Comment by charcircuit
3 days ago
>Public parks don't turn profits.
If people don't care enough about a park to fund it, then that space may be of better use to something else.
>Public roads don't turn a profit.
They are a loss leader aimed to make more money elsewhere.
>Food stamp programs and housing assistance don't generate a profit.
If people don't want to fund such things people in those programs should make or buy their own food and housing.
>that indirectly translates into increased economic efficiency
Again the idea of things like loss leaders are not foriegn to entities that want to be profitable.
> If people don't want to fund such things people in those programs should make or buy their own food and housing.
The country of Ireland still hasn't recovered from the British government saying this kind of thing with different words 175 years ago. Today the Irish-descended population in the USA is higher than the population of Ireland because of all the people who left as a result of the same event.
>If people don't care enough about a park to fund it, then that space may be of better use to something else.
No, public parks are awesome. They should remain free.
>They are a loss leader aimed to make more money elsewhere.
You're starting to get it. We pay for public services with our taxes, and in exchange, we get free stuff back that benefits society.
>If people don't want to fund such things people in those programs should make or buy their own food ans housing.
Oh my fucking god. This is seriously the most asinine sentence I have ever read. Bar none. It's honestly difficult to respond to something like this. I'm at a loss for words.
I genuinely don't give a single fuck if you, or anyone else, don't want to fund food stamps. We absolutely should continue funding it. The entire point of those projects is that the recipients specifically CANNOT afford to do these things on their own. You're advocating for further oppression of the downtrodden; it's difficult to understand how one comes to this position.
>They should remain free.
The money for maintaining them has to come from somewhere. They already are not free.
I have corrected the typo in that sentence.
If that's how you see it, literally everything costs money at some point in the line. So I guess nothing is free. But we have a word for it, so let's give it an actual use.
You enter at no cost (with exceptions, of course). That's free. They should continue to be open and free; a world without parks, without use of public funds for public good, isn't a good one. Profits be damned, I want my parks.
> If people don't care enough about a park to fund it, then that space may be of better use to something else
Once the land is used for something else, it will never become a park again.
It is important for us to safeguard land for greenspace like parks and playgrounds and community gardens and stuff, because it is incredibly difficult to reclaim space to make those sorts of spaces once there is a building or different zoning on the land
Are you saying that people who use food stamps – because they cannot afford food – should instead buy food with the money they don’t have?
I am saying they should make money to use to buy food. Or they should make their own food if they do not have the means to pay someone else to do it for them.