Urban vs. Rural; What's to be done?

[brewster]

Maybe we could value farming more. Maybe we could incentive better quality food for Americans made by Americans. Something like that. Then what would happen to the counties and small towns? Change our values change the world.

I'm all in with that. Get rid of the subsidies for commodity crop industrial feedstock for ADM et al and give them to farmers growing fresh real food. This is straight from Michael Pollan.

[PartyOf5]

Like I said the cities would be thrilled to be cut off from the rural areas sucking their tit.

Based on your arguments, I assume you support the cities. That it is perfectly just that they get to keep their money to themselves instead of giving it to the leeching rural population.

Do you also support rich individuals keeping their earned income instead of having to support those making far less and paying far less (or even 0) taxes? Or are you a hypocrite?

I haven't proposed concentrating the rich in ghettos, the way it's been proposed to cut off the cities. If I did, then it would be perfectly understandable for them to deny support to those who need it.

This has nothing to do with what you have or have not proposed. You said the cities would be happy to rid themselves of having to support the rural areas. You seem fine with that. You don't care if the people in those rural areas are poor and need the financial assistance.

If you are being consistent, then you should also be happy to have the rich keep their share of income. They shouldn't have to pay more in taxes to support poor people. Right? Or are you a hypocrite?

[Martin Hash]

That's unassailable logic. I recommend not using the "rural gets more money" argument anymore.

[clubgop]

Based on your arguments, I assume you support the cities. That it is perfectly just that they get to keep their money to themselves instead of giving it to the leeching rural population.

Do you also support rich individuals keeping their earned income instead of having to support those making far less and paying far less (or even 0) taxes? Or are you a hypocrite?

I haven't proposed concentrating the rich in ghettos, the way it's been proposed to cut off the cities. If I did, then it would be perfectly understandable for them to deny support to those who need it.

This has nothing to do with what you have or have not proposed. You said the cities would be happy to rid themselves of having to support the rural areas. You seem fine with that. You don't care if the people in those rural areas are poor and need the financial assistance.

If you are being consistent, then you should also be happy to have the rich keep their share of income. They shouldn't have to pay more in taxes to support poor people. Right? Or are you a hypocrite?

The big question is where do the suburbs fit in all this. Cause if say city limits and not wider metropolitan area cities aren't that well off. Only NYC maybe benefit still but other cities would rot out.

[Speaker to Animals]

Remove corporate taxes from the equation and then compare with a mind towards the fact that business and industry already have begun to leave cities for rural communities (especially manufacturing, but I suspect tech is next).

The city as a concept is really past it's usefulness. The original advantages for cities (security, proximity, culture production) no longer exist as distinct advantages over rural areas due to technology (chiefly communications and transportation). All the downsides not only remain but continue to matasticize. Cities grow increasingly unviable for most inhabitants, businesses and residents alike.

The big death of the city seems still several generations off, at least, but it's coming.

[Speaker to Animals]

I realize this sounds shocking at first, but we don't really need large cities any longer. They are more of a problem than a boon.

We have instant, global communications now. Telepresence. Virtual workspaces. A business can be composed of employees spread across the entire planet now. Culture is created everywhere now, not just cities.

It's dead, Jim.

[Martin Hash]

The issue seems to be that the Virtual Civil War, insomuch as it exists in the physical realm, seems to be cities versus rural: people in cities don't like something, they infect people throughout the rest of the State. If the value systems weren't so diametrically opposed, this wouldn't be a problem, but enfranchisement and diversity have undermined whatever national values we used to have. I don't know if that's a good thing or bad thing: as an OWG, I'm losing out, but as a weirdo, I'm benefited.

[Martin Hash]

I realize this sounds shocking at first, but we don't really need large cities any longer. They are more of a problem than a boon.

We have instant, global communications now. Telepresence. Virtual workspaces. A business can be composed of employees spread across the entire planet now. Culture is created everywhere now, not just cities.

It's dead, Jim.

People don't move to Portland for jobs.

[Speaker to Animals]

Some genetic predisposition in our race leads to degeneracy and anti-civizational tendencies after so many generations of breeding in cities. The multi-generational urban white guy is quite likely to be degenerate and predisposed to hate the foundation of his own civilization. It's not even peculiar to any form of civilization. It happened in pagan antiquity, Christian medieval period, and now it happens on steroids during the modern era.

Cities and white people are a really bad mix. We need to spread out a bit and work towards a society in which property tends to be more wisely dispersed. We are at our best as small city citizens, and our worst as dense urban mobs.

I think the hatred multi-generational urbanites have for the rest of their countrymen has more to do with their hatred of civilization itself. They don't just hate western civization either. If Mexico took over the US and finally colonized us completely, these white urban "progressives" would hate the Mexican civilization just as much.

[Speaker to Animals]

Basically, I think most human behavior is actually genetic. There exist latent genes in people of European descent that tend towards degeneracy and disorder. For some reason, dense urban environments sexually select for those traits. It's possible that the alleles that improve agreeable behavior, especially the ability to live around many strangers, also predispose one to rebel against the moral and social order that forms the basis of complex society.

It's sort of how they make a virtue out of what they call tolerance, but what really is the absence of virtue. Think about the behavioral traits that allow a person to thrive in a dense urban center. He has to be able to coexist with people who probably all have completely different value systems, customs, and habits. For that to work long term, people have to live and let live, which by itself is a good thing for minor differences. But the guy who just doesn't give a shit about any moral values has the most advantages, since he never really has to tolerate anything because very little offends him. As it turns out, a guy like this is usually only offended by people who actually do express discomfort with certain habits and behavior.



Out in the countryside, a totally different selection process occurs. You rise and fall by your word, honor, and your adherence to customs. This is why, with a few exceptions, much of western civilization actually emerged from the countryside, and most of the time that civilization dies in the city.