&gt;Should I really have to decide one hundred times a day if a page was worth reading?<p>No, and the argument I was suggesting is that if the costs were low enough, no one would really need to make those decisions, any more than they need to decide whether running a glass of water is worth the cost.<p>&gt;If I&#x27;m rich enough that it&#x27;s not a concern, just bill me the 0.33% out of my income tax that it would cost to provide this.<p>Why? If a micropayment system worked well enough that no one cared about the prices, what reason would there be to involve the government?<p>(Not that I&#x27;m averse to such a scheme, I just think you&#x27;re making a strange leap of logic here.)<p>&gt; I&#x27;ve considered your arguments and rejected them.<p>It feels like you just read my first sentence, and reacted to that, despite the fact the rest of my comment argues <i>against</i> that position, and ultimately agrees with you (although from a slightly different direction).