3 ms·
What about roads? What about electricity? Why should rural people have those when it adds extra tax burden to those in the city? What about the postal servic
by linuxftw 8y ago
What about roads? What about electricity? Why should rural people have those when it adds extra tax burden to those in the city? What about the postal service?
- dodobirdlord 8y agoIn all seriousness, why should they? There are obvious diminishing returns and there's a point where the distances get large enough and the number of people gets small enough that it's unjustifiable. Opportunity costs exist, and it follows that advocating for money to be spent inefficiently is bad.
- linuxftw 8y agoI never said they should. I actually don't believe there should be goverment owned roads or utilities (or subsidized utilities in general). Nobody actually cares about the rural poor. No transportation options, limited services in general. It's just laughable how people consider themselves so giving, unless those people live outside the city, then screw those people.
- dodobirdlord 8y agoI don't think there is a point to be made here. It's unreasonable to suggest that people should deliberately target their giving in an inefficient manner.