For the most part, city dwellers are incapable of understanding life’s basic rules

Some are but the majority are not, this demand is driving the nation to invest public and private money into bringing our broadband infrastructure up to modern standards. Once city dwellers realize they can do their jobs from rural America while still making an urban salary, they will move. Its already happening in many parts of the Eastern US. In the west, its more concentrated nearer to larger metro areas but it too will expand into the hinterlands. I do this for a living, you will see.

 

Lesson 1: stop forcing your ideology on others.

 

Agreed and it goes for BOTH sides

 

You first.

 

yep, agree, when they come to those rural towns, don't force their ideology on those homeless people

good lesson....

 

Absolutely. 640 million acres, or 28% of the US is locked up as federal land (and prolly a similar amount again as state land). Certainly some of it is warranted, national parks and military bases and shear cliff mountain ranges, but a lot of it is just random forest and grassland that we could use for living on and growing food if it was openned up for settlement. Which we would do if we honestly wanted to solve big city overpopulation problems. But trends suggest that despite the increased crime, pollution mental illness and spead of disease, we're still intent on making the cities denser. The obvious reason is its more important to keep us corralled and controlled than it is for us to be healthy and happy. And of course theres the problem with authoritarian govt never willing to give up anything as valuable as land...

 

Would you rather Bill Gates and other billionaires, some not even from our country own that land?

 

Nah... the city folks are fine right where they are at..... city folk will never understand the problems created by living around other humans. That is why we are in the country away from the problems city folk created..

 

Nope. Thats why it should be openned up under a sort of homestead program with rules regarding who can settle it and what requirements they have to meet before they can take official ownership. Homesteading often requires the land be improved to a minimum extent or it goes back into the pool for someone else to try. I would suggest adding that the land be habitated for a certain amount of time before it could be sold, perhaps even restricted to people who do not own any residential land elsewhere. Sortof a redistribution of wealth (real estate), but from the govt. We The People ostencibly own the land anyway, but we can't really use a lot of it because its locked up in the bureaucracy. We should unlock it.

I spose if Bill Gates really wants to rough it out on a few acres of undeveloped wilderness for a few years so he can add it to his collection, then sure, why not.

 

Just an observation related to your statement. First, what you are speaking of is the effect of population density. Country people do have neighbors, but the proximity is not 6" away through a wall in the next apartment. Most people feel they need space, elbow room, breathing room. So I wonder if the question is wrong- and that city people will never understand the problems they create for themselves by compressing themselves into that proximity. If they understand that, if they don't want that, they could change that. Doing so has a price- some kind of trade-off, but it is a choice.

Scientific studies show that even rats have psychotic changes when the density of their population is too great.

 

People don't choose what they are born in to.

I didn't choose to be born and raised in the country. I did choose to move to a city a few times, but i still prefer to live in the country. This is probably just a factor of me being born and raised in the country.

If I had been born in a city, i would probably feel uncomfortable not having access to the things cities offer.

We don't have as much free will as we like to think. The choices we choose to make are determined by the factors we didn't choose more than anything else.

 

It is true that where we come from is our primary influence and provides our original value set. But free will is just that- the capacity to decide differently despite those things. Most people probably will not, but it is a decision within their power. Of all the things that control your destiny in life, understanding that you do have that power and must use it will have the most impact.

I can teach people how that's done, where and how to put that power to use and change everything in their lives- but the vast majority will not be able to use it, and you can't do it for them. Most people want a better life as they perceive it, but don't want to give up what they have to make a change. The observation I'm making is that the change is always within their power- but I agree most will not take it.
We are selective about change. We seek an easy answer, we fear the unknown challenges- no matter how bad our current position is. Comes down to how bad you want to change, and how much courage you can summon up to do it. Thus most people will not, and those things you didn't choose will control your choices- because you allow them to. My point is not that they don't, I agree with the power they have, but that the individual always has the power to change it. Most won't. That makes your statement functionally accurate.

 

We have free will to chose what we want, but i'm not so sure we are free to decide what it is we want.

 

What does this have to do with the OP?

 

How are country folk forcing their ideology?

 

Are you suggesting that rural people are homeless?

 

If people there are anti-gay marriage, anti-choice, anti-religion, anti-gun, etc. My point is NO ONE should try to force their ideology onto anyone.

 

So what would you say about forcing farmers to adhere to oppressive carbon laws?

 

I would have to learn about these carbon laws to see if they are oppressive and unnecessary and what the purpose is behind them. If the laws turn out to be oppressive then what I said earlier stands.... NO ONE should try to force their ideology onto anyone.

 

if half the homeless people from the city are moved there, were talking about them, those homeless people

 

No, we are talking about emissions that city people make laws about that effect rural areas and their ability to farm. If you want to talk about your homeless you should start another thread.

 

we are talking about moving half of the people from the city to rural areas, that includes some of the homeless

then they would no longer be city dwellers, they would be rural residents

 

it's not city dwellers hurting farmers, it's corporate factory farms buying laws

 

Homeless is not the topic. But yes that’s another city dweller problem. They likely wouldn’t stay in a rural area though cause there is not the same resources that they are seeking.

 

So you know best…. Again… how do you know it’s the big farms and not the laws? These small farms definitely can’t compete with the restrictive laws that are put on them