[acdha]

If you’re concerned about fairness, look at what percentage of the 30th percentile income one needs to have a car to use those roads in the first place. If that was a serious argument, every highway would have first class pedestrian and bike infrastructure for the fifth of the population who can’t or don’t drive.

[wolverine876]

You really don't think 'fairness' is essential in law and govenrment and society. It's pretty fundamental to humanity.

The fact that it's not achieved in some ways makes it more important that it's delivered in others, and for us to stand up for it.

[acdha]

I find it conspicuous that your definition of fairness is letting other people subsidize your lifestyle. If you cared about fairness, paying for what you use is about as fair as it gets.

[wolverine876]

> If you cared about fairness, paying for what you use is about as fair as it gets.

Only in a libertarian fantasy where you only deserve, as a human being, what you personally pay for - even access to public roads! Should the wealthy have privileged access to everything? What about those wealthy people who pay no taxes?

We all are subsidized very heavily by our ancestors - consider the difference between a barren country devoid of all development and what you were born into. And more importantly, what humans have a right to, what is moral, etc. does not depend on money. Fairness isn't generally or primarily dependent on how much people spend.

Roads are public goods, built by everyone for everyone.