Fire protection is generally widely supported because almost everyone shares in the benefit, the protection is a benefit whether or not you need service.

The reason we have worse government services is because there's no attempt to make them fair, the benefits are almost always highly skewed along partisan lines and thus usually not passed.

▲

slg 2 days ago | parent [-]

>Fire protection is generally widely supported because almost everyone shares in the benefit, the protection is a benefit whether or not you need service.

The same is true for things like childcare and education. Improving outcomes for the next generation doesn't only benefit them and their parents, it improves the entire society.

>The reason we have worse government services is because there's no attempt to make them fair, the benefits are almost always highly skewed along partisan lines and thus usually not passed.

You're just debating whether "everyone gets the same" is a better definition of "fair" than "everyone gets what they need". The only way for the government to satisfy the former without UBI (which I would support) is for the government to offer extremely limited services. That's the situation we're in. Because as I have said in another comment, the same argument that applies to stay at home parents applies to childless people so offering any childcare support is unfair according to the "everyone gets the same" definition.

	▲	aeternum 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Need is ill-defined. People have all kinds of different ideas for what they need. I think it's worth considering what has significant majority support. For example I believe it's something like 80%+ support some kind of childcare subsidy or tax credit. Some childless probably make up the 20% just as some would prefer not to have a fire brigade. At that level of support just pass the subsidy / tax credit and let the families figure out how to apply it (paid daycare or homecare).