"Rural folk" are going to need to come to grips with their exorbitantly subsidized lifestyle choices sooner or later. Probably sooner, since their guy is sabotaging one of their most important subsidies (near-free rural mail service) as we speak.
My understanding of a common rural view is that 'city people' restrict them unnecessarily with a lot of environmental restrictions (which may be partly true). But they don't believe they are subsidized.
In Washington state they have a report from the legislature that has spending in each county compared to tax revenues. This is very sensitive because of course Seattle money goes out to the whole state. There's a second version of that report that tries to compute the economic benefit of the rural areas, separately from the actual tax revenues, I'm sure this was created to lessen the sting.
I want to keep our economy and the people in it living. But we need to have a shared reality.
An interesting manifestation of this belief is the California separatist movement "State of Jefferson". These are people who believe that the economy of far northern California would be far stronger if they were simply allowed to clearcut every forest in the state.
One county, Lake County, had the good manners to cancel a planned vote of secession in late 2015 after the rest of the state paid to put out an enormous wildfire there.
up until 1900, 98% of people worked on farms in rural areas. IMHO it's a bit pretencious to force rural folk to move to the big cities and become Urbanite Consumers. and it is reckless to think changing the way most people have lived for 100,000 years wont trigger an even worse catastrophe.
rural folk think the same way of Urbanites as you think of them. they think everyone should get out of the cities and stop being a polluting leech who is detached from the natural state of humans living in equillibrium with nature.
Nobody, absolutely nobody, lived in a fully dispersed car-based rural landscape prior to 1900. They lived in small towns and villages, like sensible people.
Flip that question the other way: what happens if we continue ignoring externalities? They’ve been subsidized for a century but it’s also hurting people – many of the least healthy lifestyles involve regular long drives (night, lack of exercise, etc.), and climate change is going to be brutal for agriculture and forestry.
Now, also look back a century. Rural life existed - not exactly the same but also with improvements like healthier communities because people bought locally rather than driving 2 hours to Walmart or Costco. Raising the price of gas would benefit all of businesses which have been out priced by companies who don’t have to pay for externalities. Sharing a ride might seem like a good trade in comparison to learning that your staple crop no longer grows in your region or that the hundred year flood/fire is now a decadal experience.
Also, remember that this isn’t a ban on cars. It’s a financial cue pushing people to drive less, combine trips, buy the vehicle with the specs they actually need rather than the heavily-marketed guzzler, etc. People like having way more horsepower than they need but nobody is really inconvenienced without it.
You act like european rural folk and concentrate into small villages surrounded by your farms. Instead of driving to walmart for an hour, you shop at your local village.
