Opinion of the Issue, part 72

[Associate Justice PiT]

32	Criminal Trials by Jury	81.3; 9.4; 0.0; 3.1; 6.3
1	Women in the Military	83.3; 5.6; 11.1; 0.0; 0.0
67	Compulsory Sexual Health Education	71.4; 17.1; 0.0; 0.0; 11.4
49	Permit Plea Bargaining	83.3; 4.2; 8.3; 4.2; 0.0
38	Aid for Importing Prescription Drugs	40.0; 46.7; 0.0; 6.7; 6.7
37	Water as a Public Good	80.0; 6.7; 0.0; 0.0; 13.3
9	Legalize Prostitution	73.1; 11.5; 0.0; 3.8; 11.5
19	Legalize Marijuana	74.0; 10.0; 0.0; 6.0; 10.0
31	Jury Nullification	79.2; 4.2; 4.2; 4.2; 8.3
6	Allow Gay Marriage	75.9; 6.9; 0.0; 0.0; 17.2
53	Allow Airlines to Charge for Passengers who Require Extra Seats	73.0; 8.1; 0.0; 5.4; 13.5
55	Legalize Brothels	70.6; 8.8; 5.9; 2.9; 11.8
25	Job Outsourcing	58.6; 20.7; 6.9; 0.0; 13.8
70	Subsidize Public Transportation	66.7; 12.1; 3.0; 12.1; 6.1
17	Government-Sponsored Health Care	62.5; 15.0; 0.0; 7.5; 15.0
47	Reduce Student Loan Interest	64.3; 10.7; 3.6; 0.0; 21.4
26	Line-Item Veto	47.8; 26.1; 0.0; 8.7; 17.4
22	Nuclear Power	58.6; 13.8; 6.9; 6.9; 13.8
18	Eliminate the Deficit	40.0; 32.0; 12.0; 4.0; 12.0
29	Doctor-Assisted Suicide	56.7; 13.3; 0.0; 10.0; 20.0
30	Reduce Military Funding	60.0; 8.6; 0.0; 8.6; 22.9
4	Free Trade Expansion	41.7; 25.0; 2.8; 11.1; 19.4
60	Require seatbelts to be worn	42.4; 21.2; 3.0; 6.1; 27.3
44	Reduce Stop Light Cameras	51.5; 9.1; 12.1; 9.1; 18.2
52	Right to Nuclear Energy	52.0; 8.0; 4.0; 12.0; 24.0
10	Legalize Selling Human Body Parts	44.0; 16.0; 0.0; 8.0; 32.0
5	Legalize Hard Drugs	31.3; 28.1; 6.3; 9.4; 25.0
69	Tax Non-Biodegradable Bags	31.6; 26.3; 0.0; 5.3; 36.8
23	Protect Strikers' Jobs	50.0; 7.7; 0.0; 19.2; 23.1
54	Mediate Regional Conflicts	18.9; 37.8; 2.7; 16.2; 24.3
15	Campaign Finance Reform	40.6; 15.6; 3.1; 6.3; 34.4
51	Sin Taxes	36.7; 16.7; 3.3; 10.0; 33.3
16	Funding of Religious Charities	19.4; 35.5; 3.2; 16.1; 25.8
21	Offshore Drilling	30.3; 24.2; 15.2; 12.1; 18.2
48	Eliminate Permanent Security Council Positions	43.5; 8.7; 4.3; 17.4; 26.1
64	Sports Salary Caps	36.0; 12.0; 0.0; 16.0; 36.0
56	Protect Animals Raised for Food	43.3; 6.7; 3.3; 10.0; 36.7
46	Marque and Reprisal against Piracy and Terrorism	30.0; 20.0; 20.0; 10.0; 20.0
33	Reduce the Corporate Tax	36.7; 10.0; 6.7; 16.7; 30.0
59	Decentralize Government Power	42.9; 3.6; 10.7; 0.0; 42.9
62	Government Power to Nationalize Companies	39.3; 7.1; 3.6; 10.7; 39.3
65	Companies that are too Large to Fail Should not be Private	29.2; 16.7; 12.5; 0.0; 41.7
34	Limit CO2 emissions	27.3; 18.2; 18.2; 18.2; 18.2
45	Eliminate Copyrights	38.5; 3.8; 3.8; 15.4; 38.5
68	Gain Resources from Socially Tolerant Countries	29.4; 11.8; 17.6; 17.6; 23.5
50	Public School Uniforms	26.7; 13.3; 3.3; 3.3; 53.3
8	Punish Illegal Immigrants	26.9; 11.5; 0.0; 7.7; 53.8
43	Shorten Prison Sentences	22.7; 13.6; 18.2; 9.1; 36.4
39	Increase Foreign Aid	25.0; 10.7; 3.6; 14.3; 46.4
42	Mandatory Public School Attendance	26.5; 8.8; 0.0; 17.6; 47.1
14	Privatize Social Security	31.3; 3.1; 9.4; 12.5; 43.8
41	Continue Monetary Aid to Israel	22.9; 11.4; 0.0; 17.1; 48.6
57	Judges' Right to Give Death Penalty	26.3; 7.9; 5.3; 5.3; 55.3
35	Require Helmets for Skiing	18.2; 15.2; 3.0; 3.0; 60.6
66	Government-Owned Media Sources	33.3; 0.0; 20.0; 13.3; 33.3
13	Reduce Federal-Owned Lands	24.0; 8.0; 24.0; 12.0; 32.0
40	Permit Segregation in Prisons	18.2; 13.6; 4.5; 18.2; 45.5
61	Government-Funded Abortion Clinics	17.9; 12.8; 0.0; 15.4; 53.8
63	Balanced Budget Amendment	14.8; 11.1; 7.4; 25.9; 40.7
12	Stricter Gun Control	22.6; 3.2; 9.7; 16.1; 48.4
7	Eliminate the Income Tax	16.1; 9.7; 0.0; 6.5; 67.7
11	Restrict Abortion	22.9; 0.0; 5.7; 20.0; 51.4
27	Allow Procedural Filibuster	13.6; 9.1; 4.5; 9.1; 63.6
71	Allow Performance-Enhancing Drugs	9.4; 9.4; 3.1; 12.5; 65.6
28	Government Price Controls	14.8; 3.7; 7.4; 18.5; 55.6
20	Censor Indecent Broadcasts	3.7; 14.8; 0.0; 18.5; 63.0
24	Support NCLB	8.0; 8.0; 4.0; 32.0; 48.0
3	Return to the Gold Standard	9.1; 4.5; 4.5; 9.1; 72.7
2	Support the Patriot Act	4.0; 4.0; 4.0; 12.0; 76.0
36	Ability to ban Films and Video Games	5.6; 0.0; 2.8; 13.9; 77.8
58	Affirmative Action	3.4; 0.0; 10.3; 17.2; 69.0

     Question courtesy of hughento.

[??????????]

Providing luxuries is not the job of the government.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wouldn't consider them luxuries, but neither should government be subsidizing these for people who choose to live way out in the middle of nowhere.  Thus for example of the four programs funded by the Universal Service Fund, the Low Income and E-Rate programs are defensible, but not necessarily as currently incarnated.  The Rural Health Care program makes sense, though whether its funding should be via the USF is debatable.  The High Cost program is rural pork pure and simple and should be eliminated.

The High Cost program is at least as much of a boondoggle as Federal Flood Insurance.

[dead0man]

The govt shouldn't let any entity deny another entity these services, but it's idiotic to think the govt should provide these services for people.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No, they shouldn't.

[Scam of God]

"Lean No". I am not, however, opposed to government subsidization of telecommunications in areas that business has traditionally overlooked or been unable to make money in - the Sierra Nevadas or Death Valley, for example.

[Franzl]

Nope, this should't be the government's business.

[Magic 8-Ball]

No.

[MasterJedi]

No, and if you want the government to provide something for everyone why go for something that's not a necessity?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Nope, this should't be the government's business.

[Platypus]

Yes.

Basically, this is a big issue in Australia due to the exceptional remoteness of many rural areas, the high urbanisation rates of the general population, and the proivatisation of the government telco, Telstra.

Equality of opportunity doesn't exist if a private company decides it is not cost-effective to provide telecommunication services to your area, and it especially affects youth who don't have the choice of location. It is absolutely unfair for city dwellers to subsidise the huge expense per person needed to provide these services to rural Australians (or Americans), but it's even more unfair for these people not to be able to access them without hugely increased costs.

In my opinion, the government needs to ensure that everyone has access to the internet (and not at ridiculously low speeds) and phone coverage, should that person elect to be connected. They'd still need to pay for use of the services, but they shouldn't be automatically disqualified from access because of location.
'
This issue is always a tough one to tackle - when does it become impractical to serve the peoiple who choose to live in remote areas? Is there a point at which you go 'Nope, sorry, your choice to live in the middle of the desert, tough tittes'; or do you go 'you're an Australian, you have a right to the same opportunities as any other Aussie'. I tend to lean towards the second option, and because the net is an essential educational resource and the kids don't always get a choice to live in the desert or antarctica or wherever, I vote yes - equality of access for equality of opportunity.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Lean yes. The government provides a number of other services, and does it successfully. I don't see how this is any different just because it's the internet. Do I want them to have sole control over an area in terms of being an internet provider? Not really, but I see no harm in the government helping expand availability to it, or providing basic internet services to all.

[dead0man]

They do provide "basic" internet to all.  At libraries.

[Franzl]

They do provide "basic" internet to all.  At libraries.

yes, correct, I'm always amazed when I enter American libraries. They're absolutely excellent (especially the one we have in Alton, deadman )

[Lunar]

What is the current US policy?  Does the state or federal government subsidize this?  I assume the state government in Alaska helps out....


I don't know, I say answer to this should be decided contextually by economists in order to create economic benefits, especially in developing countries where better infrastructure can mean a world of difference in terms of future investment.

I don't like the word "all" in the question, since it implies an inherent right, so I voted no.

[Earth]

No.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What is the current US policy?  Does the state or federal government subsidize this?  I assume the state government in Alaska helps out....

The Universal Service Fund I mentioned in my earlier post is a Federal program, so actually all Americans with phone service are subsidizing the cost of connecting remote Alaskans to the telecommunications network via the High Cost program of the USF.

I wouldn't consider them luxuries, but neither should government be subsidizing these for people who choose to live way out in the middle of nowhere.  Thus for example of the four programs funded by the Universal Service Fund, the Low Income and E-Rate programs are defensible, but not necessarily as currently incarnated.  The Rural Health Care program makes sense, though whether its funding should be via the USF is debatable.  The High Cost program is rural pork pure and simple and should be eliminated.

The High Cost program is at least as much of a boondoggle as Federal Flood Insurance.