I don't think it trivializes human rights at all.

Say for instance you have a third world country led by a petty dictator who declares it illegal to discuss politics with foreigners (e.g. Libya). If such a government set up a state television network and a state internet to spread lies and propaganda, while banning it's citizens from accessing the world wide web and talking to foreigners, then yes, I would say that a human right had been violated

Basically, if you aren't economically able to provide access to the internet for your citizens, you aren't committing a great injustice or war crime or whatever. But if you could provide it, and you choose to ban it instead, then that would sound like something wrong to me.

Bullshit. The Libyans can't throw out Qaddafi and his supporters without help. They have air and land superiority ... fighter jets, tanks, and a well-organized and disciplined infantry. I have also heard reports that Qaddafi's forces have attacked the rebels with chemical gas, although this may not be true.

The rebels are mostly civilians and their best weapons are RPGs. Their leader is an IT worker with no military experience. They were losing ground, too, with the Libyan military approaching the rebellion's stronghold. If captured, they would likely be slaughtered.

As someone who opposed both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, I think these cruise missiles were well-spent.

What in the world made you think that gtall disagrees with assisting the rebels? Nothing in his post indicated that.

If anything I think he was trying to suggest that the U.S. decision to intervene wasn't motivated by a desire for oil.

Stop creating explanations for the existence of life and the universe without evidence and then trying to make the available evidence fit into your explanation. That is a sure-fire way to end up with a faulty scientific process and a biased opinion to boot.

Sincerely, an agnostic.

One of the great things about universities - if you want a random scientific article you can often go online and download it, as opposed to coughing up $30

So true.

Virtual reality casual sex with no chances of catching an STD.

Of course, you might get ANOTHER kind of virus ...

"Attention! Your cerebral cortex is infected with a virus! Upgrade to the premium version of Brainsecure immediately for the low price of 1,999 credits!"

If you're being even remotely serious, then you are an idiot.

Making a few quick bucks isn't worth ruining your reputation, not in the long run, no matter what your profession is. That's just a great way to get yourself blacklisted and disrespected by the community.

This is like, the only remotely valid criticism of OP's post that I've read so far -- although the Keynesian model would suggest that perhaps making you pay to develop infrastructure that everyone can benefit from, including those with low incomes who don't have a high tax liability, is a good investment that will make us all better off as a whole by reducing unemployment and crime while increasing productivity.

Everybody else is whining saying "why do we have to pay for it twice!?"

They seem not to realize that the network can't be maintained for free. Do they want the gov't to start paying the wages of all the telecom's workers as well, or would they like to start paying a bigger monthly cost for their telephone service? That is essentially their choice if they don't want to feel like they're getting "double-billed." Just because the gov't picks up part of the tab for a new project and you pick up the tab for the maintenance if you decide to use the thing, doesn't mean that you're necessarily getting ripped off (of course, you probably are, because this is the gov't we're talking about here, but still).

And you managed to come across as condescending at the same time.

The network doesn't run itself for free. It requires maintenance and repairs. That is what your monthly service fees pay for -- the gov't subsidy, at least in theory (I don't know how well the telecoms are managed), is used to pay simply for the installation of new lines. If you don't want to pay a monthly service fee, then you're going to have to support all of the company's employees and other business expenses with tax money instead.

As a side note, Obama's "infrastructure" plans as you describe them in the Chinese comparison are actually straight out of FDR's "new deal" legislation that was enacted in 1933. Does your knowledge of American history only go back to the beginning of WW2, or what?