[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

What is important to you?
Freedom at what cost?
You will never be totally free to do as you please in this world unless you live on an island by yourself and create your own little world
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device