From a moral point of view, this is actually how it should be done. But the thing is, for one it is easier to get money from someone who has it than from someone who has not. Then there is also a nasty political debate hidden in there, about how you as a community should take care of each other in order to prosper. That poor driver may really depend on that road paid by others to make a living on his own, and you as a government will gladly bend the rules a little bit off from what's equitable for everyone, otherwise those poor bastards (becoming jobless and having too much time on their hands) will make unpleasant noise, unlike the quiet (wealthy and mostly happy) payers. After all, you wish to keep your political seat AND appear as a good caretaker which governs for the people, right? And finally, the reality is not always in harmony with our sense of justice, and if the you're not going to pay for infrastructure of remote areas that have poor economical prospective (...or corruption, or what not), the infrastructure in those areas will most likely collapse, for not having enough means of self-sustenance. The country is like an organism that should take care of its organs to prevent falling apart, no mater what.
Okay, you contact a construction crew (and other associated contractors, civil engineers, etc), and you make sure they're doing their job. And if they don't, you take on the liability for any damages done by potholes, broken guard rails on bridges, etc.
Comments
I don't see the problem with this?
From a moral point of view, this is actually how it should be done. But the thing is, for one it is easier to get money from someone who has it than from someone who has not. Then there is also a nasty political debate hidden in there, about how you as a community should take care of each other in order to prosper. That poor driver may really depend on that road paid by others to make a living on his own, and you as a government will gladly bend the rules a little bit off from what's equitable for everyone, otherwise those poor bastards (becoming jobless and having too much time on their hands) will make unpleasant noise, unlike the quiet (wealthy and mostly happy) payers. After all, you wish to keep your political seat AND appear as a good caretaker which governs for the people, right? And finally, the reality is not always in harmony with our sense of justice, and if the you're not going to pay for infrastructure of remote areas that have poor economical prospective (...or corruption, or what not), the infrastructure in those areas will most likely collapse, for not having enough means of self-sustenance. The country is like an organism that should take care of its organs to prevent falling apart, no mater what.
Okay, you contact a construction crew (and other associated contractors, civil engineers, etc), and you make sure they're doing their job. And if they don't, you take on the liability for any damages done by potholes, broken guard rails on bridges, etc.
Does that still sound good to you?