3 ms·

You mistook my meaning. I did not mean no cash, I meant, little to no "you need to have a bridge" type laws or anything. The OP is talking about laws that effec

by pard68 4y ago

You mistook my meaning. I did not mean no cash, I meant, little to no "you need to have a bridge" type laws or anything. The OP is talking about laws that effect this rural community, I was explaining how at an infrastructural level there are little in the way of laws that hinder my county, Also, no one here uses an ambulance the hospital is nearly two hours away. You call 911 and a helicopter comes. You pay $120 / year per household for the helicopter evac coop or you pay a few grand when they pick you up. Edit: You do not need four wheel drive or all-wheel drive. The water crossings are capable in any vehicle with a standardish ride height (my 2001 Legacy can manage it with only ~6" of clearance). And these dirt roads are not like private ones you might have seen. These are well made and maintained roads. No more pot holes than a well kept paved road.

ajross 4y ago
> little to no "you need to have a bridge" type laws or anything [...] You call 911 and a helicopter comes. And you don't see the dissonance here? Why does that call even go through? You think the phone company can make that happen based on the sub-million/month bills your community pays? Of course not, they take a huge loss. Someone made sure you had phone service! Likewise someone made sure you had roads. I know you think they didn't, but they did. Nowhere in the continent is more than two hours drive from a paved state road artery, you probably use two or three every week. And that paving happens out of state coffers paid for by cityfolk. Likewise the helicopter rides you're talking about don't make money, and it's laughable to think they do. Emergency services are subsidized everywhere, the only profit-making ambulances you see are in (yes) cities where they can lean on more statistically reliable business and more typically insured customers. Your focus on the specifics ("bridges" vs. "infrastructure") is obscuring the truth that your rural lifestyle is, like all such environments, very heavily subsidized by urban taxpayers. It's simply not possible to operate a modern society at that density. It's just not.
- pard68 4y ago
  I think you're missing my point still. I've not once suggested any such thing about money, didn't even talk about it.
  - ajross 4y ago
    You certainly seemed to be using your argument as a proxy for "our lack of regulation means we can live as we like without dependence on the rest of society", and I'm pointing out that's wrong. To repeat: your focus on the specific ways where you are not dependent does nothing to refute all the ways in which you are. I agree you have broken bridges and unpaved roads and raw river fords and whatnot that no one is fixing for you or trying to making you fix. I just don't see how that's interesting?
    - pard68 4y ago
      To repeat: you keep putting words into my mouth and crafting a strawman.
      - ajross 4y ago
        Then I confess I really don't know what your point is, beyond telling us you have bad roads? Surely there was a point behind that. Was it not "look how little we spend to have a good life"? Well, then noting how much everyone else is spending for your benefit seems responsive, no?
        pard68 4y ago
        I think you must not have read the article nor my comment. I think those are preqs for engaging in conversations here...

by pard68 4y ago

ajross 4y ago

> little to no "you need to have a bridge" type laws or anything [...] You call 911 and a helicopter comes. And you don't see the dissonance here? Why does that call even go through? You think the phone company can make that happen based on the sub-million/month bills your community pays? Of course not, they take a huge loss. Someone made sure you had phone service! Likewise someone made sure you had roads. I know you think they didn't, but they did. Nowhere in the continent is more than two hours drive from a paved state road artery, you probably use two or three every week. And that paving happens out of state coffers paid for by cityfolk. Likewise the helicopter rides you're talking about don't make money, and it's laughable to think they do. Emergency services are subsidized everywhere, the only profit-making ambulances you see are in (yes) cities where they can lean on more statistically reliable business and more typically insured customers. Your focus on the specifics ("bridges" vs. "infrastructure") is obscuring the truth that your rural lifestyle is, like all such environments, very heavily subsidized by urban taxpayers. It's simply not possible to operate a modern society at that density. It's just not.

pard68 4y ago
I think you're missing my point still. I've not once suggested any such thing about money, didn't even talk about it.
- ajross 4y ago
  You certainly seemed to be using your argument as a proxy for "our lack of regulation means we can live as we like without dependence on the rest of society", and I'm pointing out that's wrong. To repeat: your focus on the specific ways where you are not dependent does nothing to refute all the ways in which you are. I agree you have broken bridges and unpaved roads and raw river fords and whatnot that no one is fixing for you or trying to making you fix. I just don't see how that's interesting?
  - pard68 4y ago
    To repeat: you keep putting words into my mouth and crafting a strawman.
    - ajross 4y ago
      Then I confess I really don't know what your point is, beyond telling us you have bad roads? Surely there was a point behind that. Was it not "look how little we spend to have a good life"? Well, then noting how much everyone else is spending for your benefit seems responsive, no?
      - pard68 4y ago
        I think you must not have read the article nor my comment. I think those are preqs for engaging in conversations here...