"Market fundamentalists would argue, 'let the utilities die. "

No, market fundamentalists would argue, let the mandated subsidies to solar etc. die first.

" I think it's self explanatory. " ... because that's where the money is ...

"Americans please take note, this is what happens when you elect conservatives."

You missed the part where the Labour party supports the draft law.

Whine whine whine ... environmentalist research can be done outside funding & auspices of the federal government. Do it for "the truth", do it "for science".

Ezekiel is one of the architects of obamacare. Expect nothing inconsistent from him with the idea of getting the old (expensive) people to just go and die already; that's the only way that obamacare can survive (and even that's a long shot).

"

Quantify, specify.

You like to eat don't you?"

Yes, but you're short on quantity & specificity on how it's to "society's benefit" to have (how many?) people live in rural areas.

Plus you will notice food is to some extent market-based, so people are paying for that "benefit" directly already. (Let's ignore stuff like food stamps or farmer subsidies, which don't exactly help quantify the benefits, only the costs.)

" benefits to society as a whole "

Quantify, specify.

"... Which will create a society of Haves vs Have Nots based on location. ..."

I suggest bearing a little more humbleness as to your predictions about areas' and peoples' economic judgements. If someone could precisely judge the degree of "cost exacerbation" or "enjoyment" of millions of people, that person would be a gajillionaire, not just a commenter. It is simply not for you to judge whether people in rural areas enjoy themselves as much as your urban peers, or should want to spend their money in ways you approve. You're not a dictator either (thank god).

And that's kind of the point. Where nature/reality/market dictates the different availability of certain services, let people who choose to live there absorb those consequences. Don't protect them from the consequences of their choices. They're adults, and will adapt.

"But you would condemn them to sub-standard living"

No. I would simply not support subsidizing them.
"sub-standard living" -- that's begging the question

"why not just get them all to move"

Sorry, I'm not a dictator.

"What about roads? Schools? Sewage? Water?"

You're confusing subsidies and paid municipal services.

Yes. And they should get off open-ended subsidies (transfers from other taxpayers).

... at all.

"Or do you accept that a certain minimal number of children accidentally killing each other and dudes shooting themselves in the dick is the price we pay for freedom that is arbitrarily unregulated."

Yes.

That choice of proxy needs some support, lest they end up accidentally gathering evidence that earning a 5.5 GPA in basketweaving does not correlate with unusual genes.