3 ms·

Counterpoint: Why spend (a lot) more on roads for a few instead of for the many?

• EGreg 9y ago
  That's exactly what unchecked capitalism says. If there is no redistribution of wealth by any other mechanism, those who have no money will by and large not get any resources. While that may work well for LLCs, when it comes to people we don't want that.
  • fjsolwmv 9y ago
    Why should the poor urban people pay to subsidize the lavish rural lifestyle? No one is forcing people to live out in the boonies.
    • uoaei 9y ago
      No one except all those folks running rent up in cities. Landowners and renters are both to blame here.
  • flukus 9y ago
    I'm no enemy of wealth redistribution, but you have got redistribute it where it's the most effective too, money spent paving roads for a few people could hire doctors and teachers for many people. People in rural areas are also against this sort of communalism generally, if they wanted to live much closer together in town houses or apartment blocks then paved roads would be much more cost effective, but just because the want to live on large acreages where the can't see their neighbors doesn't mean the rest of society should subsidize them.