Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
Here's an article about the dilemma in VT.
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/...t?oid=14631009
Towns that had a school, store, fire department, library and church are empty now.
They used to have 30 farms and now they rent their land.
Sorry but i think rural america and the rural landscape is worth our investment as a society. |
You mean the rural landscape of the past? Would that "investment" be at the expense of others who wouldn't be able to live on large, rural, romantically bucolic properties? Should society (i.e. government) invest in saving all the landscapes that please you? Do you want us to "invest" in the actual values that created rural America? Are you essentially a classical liberal rather than a Progressive? You seem to be conflicted. You value Progressive policies that distribute wealth "equitably" by force of government planning or fiat, but want to inequitably distribute public wealth in greater amounts to landscapes that you think worthy of preserving.
Progress is busy throwing your landscapes into the dust bin of history. I suppose protecting and preserving your landscapes could be done in an egalitarian manner by making your rural landscapes government property, sorts of government historical museums or parks which hire workers to keep the places going and who are paid an equitable government distributed wage. These could be partially supported by fees visitors, tourists, pay to enter and admire these parks to see how it used to be.