Sometimes the benefit comes in the form of a stable society. The idea that there is a clear a 1-to-1 transactional benefit is myopic.

Are you saying farmers would revolt if their internet was slow.

I’m saying society can only tolerate a certain amount of inequality.

Society can clearly tolerate huge amounts of inequality and has done in the past, far moreso than what we have today (kings vs peasants). Also see my comment above for my views on people who claim to speak for all of society.

I didn’t claim society can’t tolerate any inequality. The question is how much it can tolerate and remain stable. There’s an argument that feudal systems you mentioned are now longer the norm because that inequality led to alternate systems.

Regarding your first response, you may want to visit the HN guidelines regarding shallow dismissals.

Clearly it's a lot more than slow internet for farmers?

Feudal systems didn't end because of inequality, they were the opposite: the feudal system ended when serfs were allowed to enclose their communal land and were given it as private property. It went from an equal system that suffered a tragedy of the commons ("the commons" literally referring to the common land that existed under the feudal system), to a system of private farmers who were able to capture some of the wealth from their effort and land.

>Clearly it's a lot more than slow internet for farmers?

Again, I'm not sure if the intent of this is another shallow dismissal or if you're failing to make the connection I'm trying to communicate.

>the feudal system ended when serfs were allowed to enclose their communal land and were given it as private property.

Why do you think the nobility allowed this? History tells us it's rare that a consolidated power willingly gives up that power. Is it possible that the inequality of rights and taxation led to the nobility's hand being forced here?

The parent is correct.

Anyway you look at it, many historic societies existed for hundreds of years with levels of inequality vastly greater than experienced currently by any farmer in the U.S.

The parent can be correct and still miss the forest for the trees. Too much of of HN seems focused on being pedantically correct while missing the larger context.

You are using the current situation of a farmer (who has access to the internet and other regulated monopolies) as evidence for the case against those very services. If you remove that level of access, I don't think you have the point you think you do.

It's like pointing to someone who gets government assistance and saying "See? There isn't enough quality of life differential to warrant them getting assistance." The very fact that they receive assistance is exactly why that level of discrepancy is lower.

If you're saying that its possible that greater inequality can be tolerated, it's missing the point. I'm not stating a claim about an absolute level; I'm saying society should be aware that a tipping point exists. The same is said for taxation; people can point to past eras where people paid a higher effective tax rate and claim that as evidence that the current level should be raised. That doesn't negate the point that there is some rate that will make society relatively unstable.

> I'm saying society should be aware that a tipping point exists.

Why do you believe such a thing exists in the U.S.?

I personally find the arguments for mutually assured destruction very plausible.

Whether it's between countries or between factions within a country with WMDs, a real fighting war will practically wipe out the citizenry, including the vast majority of farmers and certainly everyone living in cities.

>Why do you believe such a thing exists in the U.S.?

Because it exists for every civilization and essentially every system. The U.S. is not inherently exceptional in this regard.

And, yes, MAD is plausible and also a strong deterrent. But a central crux of the theory is that the system is inhabited by rational agents. Humans can even be modeled as rational agents most of the time, but I don't believe they adhere to this model all of the time. Behavioral psychology seems to bear this out.

> Because it exists for every civilization and essentially every system. The U.S. is not inherently exceptional in this regard.

How does that follow? Clearly the presence of WMDs changed the game.

I also don't see how rationality, or it's absence, relates to this point?

Not knowing much about the REA, I doubt humanitarian arguments were behind it. I imagine it was successfully sold to Congress as a farm subsidy. Rural areas were where the farms were, and farms needed electricity.

My point was that helping some minority often does help society as a whole.

The ADA, strictly speaking, only helps those with disabilities. But guess what? Having people with disabilities be able to access goods, services, and work just like anyone else helps society as a whole.

I don't really expect a straight answer to this, because the sort of people who loftily declare what is best for society as a whole usually just get angry instead of answering, but how do you justify the claim that this helps society as a whole? The ADA helps the minority by making the lives of the majority worse (higher costs, taxes, more effort etc). Making that tradeoff might be a highly moral position and justifiable on that basis alone, but there's no way to justify it on the basis of helping society as a whole. Society isn't a single thing that can be said to be helped or hindered. It helps a few people by hindering the many. It'd be better to just admit that and then argue on moral grounds, like via reference to religion.

Not the OP, but I think part of the answer is that society benefits from ensuring a certain amount of baseline rights, privileges, and opportunities are open to all its citizens, even when it's inconvenient. It's not just a moral position, it also helps ensure one group doesn't consolidate power and resources.

For example, I would want to make sure you still have access to voting even if it costs a disproportionately high amount of money to ensure that right for you or if it's much more probable that you would vote against my personal selfish interest. We generally want a society with a shared set of core principles rather than just a purely transactional society.

The ADA also helps anyone who has kids and a stroller. Also helps people when they are injured and immobile for a time. Dealing with these things in other countries makes you appreciate the ADA so much more.

You’re right I’m not thinking of something super objective (I’m also not particularly interested in an objective measure of what’s good for society), but here are a few ways the ADA makes society better:

1. More people are able to contribute to society in ways they were unable to before. Personally, my life is better because I’ve learned from people of various abilities. That wouldn’t be possible if my school and workplaces were unable to accommodate them.

2. We all get older, we all lose abilities as we age. The ADA is helpful to literally every elderly person. Not to mention all able-bodied people are one accident away from requiring ADA amenities.

3. As other comments mentioned, some ADA regulations help more than just the disabled.

4. I don’t expect this to be a majority HN perspective, but I believe we’re only as free as the worst off in our society. Lifting the floor is always a good thing, in my opinion.

With that same argumentation, it can be argued that moving food from rural areas into cities is doing something for the benefit of people living in cities, not society as a whole.

Also, internet and such for rural people benefits society as a whole, indirectly. For example, better crop yields (Through better access to information) and such.

So, I think your argument is deeply flawed.

The difference is that food is paid for on the free market. Government infrastructure isn't.

But if you take a look at the massive amounts of subsidies (to both farmers and consumers), you realize food (in the US, at least) is not a “free market”. Same with fuel, etc.