[manarth]

  You seem to fall into the trap of "if I don't hand over 
  money at the same time as I make use of something, it's free."

The distinction is that it doesn't matter how much or little I use it, I pay no more. If I drive on the highway, I don't pay anything extra. If I choose not to drive on the highway, I don't get cash in my pocket. Use of the service doesn't cost anything - this is "free at the point of delivery".

This is important, because it means that the service is independent of income. I don't need income to drive on the highway. I don't need income to have secure healthcare. Some services are important enough to be socialised, so that the service is open to everyone, irrespective of their income, wealth, or lack of.

[xienze]

> I don't need income to drive on the highway.

Don't need gas?

> Some services are important enough to be socialised, so that the service is open to everyone, irrespective of their income, wealth, or lack of.

And they continue to operate so long as there are enough people who _actually pay for these services_. Maybe you don't fall into that category, fine. But there are a lot of people who do, and it all comes straight out their paycheck. It is not free for them by any stretch of the imagination.

[aclsid]

Your logic is not sound though. Some people are not paying a dime while others pay more. And by far you are using way more road that you are able to afford, just like what happens with shared hosting.

More importantly, according to your definition, nothing is ever free. If I tell you that you can pick a fruit from a tree in a national park, you will probably use a ridiculous argument that national parks are protected, therefore somebody pays for the maintenance, etc.

So no offense, but please don't be an idiot, and by that I mean "someone who acts in a self-defeating or significant counterproductive way."