5 ms·

I ran into this sort of heavily individualistic attitude a lot when I was traveling around places in remote nature-y states like Utah, New Mexico, Arkansas, etc

I ran into this sort of heavily individualistic attitude a lot when I was traveling around places in remote nature-y states like Utah, New Mexico, Arkansas, etc. And I can empathize. Many people feel aggrieved that they work much harder for much less than people who live in coastal cities, and under much worse conditions. Honestly, I think that perspective is pretty accurate. But there's also a refusal to see that people in those areas make enormous demands on the government to subsidize their preferred lifestyle in such remote areas. Roads, telecoms, and food/water/gas services cost money and make major impacts on the environment, but the same people complaining about big government will often use their next breath to grouse about bumpy roads and brag about how they abuse BLM lands as if they were their own private property. Sometimes it feels like you're trying to explain the tragedy of the commons to a locust. Still, most people have a lot of respect and admiration for the land that they live and rely on. I was once talking to someone about the USFS' forest road system, and they said something like: "I know, isn't it terrific? I can just drive or bike out to where the trees and fish and deer are. But could you imagine if they tried to do that today? The environmentalists would shut 'em down and the conservatives would say it's too expensive!" We really need fewer absolutists in our governance; there are plenty of things that most people agree on, but which are vetoed by the extreme wings of our two exclusive political parties. Also, there really is something special about the remote wilderness, and whatever that something is, the American West exemplifies it. Some people seem to viscerally need wild spaces; they're part of what make us human, and they remind everyone that you are more of a guest than a landlord on Earth.

kolanos 7y ago
> But there's also a refusal to see that people in those areas make enormous demands on the government to subsidize their preferred lifestyle in such remote areas. Roads, telecoms, and food/water/gas services cost money and make major impacts on the environment.... Where do you think the food, water and gas come from in the first place? And how do you think they get to the cities? We can stop subsidizing that, I guess, but food, water and gas in cities is going to cost a hell of a lot more.
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  It seems like it's usually a cost per length/area problem. Cities are small, and they have a lot of people who pay taxes, so the marginal cost to pave a road between any two places and make regular deliveries along it is small. Frontier areas are enormous, and roads barely last a few decades before they need replacing. Moving goods and services to any one house or hamlet also adds a significant marginal cost to existing routes. I once saw an ambulance pull out of a small clinic and turn its lights on in New Mexico. I followed it along a highway at 75mph for over an hour (its lights flashing the entire time) before it took an exit to reach the emergency. The coverage in these areas is just abysmal, but I would guess that it's still pretty expensive per capita. >Where do you think the food, water and gas come from in the first place? And how do you think they get to the cities? We can stop subsidizing that, I guess, but food, water and gas in cities is going to cost a hell of a lot more. From my anecdotal experience, I don't think that most farmers would be in favor of ending domestic ag subsidies. But I think you're on to something in saying that the negative externalities of cities aren't priced into our markets either. All of the pollution, noise, stress, congestion...those things should be subsidized for people who live in cities, but they aren't, and the resulting increase in the cost-of-living in cities relative to rural areas probably drives up prices for the specialized manufactured goods and services that everyone depends on.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
    > All of the pollution, noise, stress, congestion...those things should be subsidized for people who live in cities, but they aren't.... On a per-capita basis, people who live in cities generate less externalities than rural dwellers. So I'm not quite clear on your point.
    - kolanos 7y ago
      > On a per-capita basis, people who live in cities generate less externalities than rural dwellers. So I'm not quite clear on your point. Of course there's more externalities, 3% of the population feeds the other 97%. Cities consume all the food, water and gas that those "wasteful" rural folk produce for them. Interesting that we don't account for that and just attribute the externalities to them, as if that's the whole story. Cities are certainly more efficient per capita, but they're not self-sustaining. If we demolished all those wasteful roads between cities and rural parts of the country, the cities would starve.
geggam 7y ago
>Also, there really is something special about the remote wilderness, and whatever that something is, the American West exemplifies it. Some people seem to viscerally need wild spaces; they're part of what make us human, and they remind everyone that you are more of a guest than a landlord on Earth. Interesting how you point out mankind needs nature but in the same breath talk about all the infrastructure. I have an off the grid property with no roads to it (legal easements but nothing improved) yet my nature is marred by a giant substation powering all the civilized parts where people build infrastructure. I can literally hear when the power demand increases from a half a mile away. The irony is you think we demand the govt for something. The govt doesn't produce anything, except waste. If we want a road out here we get a tractor and make one. Here is an example of people producing infrastructure with no govt waste. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_6_in_Iowa#River-to-River_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_6_in_Iowa#River-to-...
- vharuck 7y ago
  >The govt doesn't produce anything, except waste. In the Wikipedia article you cite, the state Governor arranged the effort to make the road. How is that not government? I work in state government, and this type of thing (the state coordinates a bunch of private organizations towards a common goal) happens all the time. Do you mean, "the way [my] state government handles contracts always leads to waste"? Because that's something worth discussing. It might sound like I'm splitting hairs because of course people speak in general terms to save time. But I've met too many people who think the government is literally incapable of doing something well.
  - geggam 7y ago
    The Governor did nothing but coordinate. Any central known figure can do the same. The government never pays for or produces anything. At best it can be as good as private enterprise coordinating work efforts but usually it is much more inefficient as there is no motive to save money. So yes, all the govt produces is waste.
    - karatestomp 7y ago
jvanderbot 7y ago
My "countryfolk" friends work long hours but are land-wealthy, spend copious time with family, and take month-long vacations to go hunting. They have it right, I tell myself as I pay down college debt in anticipation of house debt while sitting unpaid in traffic 2 hrs a day.
golemotron 7y ago
> But there's also a refusal to see that people in those areas make enormous demands on the government to subsidize their preferred lifestyle in such remote areas. Roads, telecoms, and food/water/gas services cost money and make major impacts on the environment Isn't this the same argument that leads to the idea that Scandinavian socialist success is the result of having an umbrella of defense from the US that they do not have to pay for themselves?
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  The effective subsidies to rural living matter on a daily basis - rural life would essentially end without them. If indeed it is true that the USA effectively subsidizes the defense needs of Scandanavia, there's no evidence that I am aware of that removing that subsidy would lead to an end to the Scandanavian countries. It would marginally increase the possibility that Russia might decide to annex part of Finland, perhaps, but this would still be extremely unlikely.
  - kolanos 7y ago
    > The effective subsidies to rural living matter on a daily basis - rural life would essentially end without them. It would also mean the end of most cities as there would be no one to feed them. So who is subsidizing whose lifestyle again?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
      It's far from clear to me that most of the rural population, however you define it, is directly (and maybe not even indirectly) involved in agriculture. The census puts the rural population at 60 million. Self-employed nand family farm labor is at about 2 million, hired farm labor is about a little over a million, bringing the total for farms to a bit over 3 million. Granted, there's many other agriculturally related jobs that also exist in rural areas. I've heard an estimate that only about 1% of the population is now involved in food production overall, which would be about 30 million. So at best we could say that the cities need about half the current rural population to feed them. That's a glib assessment of course - it would imply no communities other than farms themselves. But I don't think its reasonable to assume or claim that most of the rural population is involved in things of direct importance to cities. Presumably there's some economic value, otherwise the population would drop even further, but its certainly not just food, and food by itself isn't a justification.

kolanos 7y ago

> But there's also a refusal to see that people in those areas make enormous demands on the government to subsidize their preferred lifestyle in such remote areas. Roads, telecoms, and food/water/gas services cost money and make major impacts on the environment.... Where do you think the food, water and gas come from in the first place? And how do you think they get to the cities? We can stop subsidizing that, I guess, but food, water and gas in cities is going to cost a hell of a lot more.

leggomylibro 7y ago
It seems like it's usually a cost per length/area problem. Cities are small, and they have a lot of people who pay taxes, so the marginal cost to pave a road between any two places and make regular deliveries along it is small. Frontier areas are enormous, and roads barely last a few decades before they need replacing. Moving goods and services to any one house or hamlet also adds a significant marginal cost to existing routes. I once saw an ambulance pull out of a small clinic and turn its lights on in New Mexico. I followed it along a highway at 75mph for over an hour (its lights flashing the entire time) before it took an exit to reach the emergency. The coverage in these areas is just abysmal, but I would guess that it's still pretty expensive per capita. >Where do you think the food, water and gas come from in the first place? And how do you think they get to the cities? We can stop subsidizing that, I guess, but food, water and gas in cities is going to cost a hell of a lot more. From my anecdotal experience, I don't think that most farmers would be in favor of ending domestic ag subsidies. But I think you're on to something in saying that the negative externalities of cities aren't priced into our markets either. All of the pollution, noise, stress, congestion...those things should be subsidized for people who live in cities, but they aren't, and the resulting increase in the cost-of-living in cities relative to rural areas probably drives up prices for the specialized manufactured goods and services that everyone depends on.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  > All of the pollution, noise, stress, congestion...those things should be subsidized for people who live in cities, but they aren't.... On a per-capita basis, people who live in cities generate less externalities than rural dwellers. So I'm not quite clear on your point.
  - kolanos 7y ago
    > On a per-capita basis, people who live in cities generate less externalities than rural dwellers. So I'm not quite clear on your point. Of course there's more externalities, 3% of the population feeds the other 97%. Cities consume all the food, water and gas that those "wasteful" rural folk produce for them. Interesting that we don't account for that and just attribute the externalities to them, as if that's the whole story. Cities are certainly more efficient per capita, but they're not self-sustaining. If we demolished all those wasteful roads between cities and rural parts of the country, the cities would starve.

geggam 7y ago

>Also, there really is something special about the remote wilderness, and whatever that something is, the American West exemplifies it. Some people seem to viscerally need wild spaces; they're part of what make us human, and they remind everyone that you are more of a guest than a landlord on Earth. Interesting how you point out mankind needs nature but in the same breath talk about all the infrastructure. I have an off the grid property with no roads to it (legal easements but nothing improved) yet my nature is marred by a giant substation powering all the civilized parts where people build infrastructure. I can literally hear when the power demand increases from a half a mile away. The irony is you think we demand the govt for something. The govt doesn't produce anything, except waste. If we want a road out here we get a tractor and make one. Here is an example of people producing infrastructure with no govt waste. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_6_in_Iowa#River-to-River_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_6_in_Iowa#River-to-...

vharuck 7y ago
>The govt doesn't produce anything, except waste. In the Wikipedia article you cite, the state Governor arranged the effort to make the road. How is that not government? I work in state government, and this type of thing (the state coordinates a bunch of private organizations towards a common goal) happens all the time. Do you mean, "the way [my] state government handles contracts always leads to waste"? Because that's something worth discussing. It might sound like I'm splitting hairs because of course people speak in general terms to save time. But I've met too many people who think the government is literally incapable of doing something well.
- geggam 7y ago
  The Governor did nothing but coordinate. Any central known figure can do the same. The government never pays for or produces anything. At best it can be as good as private enterprise coordinating work efforts but usually it is much more inefficient as there is no motive to save money. So yes, all the govt produces is waste.
  - karatestomp 7y ago

jvanderbot 7y ago

My "countryfolk" friends work long hours but are land-wealthy, spend copious time with family, and take month-long vacations to go hunting. They have it right, I tell myself as I pay down college debt in anticipation of house debt while sitting unpaid in traffic 2 hrs a day.

golemotron 7y ago

> But there's also a refusal to see that people in those areas make enormous demands on the government to subsidize their preferred lifestyle in such remote areas. Roads, telecoms, and food/water/gas services cost money and make major impacts on the environment Isn't this the same argument that leads to the idea that Scandinavian socialist success is the result of having an umbrella of defense from the US that they do not have to pay for themselves?

PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
The effective subsidies to rural living matter on a daily basis - rural life would essentially end without them. If indeed it is true that the USA effectively subsidizes the defense needs of Scandanavia, there's no evidence that I am aware of that removing that subsidy would lead to an end to the Scandanavian countries. It would marginally increase the possibility that Russia might decide to annex part of Finland, perhaps, but this would still be extremely unlikely.
- kolanos 7y ago
  > The effective subsidies to rural living matter on a daily basis - rural life would essentially end without them. It would also mean the end of most cities as there would be no one to feed them. So who is subsidizing whose lifestyle again?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
    It's far from clear to me that most of the rural population, however you define it, is directly (and maybe not even indirectly) involved in agriculture. The census puts the rural population at 60 million. Self-employed nand family farm labor is at about 2 million, hired farm labor is about a little over a million, bringing the total for farms to a bit over 3 million. Granted, there's many other agriculturally related jobs that also exist in rural areas. I've heard an estimate that only about 1% of the population is now involved in food production overall, which would be about 30 million. So at best we could say that the cities need about half the current rural population to feed them. That's a glib assessment of course - it would imply no communities other than farms themselves. But I don't think its reasonable to assume or claim that most of the rural population is involved in things of direct importance to cities. Presumably there's some economic value, otherwise the population would drop even further, but its certainly not just food, and food by itself isn't a justification.