3 ms·

> countryside is full of inequality I think it has to do with more emphasis on physical labor as conviences one would find in an urban environment are not avai

> countryside is full of inequality I think it has to do with more emphasis on physical labor as conviences one would find in an urban environment are not available. Traditional gender roles are more prominent. A healthy culture will mean more peace, happiness, & coexistence with these rules. There are certainly strong women in rural areas, but men have a biological advantage for physical labor. > drug abuse, drunkenness, etc. I'm not sure if it's better or worse than urban environments, but a healthy culture & economy certainly helps. Progressives tend to favor redistribution, which makes sense for high population densities. High population densities tend to rely more on inputs from the outside to support the population. Rural areas tend to be more self sufficient & even net producers of food, raw resources, & non manufactured products. The survival of the people in high population densities requires these resource inputs. A bit less so for rural environments. Rural populations do benefit from urban centers, but there are also costs in supporting high population densities. So rural areas are incentivized to take progressive policies with more of a cost/benefit analysis rather than requiring such policies for its survival. I think the Hank Williams Jr. song exemplifies the attitude of many in rural environments. Note in the song, he befriended an urban finance professional, who was murdered at a convenience store. If he met the murderer he would "love to spit some beech-nut in that dude's eye"...where even justice is a self-reliant responsibility, rather than delegation to institutions. This attitude would be seen as an anathema to progressive ideology which has more faith in delegating justice to institutions. "A country boy can survive" -- Hank Williams Jr

numeri 3y ago
How do your views on rural independence fit with the fact that most rural areas in the United States require massive amounts of monetary support from the more population dense (and progressive) states? [1] I would argue that this idea of rural areas being independent is a remnant of a bygone era, an era where frontiers yet unsettled still existed. Now, with our desire for modern infrastructure, lifespans, and education, rural areas are kept alive through the very redistribution they claim to oppose. [1]: http://archive.today/2017.09.16-013424/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/ http://archive.today/2017.09.16-013424/https://www.theatlant...
- jpadkins 3y ago
  That data set is heavily influenced by military spending (which is a large fraction of federal spending and has historically correlated with right leaning states). I don't think that data supports the argument 'require massive amounts of monetary support from the more population dense' especially given the majority of population of those states strongly desire lower federal taxes and lower spending, even if it means less transfer of wealth to their states. 'require' is a high bar of evidence. I think 'adapt to changes' would be a better argument if we decided to allow states and private citizens to have more control of how their wealth is deployed (by not taxing and spending as much at the federal level). Those states would not go bankrupt or worse if federal spending decreased, but yes they would have to adapt. Maybe poor people in those states would have to move to areas where they had higher productivity and/or better welfare, which is not exactly a bad thing compared to paying them to stay in a state with low productivity?

numeri 3y ago

How do your views on rural independence fit with the fact that most rural areas in the United States require massive amounts of monetary support from the more population dense (and progressive) states? [1] I would argue that this idea of rural areas being independent is a remnant of a bygone era, an era where frontiers yet unsettled still existed. Now, with our desire for modern infrastructure, lifespans, and education, rural areas are kept alive through the very redistribution they claim to oppose. [1]: http://archive.today/2017.09.16-013424/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/ http://archive.today/2017.09.16-013424/https://www.theatlant...

jpadkins 3y ago
That data set is heavily influenced by military spending (which is a large fraction of federal spending and has historically correlated with right leaning states). I don't think that data supports the argument 'require massive amounts of monetary support from the more population dense' especially given the majority of population of those states strongly desire lower federal taxes and lower spending, even if it means less transfer of wealth to their states. 'require' is a high bar of evidence. I think 'adapt to changes' would be a better argument if we decided to allow states and private citizens to have more control of how their wealth is deployed (by not taxing and spending as much at the federal level). Those states would not go bankrupt or worse if federal spending decreased, but yes they would have to adapt. Maybe poor people in those states would have to move to areas where they had higher productivity and/or better welfare, which is not exactly a bad thing compared to paying them to stay in a state with low productivity?