> Something cannot both be a good investment and accessible to all.
Roads are a perfect example of a good investment that is accessible to all. It's called a "common good", and it exists.
Roads are a perfect example of a good investment that is accessible to all. It's called a "common good", and it exists.
When someone includes statements in an argument that can be trivially disputed, they should fully expect those weak points to be disputed. The rest of the argument, imo, does not deserve critique until the trivially disputable points are resolved.