"But what if they like living in remote rural areas?" Sorry, you can't always get what you want. A lot of people would like to live in dense, transit-rich settings but can't -- either because they can't afford it or it simply doesn't exist where they are.
— Adam Kotsko (@adamkotsko) August 21, 2022
Adam Kotsko hates personal choice. This much is clear from his crazed rant where he demands rural people stop living rural lifestyles because they don't like dying in urban transit systems.
Sure you might have a lot of good reasons for living where you do. But those don't use transit, so Adam wants you to suffer so that he feels better knowing fewer people are out driving around and enjoying themselves. (He must be a real treat on road trips).
As always though, there's a silver lining. You see, the delusional fantasies of Kotsko and his followers that rural people are being "subsidized" (the same people who falsely claim the oil industry is subsidized) actually do apply to a particular group of people. They not only demand government support for their rural lifestyle but also increase that support and throw in a bunch of ridiculous other schemes from legally mandating their religion to refusing to allow local democracy.
I'm talking, of course, about Red Indians on their reserves. They keep insisting on staying on the patches of ground Her Majesty Queen Victoria had allowed them to live on and more or less keep their own backwards culture intact. Do they like living there? Generally yes, though with things like Inuvik and Davis Inlet they demand we spend money to move them and then just rehash the same mistakes.
Sorry, we won't support you living out there. Either move back or else we'll cut off the spigot.
That would be a harsh thing to do to rural white people. Red Indians and their fake nations? Sounds like the best thing to happen to them since 1492.
