Yes and no.... for example, they realized a national company to deliver mail was necessary (as opposed to a bunch of local ones trying to work together), but they don't run it. It's USPS.com and not USPS.gov for a reason. And while they realized the necessity of some infrastructure, they did not give power to the federal government to do it, they quite explicitly left it in the hands of local governments.

If something's subsidized for me, then it's already subsidized for them... so what are we talking about?

Even if that were true, we're not talking about providing internet, not "broadband." And what's amazing to me is how all of those poor people have somehow managed to get jobs at McDonalds and WalMart without this initiative.

I'm not talking about a "work house," it's a place to live... if people don't want to live there, they get a job and move out. That's the incentive to not be lazy while, at the same time, providing the necessities for people who simply can't work.

Many have also supported it. There are some minor factual disputes (like the number of words spoken during the day), but the fact that some parts of women's brains are different sizes than men's (some bigger, some smaller) is not in dispute, nor is the fact that, during puberty, males and females are subject to high levels of different hormones.

Just because you WANT an egalitarian society doesn't mean one can magically exist, or that we're all basically the same... if you want to ignore scientific fact that certain parts of the female brain are different sizes than men's, then you're really no better than creationists who think the world is 6k years old.

No, the real difference here is that the people that don't want to subsidize poor people think the poor people are not inferior, they're mostly just making terrible life choices - we thing they could do better. What liberals seem to believe is akin to the "soft bigotry of low expectations" applied to lower class. What I want is for people to help themselves. Given the realization that some people simply can't, I accept assistance programs... but not "broadband."

Government IS bad... necessary, but BAD. That's why the founders of the U.S. wrote the U.S. Constitution - specifically to limit government. That the government couldn't help but corrupt, side step, or shred the constitution is only proof.

And why should only rich people be able to watch internet porn? Do we want a truly equitable society or not?

Votes.

I'm sorry, but "Obama haters" didn't make this up. My problem is that Bush Jr. is just as liberal at handing things out as Obama, but democrats still convinced all the poor people that it was Obama.

Then it seems like the poor people working there already have internet, then, don't they? Most poor people working crap jobs like that seem to have smartphones, somehow. I think the keywords here are "broadband" vs. "internet." Why exactly do they need broadband?

Exactly... food, shelter, clothing - sufficient to preserve health. Not internet.

Of course it will.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, though - what are most people going to do when handed free internet? Facebook? And of course they can afford a computer to do all this with, right? Or is that the next thing we'll be handing out?

Because no service the government provides for people is not being abused, and the easier it to abuse, the more people are doing it. It's impossible for handouts to NOT be abused, even when you give food stamps that have limited purpose uses, people sell it for pennies on the dollar to buy drugs/alcohol/tobacco.

I consider myself a libertarian, but also believe that you can't just let people go without the basic necessities... however, the only really acceptable way is one that can't be abused. If that means you do something like converting closed military bases into basic shelter, and serve quality food at regular meal times, and provide bulk/cheap clothing, instead of handing out money, then so be it. Provide public transportation so people can get to work and work their way out of the "poor house," help them all you want - but people have to put effort into it, and if they're caught abusing the system, then they should be on their own. Internet access is NOT a basic necessity unless you're a slashnerd... plenty of people of means still live without it.