4 ms·

There are rural concerns that cities don't really care about, should they be ignored?

by godshatter 7y ago

CPLX 7y ago
They should be considered proportionally to the amount of people affected.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  But their lives are so different. For instance: gun control. Rules for millions of people crowded into a pressure-cooker city, vs rules for folks living a mile apart with varmints, police protection an hour away, hunting, are reasonably very different. Same for zoning, licensing, inspections, on and on. Rural residents often get saddled with metro rules that make no sense.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Great example. Cities are prevented from having sensible gun control because rural voters who don't care about their needs* prevent it. * But love cashing their welfare checks sent from urban citizens.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      Those 'welfare cheats' are feeding you.
  - krapp 7y ago
    Except not every city is midtown Manhattan, and not every rural area is the Ozarks. You can get "varmints" and long police response times in New York and LA. Most people in the "country" don't hunt, fish, or gather firewood, and most people in the "cities" aren't living hyperdense urbane chic lifestyles. In reality, most of the country lives in between these extremes.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      Most people (by pure numbers) by definition live in very large cities. In fact, in the USA, most Americans live in very large coastal cities. So that argument doesn't hold water.
      - krapp 7y ago
        When the "urban/rural" divide is brought up in American political discourse, it's always done so describing extremes. Yet living in a city - even a large city, doesn't always mean living in an urban "pressure cooker," nor does living outside of a city mean seeing more wildlife than people. I live in a suburb of Austin. I don't hunt my own food or drink from a well, nor am I surrounded by concrete jungle. The premise that urban and rural dwellers generally have such radically divergent ways of life that it's infeasible for a single entity to govern both is a bit of a populist myth.
        JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        'A suburb of Austin' may not be rural by many definitions. Its another city? Look at a map. See all those spaces between a city and its suburbs, and the next city and its suburbs? That's where 'rural' is. I can see half a mile in any direction, and not see another human habitation. Clearly this is rural. And clearly, things around here work a little differently from a city. For instance, I pay for fire service (volunteer fire association; I donate). I essentially don't have police service except for cleaning up after major catastrophes (half a dozen sheriffs per 100 square miles). I saw an eagle swoop by my kitchen window the other night, with a rabbit in its claws (yeah eagle! I'm a gardener). When the deer get out of hand harvesting my garden before I do, I'm allowed to shoot them. With one of my guns, a bigger one because the little ones are for varmints like rabbit, skunk, rats, the occasional badger. My interactions with a neighbor are purely voluntary, because other than annual discussions about fences (and the fireman's ball) we have little we need to talk about. There are no association rules; there are no inspections nor even inspectors. If my neighbor parks a bunch of trailers behind his windbreak in an ugly rusting mess, go neighbor. I guess I'll just plant a row of trees and wait 10 years to mask the view in that direction. So just call me Mr. Populist Myth I guess.

There are rural concerns that cities don't really care about, should they be ignored?

CPLX 7y ago

They should be considered proportionally to the amount of people affected.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
But their lives are so different. For instance: gun control. Rules for millions of people crowded into a pressure-cooker city, vs rules for folks living a mile apart with varmints, police protection an hour away, hunting, are reasonably very different. Same for zoning, licensing, inspections, on and on. Rural residents often get saddled with metro rules that make no sense.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Great example. Cities are prevented from having sensible gun control because rural voters who don't care about their needs* prevent it. * But love cashing their welfare checks sent from urban citizens.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Those 'welfare cheats' are feeding you.
- krapp 7y ago
  Except not every city is midtown Manhattan, and not every rural area is the Ozarks. You can get "varmints" and long police response times in New York and LA. Most people in the "country" don't hunt, fish, or gather firewood, and most people in the "cities" aren't living hyperdense urbane chic lifestyles. In reality, most of the country lives in between these extremes.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Most people (by pure numbers) by definition live in very large cities. In fact, in the USA, most Americans live in very large coastal cities. So that argument doesn't hold water.
    - krapp 7y ago
      When the "urban/rural" divide is brought up in American political discourse, it's always done so describing extremes. Yet living in a city - even a large city, doesn't always mean living in an urban "pressure cooker," nor does living outside of a city mean seeing more wildlife than people. I live in a suburb of Austin. I don't hunt my own food or drink from a well, nor am I surrounded by concrete jungle. The premise that urban and rural dwellers generally have such radically divergent ways of life that it's infeasible for a single entity to govern both is a bit of a populist myth.
      - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        'A suburb of Austin' may not be rural by many definitions. Its another city? Look at a map. See all those spaces between a city and its suburbs, and the next city and its suburbs? That's where 'rural' is. I can see half a mile in any direction, and not see another human habitation. Clearly this is rural. And clearly, things around here work a little differently from a city. For instance, I pay for fire service (volunteer fire association; I donate). I essentially don't have police service except for cleaning up after major catastrophes (half a dozen sheriffs per 100 square miles). I saw an eagle swoop by my kitchen window the other night, with a rabbit in its claws (yeah eagle! I'm a gardener). When the deer get out of hand harvesting my garden before I do, I'm allowed to shoot them. With one of my guns, a bigger one because the little ones are for varmints like rabbit, skunk, rats, the occasional badger. My interactions with a neighbor are purely voluntary, because other than annual discussions about fences (and the fireman's ball) we have little we need to talk about. There are no association rules; there are no inspections nor even inspectors. If my neighbor parks a bunch of trailers behind his windbreak in an ugly rusting mess, go neighbor. I guess I'll just plant a row of trees and wait 10 years to mask the view in that direction. So just call me Mr. Populist Myth I guess.