Should Rural Votes be Weighted Against Urban Votes?

[Uxupox]

I like how you're okay with rural people being left in poverty without any line of work because the factories have a "right to move".

Also, do you understand how much it costs to move?

Well, I don't wanna be stuck paying taxes for some holdouters in a non-economically-feasible area.

we don't get to choose were our taxes go sadly

[Van Riebeeck Land]

Also, San Lumen, if we allowed the urban areas to decide things like agricultural policy, we would get foolish anti-GMO and anti-pesticide policies which are popular among the liberal urban population.

Restrictions or bans on GMOs or pesticides might hurt agribusiness corporations and those who own large mechanized farms, but I am not sure it would be so bad for small family farms. While farming without GMOs and pesticides would be more labor intensive and less efficient, it would actually create more agriculture jobs because farms would need to hire more people to do all of the work.

With the demographics of the Ag industry in the US, we would need more migrant workers to fill those jobs, which i'm not a fan of.

[Bienenhalde]

I like how you're okay with rural people being left in poverty without any line of work because the factories have a "right to move".

Also, do you understand how much it costs to move?

Well, I don't wanna be stuck paying taxes for some holdouters in a non-economically-feasible area.

There is far more to human society than mere economic situations. When people are uprooted from their homes, it leads to the loss of community and traditions.

[Sungai Pusat]

Also, San Lumen, if we allowed the urban areas to decide things like agricultural policy, we would get foolish anti-GMO and anti-pesticide policies which are popular among the liberal urban population.

Restrictions or bans on GMOs or pesticides might hurt agribusiness corporations and those who own large mechanized farms, but I am not sure it would be so bad for small family farms. While farming without GMOs and pesticides would be more labor intensive and less efficient, it would actually create more agriculture jobs because farms would need to hire more people to do all of the work.

Don't matter, only libs get to hate gmos doncha know?

I remember certain people from this thread trashing rural areas before. Obviously I'm biased as I live in one. I have seen the negative effects of the masses (from urban areas, why they're urban) voting for things affecting rural areas. Just like how each state (their own government entity) is allowed to vote for presidents instead of direct democracy with more weight per person if they're smaller, I believe we can put it into the state level. I would like for a system where rural votes count more for when decisions affecting rural areas greatly are to be made. However, if asked for a straight solution, I don't see why areas would be excluded. It is a balance, with urban areas always majority because they have more people, but rural people votes being worth more. What if, by an impossible way, rural areas were actually the majority. Would you be 100% okay with direct democracy then? Would you be okay with someone who has never set foot in a large city dictating your life?

Well, tough luck, that's how the country would look.

Also, policies benefiting the majority group would likely have a positive influence on the biggest economic sector, so such a situation would likely make the economy grow quicker tham the opposite.

Economic growth cannot and should not be the end goal for a nation's government.

It can be a means to another goal, just not the ends to reach.

[Petrolheadia]

Well, I don't wanna be stuck paying taxes for some holdouters in a non-economically-feasible area.

we don't get to choose were our taxes go sadly

If they don't move, they'd partially go to people who don't wanna bother with leaving their dead man's town, instead of being spent on something more productive.

[Torrocca]

I like how you're okay with rural people being left in poverty without any line of work because the factories have a "right to move".

Also, do you understand how much it costs to move?

Well, I don't wanna be stuck paying taxes for some holdouters in a non-economically-feasible area.

>tfw you judge people only based on economics and nothing else

Is this Reaganomics?

[Sungai Pusat]

Well, I don't wanna be stuck paying taxes for some holdouters in a non-economically-feasible area.

we don't get to choose were our taxes go sadly

The granularity of the decision making's certainly not that tiny, but voting sooooorta counts. Kind of.

[Sungai Pusat]

Well, I don't wanna be stuck paying taxes for some holdouters in a non-economically-feasible area.

>tfw you judge people only based on economics and nothing else

Is this Reaganomics?

Reaganomics 2.0: Urban Edition.

[Bienenhalde]

Restrictions or bans on GMOs or pesticides might hurt agribusiness corporations and those who own large mechanized farms, but I am not sure it would be so bad for small family farms. While farming without GMOs and pesticides would be more labor intensive and less efficient, it would actually create more agriculture jobs because farms would need to hire more people to do all of the work.

With the demographics of the Ag industry in the US, we would need more migrant workers to fill those jobs, which i'm not a fan of.

What about all the people here in the United States, especially in rural areas of the South and the Midwest who are already unemployed or economically insecure? What about the people who are losing their jobs due to the outsourcing of industry or the closing of the coal mines?

[Cranborne]

Well, I don't wanna be stuck paying taxes for some holdouters in a non-economically-feasible area.

>tfw you judge people only based on economics and nothing else

Is this Reaganomics?

A number of Democrats are fast becoming staunch laissez-faire capitalists*.

*So long as it only fucks over they perceive as right-wing or otherwise worthless.

[Lillorainen]

I wouldn't mind a 'one man one vote' rule being established in my home country. I live in Germany - another Federal Republic with a bicameral legislature, and it's obvious (and probably wanted) that the makeup of the Federal Council (Bundesrat), our state chamber, prefers smaller states over larger ones. As a result, a vote from someone living in the Saarland (that small state in the southwest which Germany "won" back from France in the 1950s) is worth eight times more than mine, as I happen to live in NRW (the largest state by population). Although this doesn't affect the value of my vote on a Federal level, where voting disctricts all have about the same number of people, I do think we should apply this to state level, too. (If a Saarländer is reading this - it's nothing personal against you ^^)
Speaking of the U.S., I can't see anything wrong with the 'one man one vote' thing. No one should be affected positively or negatively regarding the value of their vote just depending on whether they live in Manhattan or in Podunk Hollow. What's more fair than equal representation?

[Petrolheadia]

Well, I don't wanna be stuck paying taxes for some holdouters in a non-economically-feasible area.

>tfw you judge people only based on economics and nothing else

Is this Reaganomics?

Nope, it's called "being good with tax money".

[Torrocca]

>tfw you judge people only based on economics and nothing else

Is this Reaganomics?

Nope, it's called "being good with tax money".

So, essentially, "fuck the poor, I got mine," AKA something that grew in intensity thanks to Reaganomics.

>tfw you judge people only based on economics and nothing else

Is this Reaganomics?

A number of Democrats are fast becoming staunch laissez-faire capitalists*.

*So long as it only fucks over they perceive as right-wing or otherwise worthless.

So long as the poor whites die off and the poor minorities get more civil rights (but stay poor) everything's fine and dandy in America! /s

[Cranborne]

I wouldn't mind a 'one man one vote' rule being established in my home country. I live in Germany - another Federal Republic with a bicameral legislature, and it's obvious (and probably wanted) that the makeup of the Federal Council (Bundesrat), our state chamber, prefers smaller states over larger ones. As a result, a vote from someone living in the Saarland (that small state in the southwest which Germany "won" back from France in the 1950s) is worth eight times more than mine, as I happen to live in NRW (the largest state by population). Although this doesn't affect the value of my vote on a Federal level, where voting disctricts all have about the same number of people, I do think we should apply this to state level, too. (If a Saarländer is reading this - it's nothing personal against you ^^)
Speaking of the U.S., I can't see anything wrong with the 'one man one vote' thing. No one should be affected positively or negatively regarding the value of their vote just depending on whether they live in Manhattan or in Podunk Hollow. What's more fair than equal representation?

Why shouldn't the Saarlander take it personal? You actively support further silencing what voice they may have. You claim to support equal representation, yet would demolish the representation of various groups simply so that you may have more power.

[Van Riebeeck Land]

With the demographics of the Ag industry in the US, we would need more migrant workers to fill those jobs, which i'm not a fan of.

What about all the people here in the United States, especially in rural areas of the South and the Midwest who are already unemployed or economically insecure? What about the people who are losing their jobs due to the outsourcing of industry or the closing of the coal mines?

They aren't taking jobs in the Ag industry, that's for sure. It's low pay and very difficult work, the unemployed in the workforce aren't looking for jobs like that, especially with a diversifying economy in agriculture dependent areas, they rather wait.

[Petrolheadia]

What about all the people here in the United States, especially in rural areas of the South and the Midwest who are already unemployed or economically insecure? What about the people who are losing their jobs due to the outsourcing of industry or the closing of the coal mines?

They aren't taking jobs in the Ag industry, that's for sure. It's low pay and very difficult work, the unemployed in the workforce aren't looking for jobs like that, especially with a diversifying economy in agriculture dependent areas, they rather wait.

The longer the jobs wait, the higher the pay will be.

In other words, the job's pay will match its value.

Nope, it's called "being good with tax money".

So, essentially, "fuck the poor, I got mine," AKA something that grew in intensity thanks to Reaganomics.

Nope, "fuck those who don't need my money". Which is a good idea.

It's implied these folks can just move to the city and not take the tax money.

[Sungai Pusat]

Nope, it's called "being good with tax money".

So, essentially, "fuck the poor, I got mine," AKA something that grew in intensity thanks to Reaganomics.

A number of Democrats are fast becoming staunch laissez-faire capitalists*.

*So long as it only fucks over they perceive as right-wing or otherwise worthless.

So long as the poor whites die off and the poor minorities get more civil rights (but stay poor) everything's fine and dandy in America! /s

Tbf it's probably only the rich white city folks benefiting in any massive amount from this shift to cities.

What about all the people here in the United States, especially in rural areas of the South and the Midwest who are already unemployed or economically insecure? What about the people who are losing their jobs due to the outsourcing of industry or the closing of the coal mines?

They aren't taking jobs in the Ag industry, that's for sure. It's low pay and very difficult work, the unemployed in the workforce aren't looking for jobs like that, especially with a diversifying economy in agriculture dependent areas, they rather wait.

It'd certainly be great to have better jobs than exists in manufacturing or agriculture (work wise), but it does seem like taking what you can get is a much better mindset here...

[Torrocca]

Nope, "fuck those who don't need my money".

Which is a good idea.

So basically, "fuck the poor, I got mine."

It's implied these folks can just move to the city and not take the tax money.

Hmm... I wonder why they'd need the tax money to begin with... not like they don't have the funds to make the move to a city life or something... hmmmm

So, essentially, "fuck the poor, I got mine," AKA something that grew in intensity thanks to Reaganomics.



So long as the poor whites die off and the poor minorities get more civil rights (but stay poor) everything's fine and dandy in America! /s

Tbf it's probably only the rich white city folks benefiting in any massive amount from this shift to cities.

It's literally not even probably, it's definitely lmao

[Van Riebeeck Land]

They aren't taking jobs in the Ag industry, that's for sure. It's low pay and very difficult work, the unemployed in the workforce aren't looking for jobs like that, especially with a diversifying economy in agriculture dependent areas, they rather wait.

The longer the jobs wait, the higher the pay will be.

In other words, the job's pay will match its value.

But the jobs are being taken in droves by illegals and migrant workers who have no other choice. The jobs aren't just sitting there. The pay is staying low.

[Telconi]

They aren't taking jobs in the Ag industry, that's for sure. It's low pay and very difficult work, the unemployed in the workforce aren't looking for jobs like that, especially with a diversifying economy in agriculture dependent areas, they rather wait.

The longer the jobs wait, the higher the pay will be.

In other words, the job's pay will match its value.

So, essentially, "fuck the poor, I got mine," AKA something that grew in intensity thanks to Reaganomics.

Nope, "fuck those who don't need my money". Which is a good idea.

It's implied these folks can just move to the city and not take the tax money.

Never realized you were such a hard line rightist Petrol.

[Bienenhalde]

What about all the people here in the United States, especially in rural areas of the South and the Midwest who are already unemployed or economically insecure? What about the people who are losing their jobs due to the outsourcing of industry or the closing of the coal mines?

They aren't taking jobs in the Ag industry, that's for sure. It's low pay and very difficult work, the unemployed in the workforce aren't looking for jobs like that, especially with a diversifying economy in agriculture dependent areas, they rather wait.

Well, if they are not educated or skilled workers, then they should not have unreasonably high expectations.

[Sungai Pusat]

Nope, "fuck those who don't need my money".

Which is a good idea.

So basically, "fuck the poor, I got mine."

It's implied these folks can just move to the city and not take the tax money.

Hmm... I wonder why they'd need the tax money to begin with... not like they don't have the funds to make the move to a city life or something... hmmmm

Tbf it's probably only the rich white city folks benefiting in any massive amount from this shift to cities.

It's literally not even probably, it's definitely lmao

Force of habit, but yeah mostly rich people getting most of the gains and poor people getting not as much.

Capitalism!*

*Which I'm fine with but jesus is neoliberalism broken/unfixable.

[Petrolheadia]

Nope, "fuck those who don't need my money".

Which is a good idea.

So basically, "fuck the poor, I got mine."

It's implied these folks can just move to the city and not take the tax money.

Hmm... I wonder why they'd need the tax money to begin with... not like they don't have the funds to make the move to a city life or something... hmmmm

House sales, savings, loans, etc.

[Torrocca]

So basically, "fuck the poor, I got mine."



Hmm... I wonder why they'd need the tax money to begin with... not like they don't have the funds to make the move to a city life or something... hmmmm



It's literally not even probably, it's definitely lmao

Force of habit, but yeah mostly rich people getting most of the gains and poor people getting not as much.

Capitalism!*

EAT THE RICH

*Which I'm fine with but jesus is neoliberalism broken/unfixable.

Would you be fine with there only being democratically-owned businesses but there still being capitalism?

[Conserative Morality]

And why doesn't the same phenomenon work against you?

In a state of polarization of moderates, both sides can't simultaneously shrink. My side has majority positions that are growing in popularity, not shrinking, and demographics that are likewise growing, not shrinking.