🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3743BF67.9F35A99E@flash.net>, Dan Connelly
<djconnel@flash.net> wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > 
> > In article <3742B7B6.B00CD09E@email.sps.mot.com>, ra6846@email.sps.mot.com
> > wrote:
> > > Suburben life is unhealthy to the Earth, and thus unhealthy to us all.
> > >
> > 
> > City life is plain unhealthy! People realize this and are trying to make
> > do as best they can.
> > 
> > When are the idealogues going to stop trying to force others to do
your bidding?
> > When are they going to propose solutions that everyone else has already
> > rejected as undesireable?
> 
> The fundamental problem is suburben life is externality-rich, meaning
> when I consider the cost-benefit tradeoffs of an action, the costs I consider
> tend to be those which occur directly to me, but a substantial cost
> is transferred to society.  These costs often aren't measured directly
> in currency, but in congestion, pollution, wildlife destruction, noise,
> resource depletion, etc.
> 
> On the other hand, there are fewer external benefits.
> 
> So folks in suburbia are living on a substantial subsidy.  And,
unfortunately, much
> of that subsidy is on the backs of future generations, who will be deprived
> of the Earth we are so rapidly destroying.
> 

NONSENSE!  Where in the city can you enjoy wild birds, trees, real grass,
open space? The parks?  These are subsidised. Why should I subsidise city
dwellers' lifestyle. 

The fact is, most people don't want to live crowded together in cities.
City life is obsolete, so we should not subsidise it with artificial
constraints on freedom. Why put up with high crime, congestion, etc., when
we can simply move away from it?

This is the message the self-styled environmentalists fail to see. City
life is simple unattractive to most folks, if they have a choice. What Dan
advocate is removing that choice. This is an undemocratic and elitist
approach. Besides, who died and appointed these people to make policy?