I live in revelstoke, if we do that Canada cant ship goods from coast to coast from december to april (the subsidy I have in mind is the Rogers pass avalanche control program) Those subsidies exist because they benefit people.
The usual counterargument to this is that the people who benefit should pay for it themselves. Only if the true price is available to consumers can they make informed choices.
I don't fully subscribe to it myself, since I support some subsidies, but for many things it applies.
This seems like a good idea, until you get to interconnected systems that everyone depends on (like eg. the levees around an island, or a large harbor). Then it's STILL a good idea; in those cases everyone should pay!
You're assuming they're shipping luxury, optional goods, but what if they're essentials like food and medicine?
I mean yes you can make the argument that if it's too expensive you shouldn't be living there, but that's not how it works (case in point: SF, where people rather live in substandard housing or the street and have a shot at a big tech or startup company than move somewhere affordable).
> I mean yes you can make the argument that if it's too expensive you shouldn't be living there, but that's not how it works
It sounds like you're saying "we oughtn't change the status quo because it wouldn't be the status quo". What am I misunderstanding? (Apologies if this is obvious; still waking up)
