>"A) Sick people are not making a deliberate lifestyle choice."
Most likely that is the case, yes. But you can't know for sure, as there are many actual life-style choices out there that negatively or positively impact health, and as a consequence, individuals' level of healthcare need.
>"B) Public healthcare is something provided by public decision-making and majority vote."
And we've also, by majority vote, decided that people should live where they please. And by majority vote, we've elected and chosen representatives that represent that. Let's not argue democracy here by claiming that healthcare is somehow more "democratic" or more "democratically chosen" than housing and urban-planning.
>"Therefore, frankly, if the public decides it yields greater public benefit to pour taxes taken from urban areas into improving urban areas rather than into subsidizing the suburban minority of the population, that is our democratic right."
Isn't that why we're discussing this? The public already chose and/or allowed people to live freely and in areas they choose. Not only that, but they've given tacit permission (by virtue of democratic vote) to representatives and government officials to plan the way they have, and that includes suburbia.
>"Nowadays, things have developed away from the post-WW2 pattern and back towards the pattern of the Industrial Revolution: heavy urbanization of the population and the economy. Most people now live in either the core cities or the inner suburbs, and so does most of the economic value-creation."
I don't see how this has any relevance or bearing on where people are allowed to live. Just because you deem it most efficient to optimize "economic value-creation" by packing people into as small a space as possible (seemingly against their will as they're picking suburban living now), doesn't make it the right way, or the moral way.
>"Now, the stick up our asses we city-dwelling types have got, is that thanks to various aspects of the districting systems, our vote counts for less than that of a rural-dweller in deciding what to do with our own damn tax money."
That's unfortunate. You should really get that fixed up. But let me get something a little clear, as I'm not 100% aware of the voting issues in America. Are you saying that individuals that live in suburban areas are part of a separate district? And their vote counts more than yours? That honestly doesn't sound very "democratic" to me.
I don't see how this has any relevance or bearing on where people are allowed to live.
No one's said "allowed to live", but where they've chosen to live. People choose to live in the suburbs for private garaging, private gardens, larger spaces, distance to neighbours, etc. No one's saying they're not nice things - I have them where I live - just that they cost more in terms of utilities/etc.
And we've also, by majority vote, decided that people should live where they please. And by majority vote, we've elected and chosen representatives that represent that.
The original point (that you were arguing poorly against) was that those living in denser areas could press their elected officials for adjusted distribution of taxes based on these sorts of costs.
I pay a water bill at my home (suburbs) and at my office (dense CBD). Even though my home uses a great deal more water (showers/baths, washing dishes and clothes, irrigation), my water bill at home is cheaper. A significant portion of water bills where I live are based on property value, and a smaller component on actual water use. So even though providing water to CBD offices and residences is probably much cheaper, that is not reflected in the pricing.
Most likely that is the case, yes. But you can't know for sure, as there are many actual life-style choices out there that negatively or positively impact health, and as a consequence, individuals' level of healthcare need.
>"B) Public healthcare is something provided by public decision-making and majority vote."
And we've also, by majority vote, decided that people should live where they please. And by majority vote, we've elected and chosen representatives that represent that. Let's not argue democracy here by claiming that healthcare is somehow more "democratic" or more "democratically chosen" than housing and urban-planning.
>"Therefore, frankly, if the public decides it yields greater public benefit to pour taxes taken from urban areas into improving urban areas rather than into subsidizing the suburban minority of the population, that is our democratic right."
Isn't that why we're discussing this? The public already chose and/or allowed people to live freely and in areas they choose. Not only that, but they've given tacit permission (by virtue of democratic vote) to representatives and government officials to plan the way they have, and that includes suburbia.
>"Nowadays, things have developed away from the post-WW2 pattern and back towards the pattern of the Industrial Revolution: heavy urbanization of the population and the economy. Most people now live in either the core cities or the inner suburbs, and so does most of the economic value-creation."
I don't see how this has any relevance or bearing on where people are allowed to live. Just because you deem it most efficient to optimize "economic value-creation" by packing people into as small a space as possible (seemingly against their will as they're picking suburban living now), doesn't make it the right way, or the moral way.
>"Now, the stick up our asses we city-dwelling types have got, is that thanks to various aspects of the districting systems, our vote counts for less than that of a rural-dweller in deciding what to do with our own damn tax money."
That's unfortunate. You should really get that fixed up. But let me get something a little clear, as I'm not 100% aware of the voting issues in America. Are you saying that individuals that live in suburban areas are part of a separate district? And their vote counts more than yours? That honestly doesn't sound very "democratic" to me.