"I'd say free to anyone below some income level since the middle class can afford it anyway."
I totally understand you're coming from a good place here, but this is exactly the type of thing that can go all sorts of wrong when implemented by people coming from not such a good place. Also, this could come across any number of ways if you're coming from a different place (socioeconomic wise). For instance. Well off families tend to have less children and are in a position to provide for them. So, if I'm poor and can't afford to take care of my kids properly, you're proposing I just don't have them?
I use that example only to emphasize what I think is already implicit in your comment, that this is a super complex issue. My reaction to the article was similar to yours, just from a different angle. I kept reading "more efficient use of" and thinking, at what point do we realize we need to use less and not just get more out of what we use?
soooooo, the way i see it, imho, is that any government which derives its authority from the governed is inseparable from the governed. i.e. government = proper subset of governed. either cyberspace is lawless (and might makes right) or there is some form of law, thus some form of governance, and thus a government. again inmho, a government of and by the people is better than, say, fascism. until we've evolved to the state of Zee Prime, cyberspace will continue to exist in that most primitive of mediums, atomic matter, and so must share the domain of nation states and such. look at me now, blathering on as much as this article. all i was trying to say is, given that cyberspace is pervasive throughout the political structures of our earth, maybe we should productively engage rather than hostilely withdrawal. that, and Jefferson was able to eloquently express his deep understanding of governance through his pen while still clearly shouting, "leave us the f-ck alone or expect a fight you english b-stards." you just new he meant it.
