4 ms·

People can live where they want, but I'm critical of having to subsidize the excessive amount of infrastructure necessary for the lifestyle choice of unnecessar

People can live where they want, but I'm critical of having to subsidize the excessive amount of infrastructure necessary for the lifestyle choice of unnecessarily travelling very large distances. For me it's even worse because I live in a region where the terrain requires a lot of bridges.

DannyBee 13y ago
"but I'm critical of having to subsidize the excessive amount of infrastructure necessary for the lifestyle choice of unnecessarily travelling very large distances" Why choose this choice as the the line in the sand? Are you also critical of having to subsidize the excessive amount of infrastructure necessary for the lifestyle choice of living in a strictly large than necessary place, for example? Because you subsidize that to a large degree too. Everyone who has a larger dining room because they have made the lifestyle choice of wanting to host dinner parties. Or large kitchens. Large bedrooms. Large yards. You name it. It's all strictly unnecessary, and all lifestyle choice. Among other subsidies, all of it takes up valuable space that could be given to the public, or something else done with it. It requires more infrastructure - greater water supplies, greater sanitation requirements, power supplies, gas supplies, what have you. Yet we subsidize this just the same as you are paying for roads, you are just paying for it in different places. In truth, we subsidize a large number of lifestyle choices that impact infrastructure (having kids, riding bikes, heck, even buying groceries, you name it). From what I can tell, it just seems some people are upset that they subsidies don't always match whatever their particular ideology of how cities should be built is. Just remember there really is no "better" or "worse", when it comes to lifestyle choices, just different (you may impose moral judgements on lifestyle choices depending on ideology and viewpoint of purpose of society, but the truly vast majority of these moral judgements are not universally shared)

DannyBee 13y ago

"but I'm critical of having to subsidize the excessive amount of infrastructure necessary for the lifestyle choice of unnecessarily travelling very large distances" Why choose this choice as the the line in the sand? Are you also critical of having to subsidize the excessive amount of infrastructure necessary for the lifestyle choice of living in a strictly large than necessary place, for example? Because you subsidize that to a large degree too. Everyone who has a larger dining room because they have made the lifestyle choice of wanting to host dinner parties. Or large kitchens. Large bedrooms. Large yards. You name it. It's all strictly unnecessary, and all lifestyle choice. Among other subsidies, all of it takes up valuable space that could be given to the public, or something else done with it. It requires more infrastructure - greater water supplies, greater sanitation requirements, power supplies, gas supplies, what have you. Yet we subsidize this just the same as you are paying for roads, you are just paying for it in different places. In truth, we subsidize a large number of lifestyle choices that impact infrastructure (having kids, riding bikes, heck, even buying groceries, you name it). From what I can tell, it just seems some people are upset that they subsidies don't always match whatever their particular ideology of how cities should be built is. Just remember there really is no "better" or "worse", when it comes to lifestyle choices, just different (you may impose moral judgements on lifestyle choices depending on ideology and viewpoint of purpose of society, but the truly vast majority of these moral judgements are not universally shared)