4 ms·
> This has to be the most confidently incorrect take I’ve ever read here. It’s funnier if we alter it a little, is it more or less true this way? >> It's also
by lostlogin 2y ago
> This has to be the most confidently incorrect take I’ve ever read here.
It’s funnier if we alter it a little, is it more or less true this way?
>> It's also clear that rural voting was a huge error. People should live in clusters of at least a handful of structures where it's practical and affordable to provision government (and telecommunications), or they should be off the grid altogether. What we built in the 20th century was the worst possible thing: dispersed houses. This should never have been built and we should not perpetuate it with subsidies.
- sgarland 2y agoI don’t see how voting works as an analogy. Suburbs would be more apt. I live in one, but I’ll be the first to admit that there’s no defensible reason to do so beyond “I want to.” They’re typically a net negative for counties in terms of tax revenue, they perpetuate car-first infrastructure, they contribute to high housing costs, and they don’t produce anything of value, like rural areas can (farms, land preservation).
- marcosdumay 2y agoWell, people have to live somewhere, and that place will not generate a lot of revenue. US suburbs have problems due to single-use areas and forced low density. But you will aleays have some area that don't pay a lot of taxes.