3 ms·

This is a common sentiment, but the evidence is with this article. Large scare ubanism and density are public goods, ando nnes that benefit more than the immedi

This is a common sentiment, but the evidence is with this article. Large scare ubanism and density are public goods, ando nnes that benefit more than the immediate area especially counting the fact that people can and do move. The alternative rather than fostering a cooperation of governance just fosters narrow self-interests and coordination failure. In the US, things like first past the post (FPTP) and the electoral college hamstring governance at all scales, but especially larger ones. And this culture of mediocrity kneecaps our imagination. Have a good proportional representation, and you'll quickly realize that there is more diversity of politics within than between today's constituencies. In simple terms, rather than bribe the Joe Manchins, we should make it cheap for everyone to move to the prosperous cities, and turn the depopulated hinterland into parks / tourism and agriculture.

freeopinion 6y ago
You have reinforced my belief that distant government is poor government. I have lived in some very big cities and enjoyed it. But I prefer the depopulated hinterland. I don't want "city slickers" with your contempt of rural areas making the rules for "agricultural" areas. Locals should make the rules. Surely you wouldn't want us hicks defining your city's ordinances. Tractors might always have the right-of-way and people should be mindful of neighbors when slaughtering pigs. You seem to make some utilitarian argument that massive cities are the best for everyone's greater good. A lot of people outside those cities point to the last twelve months as contra evidence. I think it could be a fun conversation to have when well researched. But I really lean towards letting locals govern local. (Note: leaning. I see arguments on both sides.)
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  I don't have problems with rural areas, but I do take with people not owning up to the extent their lives are subsidized. If you want to be rural give up: - good postal service to every nook and cranny - more federal dollars per person than the average for roads, firefighting in the west, etc. - cheap gas By all means, go ahead and be masters of your own existence. Otherwise, accept that we will figure this out together and stop relying on crutches like the electoral college and senate.

freeopinion 6y ago

You have reinforced my belief that distant government is poor government. I have lived in some very big cities and enjoyed it. But I prefer the depopulated hinterland. I don't want "city slickers" with your contempt of rural areas making the rules for "agricultural" areas. Locals should make the rules. Surely you wouldn't want us hicks defining your city's ordinances. Tractors might always have the right-of-way and people should be mindful of neighbors when slaughtering pigs. You seem to make some utilitarian argument that massive cities are the best for everyone's greater good. A lot of people outside those cities point to the last twelve months as contra evidence. I think it could be a fun conversation to have when well researched. But I really lean towards letting locals govern local. (Note: leaning. I see arguments on both sides.)

Ericson2314 6y ago
I don't have problems with rural areas, but I do take with people not owning up to the extent their lives are subsidized. If you want to be rural give up: - good postal service to every nook and cranny - more federal dollars per person than the average for roads, firefighting in the west, etc. - cheap gas By all means, go ahead and be masters of your own existence. Otherwise, accept that we will figure this out together and stop relying on crutches like the electoral college and senate.