amish families in the area.
They still pay taxes that fund all of that.
My grandmother became interested in computing and learned how to use the internet in her 80's before she passed away a decade later. The number of people who don't require or want internet access going into the future is going to be very few.
So, there is clear precedent for not paying some common taxes and not using the benefits.
> Municipal broadband is hostile to business.
I think 'business' in second sentence means business its competing with( ISP) not business in general.
But in general it discourages any business by signaling that govt might swoop in and kill your business that you build over decades by starting it own that isnt' bound by the same pressures of market.
Government is going to swoop in and provide free nail care.
Government is going to swoop in and provide free Mexican food.
Government is going to swoop in and paint homes for free.
Etc.
I'm all for having strategic nail care. I'd grab some free nail care, and if it's any good, I'd be a customer of paid nail care
Government is funded by taxes from the people who live in the municipality. Even if they offer it for "free", everyone in the area gets the benefit of it. This is like roads. Most communities pay for roads out of taxes or bonds levied on the community. None of that is a handout, on top of that, most places will still require you to pay for internet.
> Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage.
This isn't necessarily bad, and requires voters be more involved in local politics to ensure that infrastructure in general is being kept up.
> Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access.
This repeats the first point, but, yes it's a tax, but to say that not everyone benefits? This past year showed how important it was for every student to have broadband access to attend remote learning. Seems hard to argue at this point that not everyone would benefit.
> Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into.
To ISPs possibly, but not all businesses. Counter point, municipal broadband will benefit many businesses by ensuring that they have high-quality fast internet, that allows them to keep in better touch with their customers. This is pro-business, not anti.