Social Laissez-Faire

[jimnyc]

This debate was requested by Perianne, and her opponent was already decided, her friend Caliban. The debate subject is "Social Darwinism".

Perianne will go first, as she has already sent me her opening post, which she will post below. Caliban is next to go. She has requested unlimited posts, but I can't imagine they'll go forever.

At the conclusion, I will place a poll at the top of the thread for everyone to vote on.

** Reminder - this is to remain just between these two. Nobody else should be replying in this thread. Any replies outside of these 2 will be deleted and the offender will be banned from this section of the board. **

[Perianne]

All human beings are not equal. All cultures are not equal. I propose a United States society in which a person achieves success (survival), or fails, according to his own skills, abilities, and determination to succeed. Those who do succeed should not be forced to prop up those who fail (due to weak intellectual capability, laziness, physical disability, or the like).

The failures would likely form alliances with the compassionate among us (churches, family, friends, etc). But no one should be taxed or forced to support those who cannot, or will not, support themselves. America must stop the charade of treating all people as equals, that is, the skilled and the unskilled.

This form of thinking is often thought of as Social Darwinism. Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, had a view that "social institutions such as welfare... were allowing inferior humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more 'superior' humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with 'inferiors'".

I do not propose that society practice sterilization, forced abortion, or anything similar of "inferiors". I simply propose that society stop subsidizing them.

[Caliban]

A few things...

I NOT a libertarian, and i CERTAINLY am not an Ayn Randian objectivist. I believe both of these to be destructive heresies on the right that need to be expunged from conservatism. I'm an old-school conservative with a strong moral sense and a conviction of a spiritual dimension behind life that gives life its meaning. The radical, extreme statements of atomistic individualism expressed in these two philosophies make no sense whatsoever.

So, for starters...

What is a 'society'? Who is part of one?

Is it the intellectual, professional and business elites only? Are they the only ones that matter and are to be accorded full human and civil rights? Are they the only ones we are to regard as fully 'human'?

Is the Chinese immigrant behind the counter of a convenience store, barely literate in his native language and almost wholly illiterate in his new one, the descendant of generations of anonymous peasants, to be treated as less of a human being by society than a doctor, a lawyer or a CEO?

And is the guy in his 40s and 50s who's worked in a steel mill since leaving high school and has been out of a full-time job that pays the way for his family and who is about to run out of UI and facing welfare for the first time in his life with a sense of burning guilt and humiliation, is he now no longer a human being and can be allowed to sink to his destitution and death?

Because one thing is observable about society: there is upward mobility, and there is downward mobility. Fate, bad luck, unexpected political, economic, natural and even cultural upheavals over the course of time topple successful members of society into the lower depths where, presumably, they will no longer be regarded as worthy of survival, and members from those lower depths can be vaulted into the status of being suddenly worthy of life.

What this tells us is that the bottom rungs of society are not the dumping ground of the mentally deficient that the pitiless and inhuman philosophy of social darwinism thinks them to be. The lumpenproletariate and the unskilled or low skilled working class, have, as humans, every human trait in posse that the highly 'productive' have, and it's only a turn of the historical wheel and the opening of doors that had been hitherto closed that can turn assumed social hierarchies upside down.

So getting back to the original question, thecanswer to what is a society, who gets treated as a human being within one, the answer is..


Everybody.

Every normal person has the ability to either sink, swim or climb, and many people do all of these in the course of one life. The fact that every normal person, regardless of how lowly their state might be, has the potential in him to do better means we must place a floor beneath his feet below which he must not be allowed to sink. I don't care if it's from private charity or state transfers or some combination of both.

I understand this implies many, many other questions that need to be answered. So let's start.

[Caliban]

One other thing...

It's very easy for some to say today in 2015 that no help and no aid be given to the most helpless members of society. The world before that help existed has all but vanished from living memory. Almost everyone alive today has grown up in the extraordinary--and probably unrepeatable--condition of the post-WWII world. No one knows what it's like to be poor and have no recourse to the government and very mingy help from private charities. The days when lower class and working class people starved to death, froze to death, died of dysentery and cholera from lack of sanitation, exists only in the history books and literature of that time now. But they were very real occurrences, and happened too often to excite much comment except from outraged writers like Dickens.

If you want an idea of what such a society looks like, visit Bangladesh. No civilized country today will EVER so radically destroy its welfare system andcthink that kind of society is acceptable.no one will voluntarily choose to return to the harsh realm depicted in the novels of Dickens.

[Perianne]

A few things...

I NOT a libertarian, and i CERTAINLY am not an Ayn Randian objectivist. I believe both of these to be destructive heresies on the right that need to be expunged from conservatism. I'm an old-school conservative with a strong moral sense and a conviction of a spiritual dimension behind life that gives life its meaning. The radical, extreme statements of atomistic individualism expressed in these two philosophies make no sense whatsoever.

So, for starters...

What is a 'society'? Who is part of one?

Is it the intellectual, professional and business elites only? Are they the only ones that matter and are to be accorded full human and civil rights? Are they the only ones we are to regard as fully 'human'?

I have neither said nor implied that only the "elites" are fully human.

Is the Chinese immigrant behind the counter of a convenience store, barely literate in his native language and almost wholly illiterate in his new one, the descendant of generations of anonymous peasants, to be treated as less of a human being by society than a doctor, a lawyer or a CEO?

But he is working, isn't he?

And is the guy in his 40s and 50s who's worked in a steel mill since leaving high school and has been out of a full-time job that pays the way for his family and who is about to run out of UI and facing welfare for the first time in his life with a sense of burning guilt and humiliation, is he now no longer a human being and can be allowed to sink to his destitution and death?

Because one thing is observable about society: there is upward mobility, and there is downward mobility. Fate, bad luck, unexpected political, economic, natural and even cultural upheavals over the course of time topple successful members of society into the lower depths where, presumably, they will no longer be regarded as worthy of survival, and members from those lower depths can be vaulted into the status of being suddenly worthy of life.

When my mother and I arrived on these shores in 1960, we had almost nothing. My mother worked every day to provide for us. She, being an uneducated immigrant, worked menial jobs to provide. Likewise, when I left home at 18, I had almost no money and no future except for that which I would find for myself. The first two nights I was on my own I slept behind trash receptacles. I then found a church who would take me in. After that I worked minimum wage jobs for many years. I married when I was 27 to a man with as few skills as I had. But we both had dreams of moving up. Almost immediately I went to school to become a nurse. He began to pursue construction. We survived and flourished in this tough world. All along the way we took nothing from the taxpayers. Nothing.

What this tells us is that the bottom rungs of society are not the dumping ground of the mentally deficient that the pitiless and inhuman philosophy of social darwinism thinks them to be. The lumpenproletariate and the unskilled or low skilled working class, have, as humans, every human trait in posse that the highly 'productive' have, and it's only a turn of the historical wheel and the opening of doors that had been hitherto closed that can turn assumed social hierarchies upside down.

You are projecting that all humans are equal. That is a fallacy, but one with which we will continue to disagree.

So getting back to the original question, thecanswer to what is a society, who gets treated as a human being within one, the answer is..


Everybody.

Every normal person has the ability to either sink, swim or climb, and many people do all of these in the course of one life. The fact that every normal person, regardless of how lowly their state might be, has the potential in him to do better means we must place a floor beneath his feet below which he must not be allowed to sink. I don't care if it's from private charity or state transfers or some combination of both.

I understand this implies many, many other questions that need to be answered. So let's start.


One other thing...

It's very easy for some to say today in 2015 that no help and no aid be given to the most helpless members of society. The world before that help existed has all but vanished from living memory. Almost everyone alive today has grown up in the extraordinary--and probably unrepeatable--condition of the post-WWII world. No one knows what it's like to be poor and have no recourse to the government and very mingy help from private charities. The days when lower class and working class people starved to death, froze to death, died of dysentery and cholera from lack of sanitation, exists only in the history books and literature of that time now. But they were very real occurrences, and happened too often to excite much comment except from outraged writers like Dickens.

If you want an idea of what such a society looks like, visit Bangladesh. No civilized country today will EVER so radically destroy its welfare system andcthink that kind of society is acceptable.no one will voluntarily choose to return to the harsh realm depicted in the novels of Dickens.

Caliban, my friend, we have had many discussions. You know me as a dedicated and caring nurse who has touched the lives of thousands of people. Do you really think I would let people die of hunger and neglect? However, there comes a time when the unskilled must take some responsibility for themselves. I think you would agree with that.

How do we enforce a minimum level of responsibility upon those who refuse to accept it?

[Caliban]

Caliban, my friend, we have had many discussions. You know me as a dedicated and caring nurse who has touched the lives of thousands of people. Do you really think I would let people die of hunger and neglect? However, there comes a time when the unskilled must take some responsibility for themselves. I think you would agree with that.

How do we enforce a minimum level of responsibility upon those who refuse to accept it?

To do that it isn't enough to enforce a change in behaviour, you have to change MINDS and the CULTURE which accepts that kind of behaviour as normal.

This isn't going to be done overnight, but it has to be done. I think we can use as the classic and most important example here the black community. Since 1965, the white liberal establishment and the the black community (mis-)leaders have framed the debate in terms of reparation and restitution for blacks
Blacks have been conditioned for two generations to be PASSIVE recipients of largesse 'due' to them because of past wrongs.i can't even imagine a course more destructive towards the notions of a work ethic, taking your own fate into your hands and shaping uour own future. By their being allowed to become passive wards of the state, we have effectively INFANTILIZED blacks. A MASSIVE effort will be needed to reverse this tragic state of affairs, and a new kind of community organizer will be necessary in the ghettos to start driving this message home. I truly think it can be done if the determination to see it through to its conclusion can be welded together from both government and private sources.

The point is to never throw one's hands up in frustration and surrender. Push, push; nag, nag; hector, hector until you see results, regardless of how long it takes.

The point is to never slam to door on the currently unproductice and leave them without hope. That will end up being disastrous for them and difficult for us.

[Gunny]

To do that it isn't enough to enforce a change in behaviour, you have to change MINDS and the CULTURE which accepts that kind of behaviour as normal.

This isn't going to be done overnight, but it has to be done. I think we can use as the classic and most important example here the black community. Since 1965, the white liberal establishment and the the black community (mis-)leaders have framed the debate in terms of reparation and restitution for blacks
Blacks have been conditioned for two generations to be PASSIVE recipients of largesse 'due' to them because of past wrongs.i can't even imagine a course more destructive towards the notions of a work ethic, taking your own fate into your hands and shaping uour own future. By their being allowed to become passive wards of the state, we have effectively INFANTILIZED blacks. A MASSIVE effort will be needed to reverse this tragic state of affairs, and a new kind of community organizer will be necessary in the ghettos to start driving this message home. I truly think it can be done if the determination to see it through to its conclusion can be welded together from both government and private sources.

The point is to never throw one's hands up in frustration and surrender. Push, push; nag, nag; hector, hector until you see results, regardless of how long it takes.

The point is to never slam to door on the currently unproductice and leave them without hope. That will end up being disastrous for them and difficult for us.

I mostly agree except you can't divorce the politics from the social issues. You got three generations of a sub-sect of society that feel entitled because of promises made by the Democratic Party they have yet to fulfill. Mostly because they CAN'T fulfill them. But the willfully ignorant listen to the same old promises every time. What these non-thinking individuals refuse to recognize as these rich leftwingers are just as rich as ANY rightwing capitalists.

Look at the money the Clinton's have. Or George Soros. Or that idiot midget mouthpiece for the Clinton's on ABC.

The Democrats don't want to tax the wealthy. They want to tax only the wealthy on the right.

In the meantime, nothing ever changes.

[Perianne]

A MASSIVE effort will be needed to reverse this tragic state of affairs, and a new kind of community organizer will be necessary in the ghettos to start driving this message home. I truly think it can be done if the determination to see it through to its conclusion can be welded together from both government and private sources.


The fear of total failure and starvation is a great motivator. It doesn't have to be done immediately. Let's say, give them five years. After that point.... tough love. Let them find their own way.

[jimnyc]

As per the participants, due to unforeseen time limitations, they asked that this be moved and opened to everyone now. :)

[Kathianne]

First off, I don't buy into Social Darwinism or the whole 'superior v inferior' "facts" regarding races.

With that said I agree that the social/economic/racial profiling-favoritism instigated and enforced by the government has created inadvertently or not, a thus far 'permanent' underclass and seriously erroded/destroyed the family structure, education and work ethic particularly in the case of blacks.

It seemed to be moving in a corrective measure from Clinton's 'reforms' through Bush II, then reversed under the current administration.

[Kathianne]

Gunny's post had been deleted, while the 'debate' was going on. With the decision to open the thread up in another forum, it's been restored.

[Perianne]

I respond in blue inside of the quote.


First off, I don't buy into Social Darwinism or the whole 'superior v inferior' "facts" regarding races.

I said nothing about races, though there is evidence that some races are more equal than others.

On the DifferentialAptitude Battery, by age 6, however, the average IQ of East Asian children is 107, compared with 103 for White children and 89 for Black children (Lynn, 1996). The size of the average Black–White difference does not change significantly over the developmental period from 3 years of age and beyond.

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf


With that said I agree that the social/economic/racial profiling-favoritism instigated and enforced by the government has created inadvertently or not, a thus far 'permanent' underclass and seriously erroded/destroyed the family structure, education and work ethic particularly in the case of blacks.

So, with the above statement, you would agree that many blacks are underachieving? Would you agree that American should be a "society in which a person achieves success (survival), or fails, according to his own skills, abilities, and determination to succeed. Those who do succeed should not be forced to prop up those who fail (due to weak intellectual capability, laziness, physical disability, or the like)"?

If you do not agree with the premise of my opening statement, how would you choose that America handles her underachievers?

It seemed to be moving in a corrective measure from Clinton's 'reforms' through Bush II, then reversed under the current administration.

[SassyLady]

All human beings are not equal. All cultures are not equal. I propose a United States society in which a person achieves success (survival), or fails, according to his own skills, abilities, and determination to succeed. Those who do succeed should not be forced to prop up those who fail (due to weak intellectual capability, laziness, physical disability, or the like).

The failures would likely form alliances with the compassionate among us (churches, family, friends, etc). But no one should be taxed or forced to support those who cannot, or will not, support themselves. America must stop the charade of treating all people as equals, that is, the skilled and the unskilled.

This form of thinking is often thought of as Social Darwinism. Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, had a view that "social institutions such as welfare... were allowing inferior humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more 'superior' humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with 'inferiors'".

I do not propose that society practice sterilization, forced abortion, or anything similar of "inferiors". I simply propose that society stop subsidizing them.

Question: in this society you propose ... do successful individuals subsidize their heirs? Or would the heirs have to prove themselves to be capable of success by starting out with nothing.

I'm all for people standing on their own ... however, if we want the children of unsuccessful people to get out there and work hard for their own success, then shouldn't the children of the wealthy be expected to do the same?

One of the motivating factors of success is to help your current and future family members. However, if no one is to be subsidized and "make it on their own", what is the point of becoming successful?

[Perianne]

Question: in this society you propose ... do successful individuals subsidize their heirs? Or would the heirs have to prove themselves to be capable of success by starting out with nothing.

I'm all for people standing on their own ... however, if we want the children of unsuccessful people to get out there and work hard for their own success, then shouldn't the children of the wealthy be expected to do the same?

One of the motivating factors of success is to help your current and future family members. However, if no one is to be subsidized and "make it on their own", what is the point of becoming successful?

Anyone could freely pass on their gains to others.

[avatar4321]

I agree we should not be forced to help people. We should do if not our own free will. The problem with forced charity is it's an oxy moron. If we are compelled to give a gift it doesn't benefit us. It's robbery, not charity. No matter how noble the cause.

The only thing that limits us are our choices. And if we change those choices into better ones we can not only survive but prosper.

[Kathianne]

I respond in blue inside of the quote.

Your 'choice' to reply in blue rather than employ the regular quote function, makes it difficult for others to respond in a reasonable manner. Since I can copy your entire post, I have:



First off, I don't buy into Social Darwinism or the whole 'superior v inferior' "facts" regarding races.


I said nothing about races, though there is evidence that some races are more equal than others.

On the DifferentialAptitude Battery, by age 6, however, the average IQ of East Asian children is 107, compared with 103 for White children and 89 for Black children (Lynn, 1996). The size of the average Black–White difference does not change significantly over the developmental period from 3 years of age and beyond.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
In fairness, I took the implications of this and other posts you've made to extrapolate the race factor. IQ data is interesting in that those most likely to dismiss the measures in most cases, find them ever so useful when spun to make their point.

I do think there's differences between individuals in their total intellectual abilities, (nature); I just think that their total experiences have more influence, (nurture) in ultimate outcomes. By the time most undergo 'Intelligence tests' the nature part is dominant and IQ measures are more an indicator of those experiences.




With that said I agree that the social/economic/racial profiling-favoritism instigated and enforced by the government has created inadvertently or not, a thus far 'permanent' underclass and seriously erroded/destroyed the family structure, education and work ethic particularly in the case of blacks.


So, with the above statement, you would agree that many blacks are underachieving? Would you agree that American should be a "society in which a person achieves success (survival), or fails, according to his own skills, abilities, and determination to succeed. Those who do succeed should not be forced to prop up those who fail (due to weak intellectual capability, laziness, physical disability, or the like)"?

If you do not agree with the premise of my opening statement, how would you choose that America handles her underachievers?



I've little doubt that blacks and most of us are 'underachieving' in the sense that we fail to develop and/or use the gifts we've been given. Indeed, while nearly all of us have the innate intelligence to master reading, writing, and math through basic trig, we don't. We choose to concentrate on the areas we naturally do better in, settling for getting by in those areas that don't appeal. (as far as 'appealing to authority' there are numerous studies that indicate that females are naturally prone to higher success in verbal and reading comprehension than males. Likewise males score significantly higher in math and abstract thinking skills.

Interestingly these long standing results have begun to show significant deviations since the 1970's when government began to meddle in how schools should address female scores. The focus of change has changed expectations and results, with females now outpacing males in the US in nearly all measurements. One could argue that now females are 'catching up' or one could argue that the schools have become discriminatory against males.)

Many of us raised in homes where education was a priority-meaning trouble if grades weren't acceptable-find 'getting by' was a higher bar than those who didn't find a problem with worse grades. (nuture)

Academic performance is only one measure, really not all that important if one uses the measure of consequences from home or the more broad one of 'community standards' meaning the acceptability of excelling or not in academics.

To address your premise regarding 'blacks' and other minorities I find that most of the problems we now face can be found to have a root cause of government actions to address societal problems; not the basic intelligence or abilities of members of a race or sex. Whether we are looking at the government actions towards slavery resulting in our bloodiest war; the intrinsic destruction of families through welfare payments; continued affirmative action that benefits those children of successful famiies at the expense of others-including highly successful children of less successful families base upon the color of their skin or genitals.


It seemed to be moving in a corrective measure from Clinton's 'reforms' through Bush II, then reversed under the current administration.[/QUOTE]

Summing up my beliefs regarding the differences between 'achieving' and 'underachieving' persons today the primary forces towards success would be family and community expectations. In 'successful' communities and schools, the expectations from others can make up in some measure for less than functional families; in less than 'successful communities' functional families can raise 'achieving children.' What's very troublesome and growing is the numbers of dysfunctional families in both types of communities, with the likely outcome that even in traditionally 'successful' communities we will see more and more underachieving young people coming out of these.

While I posit that government actions and the resulting culture coming from these actions have had a causative effect on our society, it won't be the solution. The solution will have to come from people deciding they need to address the problems on their own turf.

[Perianne]

Your 'choice' to reply in blue rather than employ the regular quote function, makes it difficult for others to respond in a reasonable manner. Since I can copy your entire post, I have....


Thanks for pointing out the "blue" factor thingy. I won't do that again.

[Perianne]

UFC champion Ronda Rousey:

It’s true that EVERYBODY can’t be a world champion. But, can 99.9% of Americans get educated, pay their own way, get a job and support themselves and their families if they work at it? Yes, they can. Human beings really do live up or down to the expectations of people around them. Ronda Rousey’s mother EXPECTED her to be a champion – and she is. Do we expect people to support themselves or to be on welfare? Do we think most Americans are strong and capable of taking care of themselves or are they delicate weaklings who can’t make it through the day without the help of the government?


http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2015/05/23/what-liberals-can-learn-about-how-to-succeed-at-life-from-female-ufc-champ-ronda-rousey-n2002909/page/2

[Kathianne]

UFC champion Ronda Rousey:

It’s true that EVERYBODY can’t be a world champion. But, can 99.9% of Americans get educated, pay their own way, get a job and support themselves and their families if they work at it? Yes, they can. Human beings really do live up or down to the expectations of people around them. Ronda Rousey’s mother EXPECTED her to be a champion – and she is. Do we expect people to support themselves or to be on welfare? Do we think most Americans are strong and capable of taking care of themselves or are they delicate weaklings who can’t make it through the day without the help of the government?


http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2015/05/23/what-liberals-can-learn-about-how-to-succeed-at-life-from-female-ufc-champ-ronda-rousey-n2002909/page/2

Interesting article, seems to be what I was pointing out above regarding parents/community expectations. Thanks.

[Kathianne]

Seems Walter Williams agrees with my take:

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/05/20/the-true-black-tragedy-n2000459


The True Black TragedyWalter E. Williams (http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/) | May 20, 2015

Hustlers and people with little understanding want us to believe that today's black problems are the continuing result of a legacy of slavery, poverty and racial discrimination. The fact is that most of the social pathology seen in poor black neighborhoods is entirely new in black history. Let's look at some of it.


Today the overwhelming majority of black children are raised in single female-headed families. As early as the 1880s, three-quarters of black families were two-parent. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black families were two-parent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children had the same mother and father.


Today's black illegitimacy rate of nearly 75 percent is also entirely new. In 1940, black illegitimacy stood at 14 percent. It had risen to 25 percent by 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action" and was widely condemned as a racist. By 1980, the black illegitimacy rate had more than doubled, to 56 percent, and it has been growing since. Both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.


Much of today's pathology seen among many blacks is an outgrowth of the welfare state that has made self-destructive behavior less costly for the individual. Having children without the benefit of marriage is less burdensome if the mother receives housing subsidies, welfare payments and food stamps. Plus, the social stigma associated with unwed motherhood has vanished. Female-headed households, whether black or white, are a ticket for dependency and all of its associated problems. Ignored in all discussions is the fact that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994.

...

[Perianne]

And now the FCC proposes yet another benefit for the underachieving: free broadband internet service. I am tired of subsidizing the lazy and ignorant masses, also known as social parasites.


To participate in the program, consumers must either have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/index.shtml) or participate in one of the following assistance programs:



Medicaid (http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/Medicaid-and-CHIP-Program-Information.html);
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/) (Food Stamps or SNAP);
Supplemental Security Income (http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/) (SSI);
Federal Public House Assistance (http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8) (Section 8);
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/) (LIHEAP);
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/) (TANF);
National School Lunch Program's (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/) Free Lunch Program;
Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance (http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/HumanServices/index.htm);
Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/dts/) (TTANF);
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/fdpir/default.htm) (FDPIR);
Head Start (http://transition.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs) (if income eligibility criteria are met); or
State assistance programs (if applicable).




https://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

[grannyhawkins]

And now the FCC proposes yet another benefit for the underachieving: free broadband internet service. I am tired of subsidizing the lazy and ignorant masses, also known as social parasites.




https://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

WTF_WH.gov!!! :salute: